If we switch to preference balloting then we won't need primaries at all. Just have all the candidates on the ballot for the general election. The parties exist now just to tell us whom we can't vote for.
And yes, it would take a constitutional amendment to set this up at the national level for the presidential elections.
These examples you speak of are simple adapters (wires). This situation is not just an adapter, but a DAC. It converts a digital signal to analog. The lightning port does not have analog audio output. Depending on which one you buy, maybe it does it well, maybe it does it poorly. An adapter is easy to get right, almost any brand will do, don't even think about it, just grab one off the rack. For a DAC, you now have to do your research before buying it, and your search results will return wave upon wave of cheap knock-off crap from China. Ever shop for a USB charger? Like that.
The purpose of the law is to prevent banks from deliberately holding your money to avoid paying interest, or otherwise profiting on it. Years ago, when the regulations allowed a longer hold time of 10 days (or so, it was a long time ago), I had a case where I wrote a check to myself (from bank A) and deposited it in my account at bank B. Deposited on Friday, Bank A reported to me that the check cleared on Monday. Bank B didn't make the money available to me until around 10 days later. When I called bank B to ask why they held the money so long when I knew they had it on Monday, they replied "because we can". The employee gets points for being honest, I guess. In later years, when physical transportation time was less of an issue, the regulations were updated to reduce the hold times to what they are today.
Many companies test because they are required to by law because they do business with the Government.
That isn't true, but often company HR departments think it is true, citing the "Drug-Free Workplace Act". This is a quote from the Department of Labor FAQ about that:
Is drug testing required or authorized under these regulations?
The Act and these rules neither require nor authorize drug testing. The legislative history of the Drug-Free Workplace Act indicates that Congress did not intend to impose any additional requirements beyond those set forth in the Act. Specifically, the legislative history precludes the imposition of drug testing of employees as part of the implementation of the Act. At the same time, these rules in no way preclude employers from conducting drug testing programs in response to government requirements (e.g., Department of Transportation or Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules) or on their own independent legal authority.
I have found that trying to explain that no it isn't "required by law" to an HR drone is a pointless exercise.
In most states, refusing the test is an automatic license suspension.
Refusing a breath test is an automatic license suspension.
A breathalyzer test is not a breath test. It is a preliminary breath test. Refusing that has no penalty.
A breath test is a large machine down at the police station, that is carefully calibrated and accurate (for what it does). Police ask you to take the breathalyzer, and FST, so that they can collect enough evidence to justify arresting you and taking you downtown for the real breath test. They ask, you say no.
We could do generation ships if we really wanted to, and I doubt there'd be a shortage of volunteers
Uh... generations 3 through n-1 are not volunteers!
What? You're telling me I was born on a ship, and will spend the rest of my life here, instead of the beautiful planet in these pictures? Thanks Mom and Dad!
Generation 3 would revolt and turn the ship around.
why are you banking, shopping, or correspondence at work?
Because the employer doesn't want the alternative, which is for me to take the afternoon off, drive home, and do my banking or other things that can be done only during business hours. Whether it is on my time (using my vacation hours) or theirs is not the point, the point is that they lose productivity and don't meet the schedule.
That is why one of the perks (yes, entitlements) of a white-collar job has always been occasional personal calls (20th century) and occasional personal internet use (21st century).
i get paid to work, what do you get paid to do?
I am a salaried engineer. I get paid to get the job done, as long as it takes. And that door swings both ways. Sometimes I work overtime, sometimes undertime.
The larger problem I see is that, if you pay Apple to replace the battery, they won't actually do that. They take your Ipad and exchange it for a refurbished one. So you don't get "your" Ipad back. I've had enough bad experiences with refurbished products to never go down that route again. So I am left with using a third-party repair shop.
Remember that the EULA covers the software within the TV, not the TV itself since the TV is sold, not licensed. I would have simply written Sony a letter stating that (1) no, I don't agree to the terms of the EULA; (2) I bought the television, I own it and will not return it; (3) I will not intentionally use "the software", (4) but I intend to use the television to make use of all the advertised features of said television, and if you implemented those features in software rather than firmware, tough shit, and (5) suck it.
Also note that there is a difference between the copyright of the speech text and the copyright on the film that CBS made of King giving the speech. Works that can be copyrighted include the text of a speech, or a song composition. A performance cannot be copyrighted. A recording of a performance can be copyrighted. A work must be "fixed in a tangible medium" to be copyrighted. So King's estate holds the copyright on one work (the text), and CBS holds the copyright on the second work (the film of the speech). However, since the film "contains" a performance of the speech, copyright law also says that CBS can't sell the speech without compensating King's estate. They can however make Fair Use of the film for news purposes.
This also means that if you attend a concert, you can record it for your own personal use. If you make the recording, you hold the copyright on that work (the recording).
A person is only bound if he accepts the contract. The fact that the person clicked "I Accept" is certainly evidence that he accepted. But that is trumped by a letter that clearly states "No contract accepted, notwithstanding any Buttons, Widgets, or other Foofraw on my screen that may have been clicked".
A contract is binding when you agree to it. I have always been tempted to simply mail them a letter before installing the software in which I say "I am writing to inform you that I do not agree to your EULA, and I do not agree that I need a license to use this software. Since you sold me these nice shiny CDs containing the software, I am going to go ahead and install it. Have a nice day."
Now this violates the Do Not Poke The Bear principle, but is on firmer legal ground than just ignoring it and hoping it will go away. The question is, when their lawyers send you a reply, what can they argue about? You didn't violate copyright (you bought a legal copy from the owner). You didn't agree to a contract so it isn't breach of contract. What legal grounds do they have to say "don't use our software", other than "we don't give you permission"? And who says I need their permission? It's my computer.
If nothing else, their demand letter would have to include a refund check, otherwise they are in violation of their own EULA.
As a result, it's now quite possible to experience 'proximity to God' via a special helmet: 'In a series of studies conducted over the past several decades, Persinger and his team have trained their device on the temporal lobes of hundreds of people. In doing so, the researchers induced in most of them the experience of a sensed presence -- a feeling that someone (or a spirit) is in the room when no one, in fact, is -- or of a profound state of cosmic bliss that reveals a universal truth. In Soviet Russia, helmet puts on YOU!
They may have a legitimate reason for it (financial company), or they may just be nosy. You should draw up a contract which specifies the answers to the above questions. In addition, if you give them permission to have access to third party data (your credit report, etc), that should specify when it expires. "This permission shall expire after 6 months". If you leave the company, they should destroy their copy of the data.
They shouldn't object to signing an agreement, because they should already have policies in place. If they don't have policies, that's a problem right there.
If you want to learn writing, take a writing class. Or, better yet, go back to high school. This was a social science class, not a writing class. It wasn't his job to teach writing. The worst professors are the ones who think that theirs is the only class you are taking, and that you can devote 40 hours a week to it. The syllabus should be lean and mean and focused on the course topic. This is often caused by OVERLAP, in which each professor padded the course work with extra stuff because "oh, you should learn about that, too". Of the 9 main core courses I took, the ninth one added nothing because it overlapped the previous 8. The result was that each semester we were overloaded with too much work. One teacher in particular, freshly-minted doctorate in hand, turned a simple software project into a "let's write a research paper suitable for journal publication" adventure.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, it would take a constitutional amendment to set this up at the national level for the presidential elections.
And if you like those, wait until you see New Marvin. Guess where that is going!
These examples you speak of are simple adapters (wires). This situation is not just an adapter, but a DAC. It converts a digital signal to analog. The lightning port does not have analog audio output. Depending on which one you buy, maybe it does it well, maybe it does it poorly. An adapter is easy to get right, almost any brand will do, don't even think about it, just grab one off the rack. For a DAC, you now have to do your research before buying it, and your search results will return wave upon wave of cheap knock-off crap from China. Ever shop for a USB charger? Like that.
The purpose of the law is to prevent banks from deliberately holding your money to avoid paying interest, or otherwise profiting on it. Years ago, when the regulations allowed a longer hold time of 10 days (or so, it was a long time ago), I had a case where I wrote a check to myself (from bank A) and deposited it in my account at bank B. Deposited on Friday, Bank A reported to me that the check cleared on Monday. Bank B didn't make the money available to me until around 10 days later. When I called bank B to ask why they held the money so long when I knew they had it on Monday, they replied "because we can". The employee gets points for being honest, I guess. In later years, when physical transportation time was less of an issue, the regulations were updated to reduce the hold times to what they are today.
Many companies test because they are required to by law because they do business with the Government.
That isn't true, but often company HR departments think it is true, citing the "Drug-Free Workplace Act". This is a quote from the Department of Labor FAQ about that:
Is drug testing required or authorized under these regulations?
The Act and these rules neither require nor authorize drug testing. The legislative history of the Drug-Free Workplace Act indicates that Congress did not intend to impose any additional requirements beyond those set forth in the Act. Specifically, the legislative history precludes the imposition of drug testing of employees as part of the implementation of the Act. At the same time, these rules in no way preclude employers from conducting drug testing programs in response to government requirements (e.g., Department of Transportation or Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules) or on their own independent legal authority.
I have found that trying to explain that no it isn't "required by law" to an HR drone is a pointless exercise.
IANAL, but every lawyer I have spoken with has said that "what happens" is nothing.*
* may not be valid in all 50 states. Read the statutes in your area. Know your rights.
A breathalyzer is not a "breath test instrument" as referred to in Florida 316.1932 (1)(a)2.
In most states, refusing the test is an automatic license suspension.
Refusing a breath test is an automatic license suspension. A breathalyzer test is not a breath test. It is a preliminary breath test. Refusing that has no penalty.
A breath test is a large machine down at the police station, that is carefully calibrated and accurate (for what it does). Police ask you to take the breathalyzer, and FST, so that they can collect enough evidence to justify arresting you and taking you downtown for the real breath test. They ask, you say no.
but in Soviet Russia, Olympics watch YOU!
In Soviet Russia, train catches YOU!
We could do generation ships if we really wanted to, and I doubt there'd be a shortage of volunteers
Uh... generations 3 through n-1 are not volunteers!
What? You're telling me I was born on a ship, and will spend the rest of my life here, instead of the beautiful planet in these pictures? Thanks Mom and Dad!
Generation 3 would revolt and turn the ship around.
Code words are easy to find via search engine. That's a big advantage.
Possibly they are easier to trademark, too.
Whoosh.
Hold the bolt steady, and rotate the space station!
why are you banking, shopping, or correspondence at work?
Because the employer doesn't want the alternative, which is for me to take the afternoon off, drive home, and do my banking or other things that can be done only during business hours. Whether it is on my time (using my vacation hours) or theirs is not the point, the point is that they lose productivity and don't meet the schedule.
That is why one of the perks (yes, entitlements) of a white-collar job has always been occasional personal calls (20th century) and occasional personal internet use (21st century).
i get paid to work, what do you get paid to do?
I am a salaried engineer. I get paid to get the job done, as long as it takes. And that door swings both ways. Sometimes I work overtime, sometimes undertime.
The larger problem I see is that, if you pay Apple to replace the battery, they won't actually do that. They take your Ipad and exchange it for a refurbished one. So you don't get "your" Ipad back.
I've had enough bad experiences with refurbished products to never go down that route again. So I am left with using a third-party repair shop.
Remember that the EULA covers the software within the TV, not the TV itself since the TV is sold, not licensed. I would have simply written Sony a letter stating that (1) no, I don't agree to the terms of the EULA; (2) I bought the television, I own it and will not return it; (3) I will not intentionally use "the software", (4) but I intend to use the television to make use of all the advertised features of said television, and if you implemented those features in software rather than firmware, tough shit, and (5) suck it.
I found a EULA at http://www.docs.sony.com/release/Flyer_4138171111.pdf, is this what we are talking about?
Also note that there is a difference between the copyright of the speech text and the copyright on the film that CBS made of King giving the speech. Works that can be copyrighted include the text of a speech, or a song composition. A performance cannot be copyrighted. A recording of a performance can be copyrighted. A work must be "fixed in a tangible medium" to be copyrighted. So King's estate holds the copyright on one work (the text), and CBS holds the copyright on the second work (the film of the speech). However, since the film "contains" a performance of the speech, copyright law also says that CBS can't sell the speech without compensating King's estate. They can however make Fair Use of the film for news purposes. This also means that if you attend a concert, you can record it for your own personal use. If you make the recording, you hold the copyright on that work (the recording).
A person is only bound if he accepts the contract. The fact that the person clicked "I Accept" is certainly evidence that he accepted. But that is trumped by a letter that clearly states "No contract accepted, notwithstanding any Buttons, Widgets, or other Foofraw on my screen that may have been clicked".
A contract is binding when you agree to it. I have always been tempted to simply mail them a letter before installing the software in which I say "I am writing to inform you that I do not agree to your EULA, and I do not agree that I need a license to use this software. Since you sold me these nice shiny CDs containing the software, I am going to go ahead and install it. Have a nice day." Now this violates the Do Not Poke The Bear principle, but is on firmer legal ground than just ignoring it and hoping it will go away. The question is, when their lawyers send you a reply, what can they argue about? You didn't violate copyright (you bought a legal copy from the owner). You didn't agree to a contract so it isn't breach of contract. What legal grounds do they have to say "don't use our software", other than "we don't give you permission"? And who says I need their permission? It's my computer. If nothing else, their demand letter would have to include a refund check, otherwise they are in violation of their own EULA.
But a sphere is round, so how do you keep it from rolling off the scale when you are trying to weigh it?
What will they do with the data?
How long will the data be retained?
Who will have access to it?
They may have a legitimate reason for it (financial company), or they may just be nosy. You should draw up a contract which specifies the answers to the above questions. In addition, if you give them permission to have access to third party data (your credit report, etc), that should specify when it expires. "This permission shall expire after 6 months". If you leave the company, they should destroy their copy of the data.
They shouldn't object to signing an agreement, because they should already have policies in place. If they don't have policies, that's a problem right there.
If you want to learn writing, take a writing class. Or, better yet, go back to high school. This was a social science class, not a writing class. It wasn't his job to teach writing. The worst professors are the ones who think that theirs is the only class you are taking, and that you can devote 40 hours a week to it. The syllabus should be lean and mean and focused on the course topic. This is often caused by OVERLAP, in which each professor padded the course work with extra stuff because "oh, you should learn about that, too". Of the 9 main core courses I took, the ninth one added nothing because it overlapped the previous 8. The result was that each semester we were overloaded with too much work. One teacher in particular, freshly-minted doctorate in hand, turned a simple software project into a "let's write a research paper suitable for journal publication" adventure.
For privacy of my data, I use the Commodore VIC-20.
The wonder computer of the 1980's! For under $300*!
*in 1981 dollars
The original ReplayTV system offered the following features:
What precisely is the innovation that Tivo claims to have patented?
And don't get me started on the whole "look and feel" patent nonsense...