You see, people have this trait that shows more in some then others and rears it's head at different times. This trait is called greed and you will never be able to take it out of the equation. Add to that greed, another trait called laziness, and your entire program drops out of reality.
BTW, these two traits are basically why all attempts at communism fail miserably and turn into some fascist or somehow repressive society. Why, because if you provided for all my needs, then I wouldn't need to work. Others would see me not working and decide to follow suit. Now there is no one to provide for my needs. On the other hand, if I did work, I would be working harder then everyone else and deserve more then any one else. Others would see me getting more and want more too. Pretty soon, everyone's needs are too great to be provided for.
So no, your solution wouldn't be fixing anything, it would just be changing the set of circumstances to the same problems.
Not only is the fifth an issue, congress has the ability to control copyright so they could just make it a provision of copyright in the first place.
In other words, congress makes copyright possible in the US so they could just change the law without having to compensate per the fifth amendment. Copyright wouldn't be personal property in the US without congress making the law establishing it.
While you are right about how to get around it, your missing the long arm of the law point here.
Until now, if a cop stopped you, you gave him your ID and went on your way. Now he gets to look at the phone you are carrying to see if it's yours or not. What, it's registered to someone other then who is on your ID, you must be doing something wrong to have a phone with fake credentials. Off to jail you go until we can figure out what it is.
It's kind of like carrying a weapon but more prominent in society. If you are carrying a weapon without the proper credentials or the right to do so (this is Mexico), then you're automatically up to no good. The same goes for un-mis-registered phones now. The ancillary activities of some criminals are being used to harass all citizens in order to find potential criminals. Except now you can get a criminal record or record as a potential criminal by having a phone not registered to yourself.
He got modded troll because Cable service is not a free market, it did not start as a free market, and in most area will not be a free market any time soon. If it were, the summery wouldn't have said "VCR owners are now forced to pay for Comcast's $20/month DVR service or else start their recordings manually". Instead, it would have said something about switching providers as well.
The reason Comcast is able to get away with the crap they do is because there isn't a free market and never was for more then 75% of their service area.
But hey, lets hide behind ignorant rants about crap that doesn't even apply. You may advance some political agenda, but your being robbed blind in the process.
I'm willing to bet that most high dollar educations didn't involve simple google skills as it took me all of a couple of minutes to find those references.
Here is a PDF report that ties a bunch of numbers together as late as 2008. Unfortunately, it's in book form so you will probable need to print it and assemble the pages to keep the lines straight with the tables.
In almost every state that I know of which had a voucher program also had an income limit which bared participation. This limit was based on a percentage of the federal poverty level in the are just like most other government programs have.
It wouldn't be a discount for the wealthy for that reason alone yet another would be because the wealthy are already over paying. That's right, when they pay taxes to support an institution they choose not to use and duplicate costs of by sending their students to a private school, they are over paying for their child's education. But as I already pointed out, that's a moot topic because they won't get a discount even if you look at it in the most extreme light.
His point is that if we stop spending so much money on wars in far away lands and put that money into out school systems, our own people and nation will be much better off in the long run.
I have to concur with this view All our national wealth is spent on military industrial complex while the nation is slipping away into 3rd world status.
Fist of all, we do not have the money we are using to fight the wars. It would be impossible to spend it on education unless we are going to continue to spend money we don't have. Until recently, the wars have been funded off budget which stops congress from just re-spending the money after the war doesn't need it. It's hard to say what will happen when the war is over but it appears that trillion dollar deficits aren't all that startling any more. Eventually this deficit spending will backfire then all of the tax revenue is used for paying our debts instead of financing the programs we shouldn't be having in the first place.
Second, the money for wars is spend at a federal level, the states are primarily responsible for their school funding so nothing is stopping the state from raising taxes and spending more. Certainly the federal taxes haven't been raised to account for the war spending outside of tax cuts being stopped. What the mayor is really asking for is money from outside the state because his own constituents do not agree with his logic.
Finally, the amount of money we are talking about is a misnomer. It's actually less then $1 per student per year increase in funding. There are 52,935,996 school aged children from 5-17 years of age as estimated in 2008. Now this estimate doesn't include students starting school before age 5 or students over 18 in school. It also doesn't guarantee all of the population referenced is in school but it's a decent place to start. Anyways, it works out to just over $3,000 per kid if you divert all funding from Iraq and Afghanistan to the schools but do not count the fact that members of the military are normally stationed elsewhere so part of that funding is going to not be accessible. Currently, there are about 2,284,856 student aged children in Illinois (same source). So an increase of $6,854,568,000 would be seen if that money was diverted. Illinois already spends something like $51.6 trillion dollars (as of 2008) per year, that would be around a 13% increase in spending but why should it come from the feds and not the citizens of Illinois? It's not like the feds are already taking it, hell- it's already not paid for.
Illinois is currently fighting a 13 billion dollar budget deficit because they failed to do proper spending and federal government requirements for program mandates. Do you really think that 6 billion would go to the students? Even if you passed a law mandating it would, they would just pull other funding from the schools to make a run about look legal. It's happened many times before and happens in almost any state when they receive federal funding.
The majority of Americans are morons that still believe Saddam was behind 9/11. Education can fix this..
I believe this too. However, I do not limit my beliefs to 9/11 issues.
We need to redirect our priorities sooner than later. The longer we continue to dick around not dealing with our social problems, the worse things will become. Improving our school system is a great place to begin
I think the problem is sort of like you not seeing the forest for the trees. The problem is actually dicking around with social problems in the first place. The federal government shouldn't be involve in most of them and the state should delegate most of the issues down stream to localities within their control so that the money or programs are more effective.
Wasn't the purpose of the war to save the Iraqi population from a tyrannic dictator?
Iraq has never been involved in terrorism against the USA, and the WMDs turned out to be non-existent.
Iraq's involvement in terrorism isn't really the point. Neither is "save the Iraqi population from a tyrannic dictator" or the "WMDs". The insurgents in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam were (some of them were/are) terrorist or had been directly tied to terrorist that has been involved in Terrorism directed at the US, it's citizens, and it's allies. Iraq (Saddam) offered a widows pensions to suicide bombers that attacked Israel or US interests.
Here is the problem when the enemy is a terrorist. You have an organization that isn't a legitimate state attempting to play army. This organizations attempts to attack the population instead of the military in order to bring about political change. The insurgents resorted to terrorism tactics from time to time too. Any time you negotiate with the terrorist and give into their demands, you legitimize terrorism tactics and pave the way for terrorism to be the political choice for change. Now- In Iraq, the majority of terrorism attacks were directed at the people and not the forces occupying the country. They spread the message (with the aid of some local politicians attempting to get reelected) that America was an occupying force and that Iraq was planned to be a colony of the USA. They also said that the USA would leave them undefended then went about blowing up mosques, crowded markets, and other places people congregate. But they didn't just kill people in these car bombings and quasi chemical attacks, they planted separate charges in order to kill the people rescuing families and loved ones.
The only way you can fight something like this is to annihilate the opponent and render their efforts useless while countering the propaganda and showing that the country would return to their own rule. Doing otherwise would result in historically proven results of more terrorism and more acts against the people instead of the government. This was proven in France when they attempted to pay the Vikings to leave them alone, this happened in Spain in 1936 were the government conceded to Franco's white terror along with the ETA barking on the same sentiments with their terror. Hell, even recently with the Madrid bombings, Al Qeada and Spain's underdog candidate taking power in a surprise upset (stated plans to pull troops from Iraq) that has fuel renewed vigor in ETA terrorist actions. In fact, the ETA has committed or attempted to commit almost as many terrorist attacks since the 3/11 Madrid train bombings as they have since their inception back in 1961. Think about that, there is something like a five terrorist attack difference between the ETA's last 5.5-6 years (September of 2004- march 2010) and the 43 years prior (1961-2003).
There is a saying in the US that goes something like there are four boxes in the defense of liberty in order, the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box. What happened in Iraq was that after Saddam was gone, all four boxes where available to the public- except that some decided to skip the first three and go directly for number four. That's not a rational set of people to begin with. Most of them were brain washed religious zealots pushed by outside organizations and the only thing that would get the people on our side (*winning the hearts and minds of the people) turned out to be ensuring their safety from these zealots. Without that element of safety, they had to more or less pick the group that would be around the longest and adjust their behavior to cause themselves the least amount of harm. This turned out to be the terrorist and insurgents until we sent more troops in and killed most of the more troublesome ones (something directly opposite of your view).
Now that we are on the verge of pulling out (something that Bush negotiated with SOFA before the elections) some of the opposition forces who were badly beat are trying to stoke the embers thinking that it would keep coalition forces around longer so they can say we lied. But that's getting into another discussion.
First let me point out that people engaged in military action are "soldiers", not "terrorists". Look the definitions up if you have trouble with them. The numbers of casualties overall is not the point, the point is the numbers of fighters that die. If one side uses overwhelming force, then yes, that is almost certain to cause a terrorist backlash. Terrorists are not soldiers and they do not use military action, hence they cannot be fought by the military in an effective way.
If you are considering car bombs placed so that after they blow up a crowded market place, they blow up the rescuers rushing in to help the wounded some sort of military action, then I suggest you spend some time looking things up. And yes, that was a tactic used by the insurgents.
But lets put an end to this fallacy of yours that the military cannot fight terrorist. Terrorist are generally brainwashed extremist working from a flawed ideology in the first place. Technically, no one can fight them as it will require either further brainwashing or deprogramming which won't happen. So the thing that is left is to either kill them first, or present them with opportunities to enact their agendas without using terrorist while demonstrating that terrorist actions are ineffective. This can be done by the police, military or any other group of people with sufficient resources. At the time of the video, the interim government was already in place and an open political process was already established along with a free press. This process didn't work because the terrorist knew that they were in the minority with their views and the more free and open the process was, the more of a minority they would be in.
I will agree that military alone cannot fight terrorist, as such they cannot fight soldiers either. Politics and diplomacy and legitimate avenues of addressing recourse need to be in effect for any engagement to have a winner. However, this was never missing from Iraq or any of the recent wars we have been in.
While the idea of "total annihilation" is nice in theory (ignoring the moral angle of course), it turns out to be infeasible in practice. What you end up with is a group of very pissed of opponents that will dedicate their lives to destroy you, hence the terror problem. You will also not be able to get "the good will of the people surrounded by the fighting" by other means. That you say "retain" shows a fundamental misconception. Good will has to be earned and it is earned by actions. Bribing them (as the US tried to do so often in the past) will only make them pretend to like you, but secretly despise you.
We have weapons and weapons systems that could end all human life in Iraq with little effort. We don't use them because that is not our goal. But, what did win the people in Iraq (until very recently) as well as the peace was that we killed so many of the insurgents and terrorist operating there that the people felts somewhat secure. This security didn't come by noticing American troops dieing with ever terrorist or insurgent dieing, it came from being able to take and secure areas of large populations and allowing them to conduct their daily lives however they see fit.
Your right, bribing them doesn't by their confidence. However, keeping them safe does and it worked with the surge which more or less killed the insurgents and terrorist faster then they could recruit them. You will never make friends with everyone. It's good that we do not need to. All we have to do is get the majority on our side and it will take care of the rest.
Strong language, very weak thinking. Why do you think people do an elCheapo attack like 9/11 against the US? Funding is not the issue. Technical execution is feasible and remains so. Getting people smart and dedicated enough to throw away their life for something like that is the problem. The way to get them is having people that are sufficiently pissed off to do somet
I don't see what this has to do with the GPs point.
Then let me explain it to you.
You see, the law declares that anyone under a certain age having sex is being raped by statute. So giving condoms to anyone under that age, and if they engage in sex, they have legally or statutorily been raped. The comparison is if it encourages them to have sex at a time it would statutorily be considered rape. As far as the rape victim is concerned, it may have been completely consensual sex- but the law still declares it a rape.
So as the GGP found it outrageous that "teaching a kid how to use a condom encourages the kid to seek out becoming a rape victim" doesn't portray the understanding that the rape is by statute and not what we would see the "law and order special victims unit" investigating. In other words, the term rape the prosecutor used wasn't the general purpose sex without consent meaning that made it seem so outrageous of a statement. Instead, it was a definition defined by statute that says having sex with anyone under a certain age is rape by statute.
Did you even read the articles you linked? Theses are exactly the cases that I was talking about. Those are about school sponsorship of prayer, student-lead prayer at school events, the moment of silence in class, and use of school property for religious purposes. So snide remarks aside, you aren't exactly showing me anything I didn't already refer to.
I see one article that refers to graduation ceremonies, and it's the one that the school agreed to ban proselytizing and prayer in the ceremonies. Are you sure you read these?
This last one is one where the judge allowed (refused to stop) student prayer at a graduation ceremony. However, the issue is explained throughout the articles. The issue arises only when the school has control over the activity or opens it up to outside forces. If the school retains control, then it's school sponsored. If it doesn't then it isn't government sponsored and the establishment clause doesn't come into play. You will also see where if the school of government organization opens itself up to outside entities, then it cannot deny access to a religious group based on being religious.
If you write God with the capital G, it's a proper noun. So you're referring to a specific person, place or thing. In this case, a specific god. You do understand what a proper noun is don't you?
And your missing the point. Well, that or taking the opportunity to preach your religion. Mentioning the word God, whether it is a proper noun or not, does not amount to preaching or praying. You have done this exact thing over the last several posts and I do not for one minute believe you were preaching or praying. If I'm wrong on that, please let me know because your claim does seem to be that simply using the proper nound God means you are.
As I said, the court's ruling was simply an appeal to tradition and a refusal to review it. The dissenting opinion by Stephen Reinhardt clearly shows, through their own statements, that the congressmen supporting the bill were doing it for religious reasons. From
Well, it may also be a but premature to lay claim that it doesn't use/require Oxygen too. The article is too short to know for sure. After some study, it might be so, but just because of the environment wouldn't necessarily mean it wouldn't need oxygen. There could be a number of process inside the animal that could generate Oxygen from the chemicals in the brine within it's living environment much like Photosynthesis does in plants. If the creature is really efficient, he would only convert what it needs hiding that aspect until further study could discover it.
The camera I saw in the video seems to be longer then the camera in the picture you linked to. But I didn't realize that the RPGs were as long as that.
The thing I don't understand is why they request permission to engage before they see the RPG, is it enough to kill people to see them walking around with an AK in a non threating pose? Also is it ok to shoot everybody that is near to an insurgent? They don't seem to make any effort to shoot the RPG guy, they just shoot everybody in sight, even the ones that come much later to the scene and never ever have anything on them that could be confused for a weapon.
They were in a hot zone and on a mission to sweep out the enemy. Ak-47s actually can down a chopper and we have seen small arms do this in the past. They don't explode the vehicle like in the movies or with a missile but they damage the avionics, control surfaces, and or support mechanisms, or get lucky with an engine shot requiring it to be set down before it crashes.
As for walking around with AK-47's and being shot, I would suggest that yes, when in a was where the enemy doesn't wear a uniform, not wearing a uniform and sporting military riffles that the enemy uses does make you a good ringer for the enemy. Did you hear the pilots ask if they had anyone in the area before shooting? I imagine if the reporter (or his security team as the common thread seems to be,) if they would have notified the military or Iraqi authorities that they were in/going to be in the area, something could have been done like issuing a military guard or some sort of friend or foe location device that other troops use. The friend or foe devices get an encrypted code programed into them that's changed often and when a device on the vehicle's weapons platform is aimed, it send a signal and listens for a friend reply. These devices stop/cut down on friendly fire incidents. This is especially effective when there is language barriers or foreign troops working in the operations and simple mistakes could cause mass casualties.
As for shooting everyone near an insurgent? Well, yes and no. It's ok but not desirable to shoot them in the process of shooting the enemy only when it's not feasible to not do it. What that means is, you can't deliberately target the people around them, but if the capabilities of a weapon of war is such that it hits them, then it's discretionary but OK. You can't launch a missile onto a crowd of people because one person is there. But if you kill one or two innocent people in order to get 10 enemies, then it's not quite as bad. I guess the question might be, why are people surrounding insurgents if they aren't acting in concert with them? The people effected in the Video were traveling together as a group, it didn't appear to be innocent civilians walking down the street.
So I guess it's all a judgment call. I do know that I won't be dressing like the enemy and walking down a street with the same weapons the enemy uses while carrying a Camera configured so that it could be confused with an RPG launcher, in the middle of combat operations in a highly active and volatile war zone. I wouldn't go as far as saying that I would be asking to get shot by friendly fire, but I couldn't blame them if they did shoot at me.
So you're saying that by killing a terrorist engaged in military action against the US or any other country, unless just as many of our people die, it just creates more terrorists? That's insanely stupid and even if it did, then it would be time to stop only shooting at the bad guys and either consider total annihilation or doing something separate to retain the good will of the people surrounded by the fighting.
BTW, I never spoke against getting the population on your side. I simply said killing more of the bad guys then your own people is preferable and it's beyond ignorantly asinine to suggest we trade casualties like the parent suggested.
Are you sure that's a camera? I mean it was about 3-4 foot long and about the same size (4 inches or so in diameter) from one end to the other. Generally, camera lenses are cone shaped with the smaller end near the camera. You can see the over all length minus a small portion of it just before the 4:08 section where it's blocked by the wall. It gets laid on the ground them picked back up right before or about the same time the say there is an RPG.
No shit. A wise man once said, the trick to winning a war is not being willing to die for your country, but to convince your enemies to do that much more then your side will.
Well, it was something like that anyways. But the idea of sacrificing one US or coalition life for every life of the enemy's is down right retarded. You do not win a war by giving in to demands of the enemy and you do not win a war by making it an even score. If that was the case, then the largest population would automatically win because you could kill more of them before running out of lives to sacrifice.
citation(s) needed. I've seen lots of cases. Most were dealing with prayer over the PA system or teachers or students leading prayers at sporting events and such. I've seen no bans on praying on your own. In fact there have been cases upholding the "moment of silence" in schools.
And those are just some that were compiled at a couple site showing up in the first few results of the google search. And yes, a couple of those were dealing with prayer over the PA system in which the court rules it was allowed. At least two of the cases cited refereed to the use or the PA system at either football games or graduation ceremonies and echoed the same sentiments on when it's controlled by the school or student.
That's how they've tried to sell it, but it clearly says that this nation is under God (proper noun). If that doesn't profess a belief, not just in a god, but in a specific God, then you're going to need some serious evidence to back up your explanation of what it actually means. The court's decision was essentially an appeal to tradition and a refusal to consider the matter. The addition of the phrase was intended originally to distance our country from those godless commies in Russia.
So if I say God with the capitol G as a proper noun, I'm automatically preaching or endorsing a religion? I guess you were preaching too when you wrote your statement pointing that out. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And no, that's not a strawman argument, it's the basis of your argument completely and undistorted outside of the subject being stated.
You are correct as I have already noted, the phrase was intended to distance ourselves from those godless commies. But what you are not seeing here is that our system of leadership and government (until relativity recently anyways) answered to a higher power. Be it the people, a god, or patriotism and the constitution in which all it's power is derived from the consent of the people. On the contrast, the godless commies decreed the state and their personal power to be the ultimate in much the same ways as the Roman emperors and the pharaohs of Egypt eventually declared themselves a god. There was no higher power then themselves to which the US was st
I have no idea how anyone could be prevented from praying in school. Teachers are not allowed to lead prayers, of course, and you do it on your own time, but I don't see how that can be construed as a violation of anyone's rights.
You do realize that there has been a tirade of constitutional court cases surrounding this very issue where schools banned all references to a religion including bibles and students praying on their own. The entire reason you know that teachers can't lead the prayers is because of these court cases. There was on court case I remember in the 1990's where a group of students met at the flag pole for prayers before school and was suspended/expelled after refusing to stop when ordered to by the public school.
Maybe because some idiots back in the 50s decided to mix a little religion in with the pledge and added "under God" to it. Not everyone believes in God, and I think it's a clear violation to make kids recite anything that has a religious component to it.
Perhaps your one of the idiots I was referring to earlier. You do not need to believe in God or any reference to any god in order to recite the pledge. It doesn't ask you to pledge yourself to any religious entity, it's the Flag of the United State of America that is the subject of the pledge. And even if "under God" is an issue subject to the pledge, it's usage is only to show that the 50 states are one nation with no other authority over it except the supernatural. So still, it's not asking you or anyone else to believe in God or worship any religious entity, it's asking you to believe that there is no authority that has power over the US besides God which you (or Not everyone) does not believe in.
But when you look at the constitution, you will find that your basis of a "clear violation" is completely crap. There is no separation of church and state in the constitution, there is only a prohibition on making laws about religions or restricting them. The entire separation argument was made by Jefferson to a church that thought adopting the constitution would mean their church would be outlawed. So even your attempt at claiming the mere mentioning of anything that could be religious is prohibited by the constitution is taking the entire separation argument out of context.
As I said before, they do not look at minutes in determining age of a person. It's only the day of birth- not the hour or minutes of the birth.
And to accurately answer your question, it wouldn't be a situation of what laws they do not have but a situation of what laws they do have. A law making it illegal to have sex with an under aged person can make both participants responsible to some degree or simply make one person culpable.
You have to remember that our system of government is not one that allows the government to impose it's will whenever or however it wishes. It's one where the government can only act when it's supported by law or some legal precedence that allows it's actions. So if the law is written in such a way that it implies no one should have sex below a certain age, then both participating parties could be prosecuted. If it's written so that the older person is the only one culpable, then only the older one could be prosecuted.
I think what your doing is confusing the very real effect of prosecutors picking and choosing which charges to files and over looking others for various reasons. Some of these reasons may be not enough evidence to convict someone so they do not want to put them into double jeopardy when more evidence is available (if ever), some reasons may be personal and selfish like they do not agree with a law and refuse to prosecute violations of it, some may be because of case load issues where some laws won't be touched in order to get the more atrocious offenders in court. But make no mistake about this, if the law isn't there guiding their actions, they simply cannot act. So it really does depend entirely on the laws in the district/state/area and so on.
Sounds like you haven't kept up with it either or what I said. "they would need a law or legal precedence to take someone's property".
Currently, the "laws" allow them to take property that was used to commit a crime or was purchased in part or whole from proceeds of a crime.
The constitution has stopped them from taking any more as was evidence in the court cases stopping the government from seizing rented homes and joint property belonging to a spouse or someone who purchased it through legitimate means. The government currently has to show that the property was either used in the commission of a crime or was purchased/obtained because a crime was committed. Otherwise, they have to give just compensation for any property they took.
Currently, the government cannot seize property unless it was used in the commission of the crime or purchased with proceeds of the crime without using eminent domain. Eminent domain would require a just compensation for the property. As for the criminal aspect, that's only available in situations where a law has been made allowing it to happen.
Even when the IRS seizes property, it isn't actually taking it because of the criminal act, they go through a lawsuit phase that gives them the right to sell off your assets to pay the state.
Our government, contrary to popular belief, is based as a permissive beast that needs permission from the people in order to do something. This permission is granted by the constitution or elected officials making laws. It's organized so that it can only do what it is allowed to do by the constitution, law which has to be ground somehow with the constitution, or common law (torte) which can't override the constitution. So it needs laws in place to allow it to do things like taking property. Without that, then it's illegal for them to do it. If they pass a law today concerning a crime that happened last week, it's not applicable either because of the ex-post facto provisions in the constitution.
I hope this explains why it's illegal without pointing to a law making it illegal. There isn't one outside of constitutional rights to due process and protections from searches and seizures. So if the law hasn't been made allowing it, then the government can't do it. When the government is concerned, there has to be something giving it the ability to do whatever is asked of them where the people are generally allowed to do anything unless there is a law restricting it. The government get's it's power by taking it from the people.
They would need a law or legal precedence allowing them to seize the patent. Right now there isn't one and there is a huge problem with creating laws after the fact. There is also the constitutional problem with not being able to take private property without just compensation. So even if congress passed a law tomorrow, we would still need to compensate the company/shareholders.
I said if the older person were any more drunk the younger person WOULD be charged with rape. I deliberately worded it as an edge case - who raped whom? The younger party is legally incompetent to consent by virtue of age, and the older party is almost legally incompetent to consent by virtue of being intoxicated. The younger party is clearly the aggressor and is clearly taking advantage of the older party's intoxicated state.
As I mentioned earlier, "oh my god, I'm drunk" does not get anyone out of legal trouble for actions they took when they were drunk. Think of DUI laws, if someone could not be responsible for their actions because they were intoxicated, then why is the penalties more severe the more intoxicated you are?
If the person wasn't passed out making it rape, or so wasted that they couldn't make any decisions- making it rape too, then the intoxication wouldn't excuse the actions if they knew the sex partner was under the legal age of consent.
The older party would have to plead that she was too drunk to make any decisions which would place the aggressor into the rape potential.
Would this be a case of offsetting penalties with no charges filed, or of deuling, where both parties get charged for the same crime?
The charges would depend on the locality and what laws are on the books. There would be no offsetting or dueling charges because in a criminal case, the state is the aggrieved party seeking remedies, not either of the people present or involved in the act. It could be either, both, or no one getting charged with the crime. This is because having sex is a very private act and it would mostly be up to the people involved over informing who did what and so on. Proof is something that would be very difficult to achieve unless both parties stated the same story. That's why you hear about sex cases from 20 states away, they are attempting to make a circus out of it so they can guilt the offenders into pleading to a charge to make it go away.
Compare this to underage sex between same-aged partners who share a birthday in states with no Romeo and Juliet laws - both are technically guilty, but will the one who happens to be a few minutes or hours older be prosecuted? Will both?
I'm not sure what you are going for here. A birthday is a day, not the time of a day. You do not have to present proof that you were born 16 years to the hour before you apply for a license or a temp driver license. If one was born at 6am and the other at 6pm, at the start of the calender date falling on their birth day, they would both be considered the same age of consent (6 hours before they were born for the one and 18 hours for the other).
Slashdot Mirror
That would only solve the problem in your mind.
You see, people have this trait that shows more in some then others and rears it's head at different times. This trait is called greed and you will never be able to take it out of the equation. Add to that greed, another trait called laziness, and your entire program drops out of reality.
BTW, these two traits are basically why all attempts at communism fail miserably and turn into some fascist or somehow repressive society. Why, because if you provided for all my needs, then I wouldn't need to work. Others would see me not working and decide to follow suit. Now there is no one to provide for my needs. On the other hand, if I did work, I would be working harder then everyone else and deserve more then any one else. Others would see me getting more and want more too. Pretty soon, everyone's needs are too great to be provided for.
So no, your solution wouldn't be fixing anything, it would just be changing the set of circumstances to the same problems.
Not only is the fifth an issue, congress has the ability to control copyright so they could just make it a provision of copyright in the first place.
In other words, congress makes copyright possible in the US so they could just change the law without having to compensate per the fifth amendment. Copyright wouldn't be personal property in the US without congress making the law establishing it.
While you are right about how to get around it, your missing the long arm of the law point here.
Until now, if a cop stopped you, you gave him your ID and went on your way. Now he gets to look at the phone you are carrying to see if it's yours or not. What, it's registered to someone other then who is on your ID, you must be doing something wrong to have a phone with fake credentials. Off to jail you go until we can figure out what it is.
It's kind of like carrying a weapon but more prominent in society. If you are carrying a weapon without the proper credentials or the right to do so (this is Mexico), then you're automatically up to no good. The same goes for un-mis-registered phones now. The ancillary activities of some criminals are being used to harass all citizens in order to find potential criminals. Except now you can get a criminal record or record as a potential criminal by having a phone not registered to yourself.
He got modded troll because Cable service is not a free market, it did not start as a free market, and in most area will not be a free market any time soon. If it were, the summery wouldn't have said "VCR owners are now forced to pay for Comcast's $20/month DVR service or else start their recordings manually". Instead, it would have said something about switching providers as well.
The reason Comcast is able to get away with the crap they do is because there isn't a free market and never was for more then 75% of their service area.
But hey, lets hide behind ignorant rants about crap that doesn't even apply. You may advance some political agenda, but your being robbed blind in the process.
Here is a citation with several citations within it. Here is another and yet another..
I'm willing to bet that most high dollar educations didn't involve simple google skills as it took me all of a couple of minutes to find those references.
Here is a PDF report that ties a bunch of numbers together as late as 2008. Unfortunately, it's in book form so you will probable need to print it and assemble the pages to keep the lines straight with the tables.
In almost every state that I know of which had a voucher program also had an income limit which bared participation. This limit was based on a percentage of the federal poverty level in the are just like most other government programs have.
It wouldn't be a discount for the wealthy for that reason alone yet another would be because the wealthy are already over paying. That's right, when they pay taxes to support an institution they choose not to use and duplicate costs of by sending their students to a private school, they are over paying for their child's education. But as I already pointed out, that's a moot topic because they won't get a discount even if you look at it in the most extreme light.
Fist of all, we do not have the money we are using to fight the wars. It would be impossible to spend it on education unless we are going to continue to spend money we don't have. Until recently, the wars have been funded off budget which stops congress from just re-spending the money after the war doesn't need it. It's hard to say what will happen when the war is over but it appears that trillion dollar deficits aren't all that startling any more. Eventually this deficit spending will backfire then all of the tax revenue is used for paying our debts instead of financing the programs we shouldn't be having in the first place.
Second, the money for wars is spend at a federal level, the states are primarily responsible for their school funding so nothing is stopping the state from raising taxes and spending more. Certainly the federal taxes haven't been raised to account for the war spending outside of tax cuts being stopped. What the mayor is really asking for is money from outside the state because his own constituents do not agree with his logic.
Finally, the amount of money we are talking about is a misnomer. It's actually less then $1 per student per year increase in funding. There are 52,935,996 school aged children from 5-17 years of age as estimated in 2008. Now this estimate doesn't include students starting school before age 5 or students over 18 in school. It also doesn't guarantee all of the population referenced is in school but it's a decent place to start. Anyways, it works out to just over $3,000 per kid if you divert all funding from Iraq and Afghanistan to the schools but do not count the fact that members of the military are normally stationed elsewhere so part of that funding is going to not be accessible. Currently, there are about 2,284,856 student aged children in Illinois (same source). So an increase of $6,854,568,000 would be seen if that money was diverted. Illinois already spends something like $51.6 trillion dollars (as of 2008) per year, that would be around a 13% increase in spending but why should it come from the feds and not the citizens of Illinois? It's not like the feds are already taking it, hell- it's already not paid for.
Illinois is currently fighting a 13 billion dollar budget deficit because they failed to do proper spending and federal government requirements for program mandates. Do you really think that 6 billion would go to the students? Even if you passed a law mandating it would, they would just pull other funding from the schools to make a run about look legal. It's happened many times before and happens in almost any state when they receive federal funding.
I believe this too. However, I do not limit my beliefs to 9/11 issues.
I think the problem is sort of like you not seeing the forest for the trees. The problem is actually dicking around with social problems in the first place. The federal government shouldn't be involve in most of them and the state should delegate most of the issues down stream to localities within their control so that the money or programs are more effective.
Iraq's involvement in terrorism isn't really the point. Neither is "save the Iraqi population from a tyrannic dictator" or the "WMDs". The insurgents in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam were (some of them were/are) terrorist or had been directly tied to terrorist that has been involved in Terrorism directed at the US, it's citizens, and it's allies. Iraq (Saddam) offered a widows pensions to suicide bombers that attacked Israel or US interests.
Here is the problem when the enemy is a terrorist. You have an organization that isn't a legitimate state attempting to play army. This organizations attempts to attack the population instead of the military in order to bring about political change. The insurgents resorted to terrorism tactics from time to time too. Any time you negotiate with the terrorist and give into their demands, you legitimize terrorism tactics and pave the way for terrorism to be the political choice for change. Now- In Iraq, the majority of terrorism attacks were directed at the people and not the forces occupying the country. They spread the message (with the aid of some local politicians attempting to get reelected) that America was an occupying force and that Iraq was planned to be a colony of the USA. They also said that the USA would leave them undefended then went about blowing up mosques, crowded markets, and other places people congregate. But they didn't just kill people in these car bombings and quasi chemical attacks, they planted separate charges in order to kill the people rescuing families and loved ones.
The only way you can fight something like this is to annihilate the opponent and render their efforts useless while countering the propaganda and showing that the country would return to their own rule. Doing otherwise would result in historically proven results of more terrorism and more acts against the people instead of the government. This was proven in France when they attempted to pay the Vikings to leave them alone, this happened in Spain in 1936 were the government conceded to Franco's white terror along with the ETA barking on the same sentiments with their terror. Hell, even recently with the Madrid bombings, Al Qeada and Spain's underdog candidate taking power in a surprise upset (stated plans to pull troops from Iraq) that has fuel renewed vigor in ETA terrorist actions. In fact, the ETA has committed or attempted to commit almost as many terrorist attacks since the 3/11 Madrid train bombings as they have since their inception back in 1961. Think about that, there is something like a five terrorist attack difference between the ETA's last 5.5-6 years (September of 2004- march 2010) and the 43 years prior (1961-2003).
There is a saying in the US that goes something like there are four boxes in the defense of liberty in order, the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box. What happened in Iraq was that after Saddam was gone, all four boxes where available to the public- except that some decided to skip the first three and go directly for number four. That's not a rational set of people to begin with. Most of them were brain washed religious zealots pushed by outside organizations and the only thing that would get the people on our side (*winning the hearts and minds of the people) turned out to be ensuring their safety from these zealots. Without that element of safety, they had to more or less pick the group that would be around the longest and adjust their behavior to cause themselves the least amount of harm. This turned out to be the terrorist and insurgents until we sent more troops in and killed most of the more troublesome ones (something directly opposite of your view).
Now that we are on the verge of pulling out (something that Bush negotiated with SOFA before the elections) some of the opposition forces who were badly beat are trying to stoke the embers thinking that it would keep coalition forces around longer so they can say we lied. But that's getting into another discussion.
If you are considering car bombs placed so that after they blow up a crowded market place, they blow up the rescuers rushing in to help the wounded some sort of military action, then I suggest you spend some time looking things up. And yes, that was a tactic used by the insurgents.
But lets put an end to this fallacy of yours that the military cannot fight terrorist. Terrorist are generally brainwashed extremist working from a flawed ideology in the first place. Technically, no one can fight them as it will require either further brainwashing or deprogramming which won't happen. So the thing that is left is to either kill them first, or present them with opportunities to enact their agendas without using terrorist while demonstrating that terrorist actions are ineffective. This can be done by the police, military or any other group of people with sufficient resources. At the time of the video, the interim government was already in place and an open political process was already established along with a free press. This process didn't work because the terrorist knew that they were in the minority with their views and the more free and open the process was, the more of a minority they would be in.
I will agree that military alone cannot fight terrorist, as such they cannot fight soldiers either. Politics and diplomacy and legitimate avenues of addressing recourse need to be in effect for any engagement to have a winner. However, this was never missing from Iraq or any of the recent wars we have been in.
We have weapons and weapons systems that could end all human life in Iraq with little effort. We don't use them because that is not our goal. But, what did win the people in Iraq (until very recently) as well as the peace was that we killed so many of the insurgents and terrorist operating there that the people felts somewhat secure. This security didn't come by noticing American troops dieing with ever terrorist or insurgent dieing, it came from being able to take and secure areas of large populations and allowing them to conduct their daily lives however they see fit.
Your right, bribing them doesn't by their confidence. However, keeping them safe does and it worked with the surge which more or less killed the insurgents and terrorist faster then they could recruit them. You will never make friends with everyone. It's good that we do not need to. All we have to do is get the majority on our side and it will take care of the rest.
Then let me explain it to you.
You see, the law declares that anyone under a certain age having sex is being raped by statute. So giving condoms to anyone under that age, and if they engage in sex, they have legally or statutorily been raped. The comparison is if it encourages them to have sex at a time it would statutorily be considered rape. As far as the rape victim is concerned, it may have been completely consensual sex- but the law still declares it a rape.
So as the GGP found it outrageous that "teaching a kid how to use a condom encourages the kid to seek out becoming a rape victim" doesn't portray the understanding that the rape is by statute and not what we would see the "law and order special victims unit" investigating. In other words, the term rape the prosecutor used wasn't the general purpose sex without consent meaning that made it seem so outrageous of a statement. Instead, it was a definition defined by statute that says having sex with anyone under a certain age is rape by statute.
How does that saying go?
Those that do, do
Those that can't do, teach,
Those that can't teach, coach,
Those that can't coach, become politicians.
Sounds like you're right on the money.
Did you read them? Perhaps you weren't clear when you replied to my statement or I didn't understand what you were asking. You do realize that there has been a tirade of constitutional court cases surrounding this very issue where schools banned all references to a religion including bibles and students praying on their own. And after you read them, you will know that students were refused the ability to start a religious club on school grounds and had to go to court to force them, others were refused the ability to publish a magazine/news paper and did the same, some were about parents praying in the cafeteria which is allowed and so on.
Well, it looks like the articles linked to from Virginia.edu have been removed. In fact, the entire religious freedom site seems to be missing. Here are the archives to them in case you couldn't get them to pull up.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080420110627/http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/widm_v_vinc.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20080313042901/http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/boar_v_merg.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20080420110521/http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/rose_v_rege.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20080222222124/http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/lamb_v_cent.html
This last one is one where the judge allowed (refused to stop) student prayer at a graduation ceremony. However, the issue is explained throughout the articles. The issue arises only when the school has control over the activity or opens it up to outside forces. If the school retains control, then it's school sponsored. If it doesn't then it isn't government sponsored and the establishment clause doesn't come into play. You will also see where if the school of government organization opens itself up to outside entities, then it cannot deny access to a religious group based on being religious.
And your missing the point. Well, that or taking the opportunity to preach your religion. Mentioning the word God, whether it is a proper noun or not, does not amount to preaching or praying. You have done this exact thing over the last several posts and I do not for one minute believe you were preaching or praying. If I'm wrong on that, please let me know because your claim does seem to be that simply using the proper nound God means you are.
Well, it may also be a but premature to lay claim that it doesn't use/require Oxygen too. The article is too short to know for sure. After some study, it might be so, but just because of the environment wouldn't necessarily mean it wouldn't need oxygen. There could be a number of process inside the animal that could generate Oxygen from the chemicals in the brine within it's living environment much like Photosynthesis does in plants. If the creature is really efficient, he would only convert what it needs hiding that aspect until further study could discover it.
The camera I saw in the video seems to be longer then the camera in the picture you linked to. But I didn't realize that the RPGs were as long as that.
They were in a hot zone and on a mission to sweep out the enemy. Ak-47s actually can down a chopper and we have seen small arms do this in the past. They don't explode the vehicle like in the movies or with a missile but they damage the avionics, control surfaces, and or support mechanisms, or get lucky with an engine shot requiring it to be set down before it crashes.
As for walking around with AK-47's and being shot, I would suggest that yes, when in a was where the enemy doesn't wear a uniform, not wearing a uniform and sporting military riffles that the enemy uses does make you a good ringer for the enemy. Did you hear the pilots ask if they had anyone in the area before shooting? I imagine if the reporter (or his security team as the common thread seems to be,) if they would have notified the military or Iraqi authorities that they were in/going to be in the area, something could have been done like issuing a military guard or some sort of friend or foe location device that other troops use. The friend or foe devices get an encrypted code programed into them that's changed often and when a device on the vehicle's weapons platform is aimed, it send a signal and listens for a friend reply. These devices stop/cut down on friendly fire incidents. This is especially effective when there is language barriers or foreign troops working in the operations and simple mistakes could cause mass casualties.
As for shooting everyone near an insurgent? Well, yes and no. It's ok but not desirable to shoot them in the process of shooting the enemy only when it's not feasible to not do it. What that means is, you can't deliberately target the people around them, but if the capabilities of a weapon of war is such that it hits them, then it's discretionary but OK. You can't launch a missile onto a crowd of people because one person is there. But if you kill one or two innocent people in order to get 10 enemies, then it's not quite as bad. I guess the question might be, why are people surrounding insurgents if they aren't acting in concert with them? The people effected in the Video were traveling together as a group, it didn't appear to be innocent civilians walking down the street.
So I guess it's all a judgment call. I do know that I won't be dressing like the enemy and walking down a street with the same weapons the enemy uses while carrying a Camera configured so that it could be confused with an RPG launcher, in the middle of combat operations in a highly active and volatile war zone. I wouldn't go as far as saying that I would be asking to get shot by friendly fire, but I couldn't blame them if they did shoot at me.
So you're saying that by killing a terrorist engaged in military action against the US or any other country, unless just as many of our people die, it just creates more terrorists? That's insanely stupid and even if it did, then it would be time to stop only shooting at the bad guys and either consider total annihilation or doing something separate to retain the good will of the people surrounded by the fighting.
BTW, I never spoke against getting the population on your side. I simply said killing more of the bad guys then your own people is preferable and it's beyond ignorantly asinine to suggest we trade casualties like the parent suggested.
Are you sure that's a camera? I mean it was about 3-4 foot long and about the same size (4 inches or so in diameter) from one end to the other. Generally, camera lenses are cone shaped with the smaller end near the camera. You can see the over all length minus a small portion of it just before the 4:08 section where it's blocked by the wall. It gets laid on the ground them picked back up right before or about the same time the say there is an RPG.
No shit. A wise man once said, the trick to winning a war is not being willing to die for your country, but to convince your enemies to do that much more then your side will.
Well, it was something like that anyways. But the idea of sacrificing one US or coalition life for every life of the enemy's is down right retarded. You do not win a war by giving in to demands of the enemy and you do not win a war by making it an even score. If that was the case, then the largest population would automatically win because you could kill more of them before running out of lives to sacrifice.
And of course we all know that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. I'm wondering if your google finger is broke. Here is reference to one, here is another, and I won't bother linking to the others but I'll post the link to the same sites if your interested.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19256
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19517
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=496&invol=226
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/lamb_v_cent.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/rose_v_rege.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/boar_v_merg.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/widm_v_vinc.html
And those are just some that were compiled at a couple site showing up in the first few results of the google search. And yes, a couple of those were dealing with prayer over the PA system in which the court rules it was allowed. At least two of the cases cited refereed to the use or the PA system at either football games or graduation ceremonies and echoed the same sentiments on when it's controlled by the school or student.
So if I say God with the capitol G as a proper noun, I'm automatically preaching or endorsing a religion? I guess you were preaching too when you wrote your statement pointing that out. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And no, that's not a strawman argument, it's the basis of your argument completely and undistorted outside of the subject being stated.
As I mentioned earlier which doesn't have the lunacy of your contention, the phrase under God in the pledge is not a prayer or religion,"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect." as the courts said.
You are correct as I have already noted, the phrase was intended to distance ourselves from those godless commies. But what you are not seeing here is that our system of leadership and government (until relativity recently anyways) answered to a higher power. Be it the people, a god, or patriotism and the constitution in which all it's power is derived from the consent of the people. On the contrast, the godless commies decreed the state and their personal power to be the ultimate in much the same ways as the Roman emperors and the pharaohs of Egypt eventually declared themselves a god. There was no higher power then themselves to which the US was st
Perhaps AOL should make a mobile version so it would be easier?
You do realize that there has been a tirade of constitutional court cases surrounding this very issue where schools banned all references to a religion including bibles and students praying on their own. The entire reason you know that teachers can't lead the prayers is because of these court cases. There was on court case I remember in the 1990's where a group of students met at the flag pole for prayers before school and was suspended/expelled after refusing to stop when ordered to by the public school.
Perhaps your one of the idiots I was referring to earlier. You do not need to believe in God or any reference to any god in order to recite the pledge. It doesn't ask you to pledge yourself to any religious entity, it's the Flag of the United State of America that is the subject of the pledge. And even if "under God" is an issue subject to the pledge, it's usage is only to show that the 50 states are one nation with no other authority over it except the supernatural. So still, it's not asking you or anyone else to believe in God or worship any religious entity, it's asking you to believe that there is no authority that has power over the US besides God which you (or Not everyone) does not believe in.
But when you look at the constitution, you will find that your basis of a "clear violation" is completely crap. There is no separation of church and state in the constitution, there is only a prohibition on making laws about religions or restricting them. The entire separation argument was made by Jefferson to a church that thought adopting the constitution would mean their church would be outlawed. So even your attempt at claiming the mere mentioning of anything that could be religious is prohibited by the constitution is taking the entire separation argument out of context.
As I said before, they do not look at minutes in determining age of a person. It's only the day of birth- not the hour or minutes of the birth.
And to accurately answer your question, it wouldn't be a situation of what laws they do not have but a situation of what laws they do have. A law making it illegal to have sex with an under aged person can make both participants responsible to some degree or simply make one person culpable.
You have to remember that our system of government is not one that allows the government to impose it's will whenever or however it wishes. It's one where the government can only act when it's supported by law or some legal precedence that allows it's actions. So if the law is written in such a way that it implies no one should have sex below a certain age, then both participating parties could be prosecuted. If it's written so that the older person is the only one culpable, then only the older one could be prosecuted.
I think what your doing is confusing the very real effect of prosecutors picking and choosing which charges to files and over looking others for various reasons. Some of these reasons may be not enough evidence to convict someone so they do not want to put them into double jeopardy when more evidence is available (if ever), some reasons may be personal and selfish like they do not agree with a law and refuse to prosecute violations of it, some may be because of case load issues where some laws won't be touched in order to get the more atrocious offenders in court. But make no mistake about this, if the law isn't there guiding their actions, they simply cannot act. So it really does depend entirely on the laws in the district/state/area and so on.
Sounds like you haven't kept up with it either or what I said. "they would need a law or legal precedence to take someone's property".
Currently, the "laws" allow them to take property that was used to commit a crime or was purchased in part or whole from proceeds of a crime.
The constitution has stopped them from taking any more as was evidence in the court cases stopping the government from seizing rented homes and joint property belonging to a spouse or someone who purchased it through legitimate means. The government currently has to show that the property was either used in the commission of a crime or was purchased/obtained because a crime was committed. Otherwise, they have to give just compensation for any property they took.
Currently, the government cannot seize property unless it was used in the commission of the crime or purchased with proceeds of the crime without using eminent domain. Eminent domain would require a just compensation for the property. As for the criminal aspect, that's only available in situations where a law has been made allowing it to happen.
Even when the IRS seizes property, it isn't actually taking it because of the criminal act, they go through a lawsuit phase that gives them the right to sell off your assets to pay the state.
Our government, contrary to popular belief, is based as a permissive beast that needs permission from the people in order to do something. This permission is granted by the constitution or elected officials making laws. It's organized so that it can only do what it is allowed to do by the constitution, law which has to be ground somehow with the constitution, or common law (torte) which can't override the constitution. So it needs laws in place to allow it to do things like taking property. Without that, then it's illegal for them to do it. If they pass a law today concerning a crime that happened last week, it's not applicable either because of the ex-post facto provisions in the constitution.
I hope this explains why it's illegal without pointing to a law making it illegal. There isn't one outside of constitutional rights to due process and protections from searches and seizures. So if the law hasn't been made allowing it, then the government can't do it. When the government is concerned, there has to be something giving it the ability to do whatever is asked of them where the people are generally allowed to do anything unless there is a law restricting it. The government get's it's power by taking it from the people.
They would need a law or legal precedence allowing them to seize the patent. Right now there isn't one and there is a huge problem with creating laws after the fact. There is also the constitutional problem with not being able to take private property without just compensation. So even if congress passed a law tomorrow, we would still need to compensate the company/shareholders.
As I mentioned earlier, "oh my god, I'm drunk" does not get anyone out of legal trouble for actions they took when they were drunk. Think of DUI laws, if someone could not be responsible for their actions because they were intoxicated, then why is the penalties more severe the more intoxicated you are?
If the person wasn't passed out making it rape, or so wasted that they couldn't make any decisions- making it rape too, then the intoxication wouldn't excuse the actions if they knew the sex partner was under the legal age of consent.
The older party would have to plead that she was too drunk to make any decisions which would place the aggressor into the rape potential.
The charges would depend on the locality and what laws are on the books. There would be no offsetting or dueling charges because in a criminal case, the state is the aggrieved party seeking remedies, not either of the people present or involved in the act. It could be either, both, or no one getting charged with the crime. This is because having sex is a very private act and it would mostly be up to the people involved over informing who did what and so on. Proof is something that would be very difficult to achieve unless both parties stated the same story. That's why you hear about sex cases from 20 states away, they are attempting to make a circus out of it so they can guilt the offenders into pleading to a charge to make it go away.
I'm not sure what you are going for here. A birthday is a day, not the time of a day. You do not have to present proof that you were born 16 years to the hour before you apply for a license or a temp driver license. If one was born at 6am and the other at 6pm, at the start of the calender date falling on their birth day, they would both be considered the same age of consent (6 hours before they were born for the one and 18 hours for the other).