You're coming at this the wrong way. The laws are written to make purchasing certain quantities a crime. They don't have to make the case that you made meth; they just have to show that you bought more than you were allowed to. The reason these laws were put into place was the usual "for the children" nonsense with an eye towards meth manufacture, but that doesn't mean they even have to bring it up. All they have to do is say the limit is 2, you bought three, case closed. I posted some reference info here.
Display of a limited number of packages of a brand or type in a public area. No more than 1 package of any brand or type in a public area – North Dakota No more than 3 packages or 9 grams of each stocked product can be placed on shelf – Louisiana Restrictions on Who can Sell/Transfer and/or Who can Purchas
It is a falsehood to claim that because bad situation A is worse than unrelated bad situation B, that B is therefore acceptable. As you would be well aware if you had been falsely accused of anything.
Or your "cold meds" example. OK, some database somewhere knows that I bought cold meds. So? I've yet to see a single targeted ad for cold meds, and even if I did... how does that actually hurt me?
Step 1: Buy a bottle of original NyQuil from a pharmacy
Step 2: Drive across town.
Step 3: Buy another bottle of original NyQuil from different pharmacy
Step 4: Learn how it hurts you
The answer, to save you the trouble, is you get arrested, you pay bail (if you can), you pay lawyers (if you can... if you can't, you're going to jail for a long time, because you're now an easy notch on some prosecutor's stick.) You meth-head, you.
"Oh, but I would never do that"
There are other things, and combinations of things, that can get you a serious, guns-pulled, door-breaking visit from your local gendarmes. Even trying to buy an Erlenmeyer flask or glass tubing can do it in some jurisdictions. Odds are hugely in favor of you having done these things innocently. That won't reduce your legal bills, though.
Unfortunately, the people who most agree with me can't vote.
That's part of the mechanism to create a permanent underclass. Add that to the social conditioning that felons can no longer be forgiven, and they become un-hirable, have more trouble finding places to live, cannot advance... which of course leads them to the (correct) conclusion that the only way to actually get ahead is crime.
One of the nasty facets of this is that many "felons" were only guilty of consensual "crimes"; they really were zero danger to other people. But now, in order to have some measure of material success, crime is the only door that remains open.
One of our more serious social errors, born of hysteria and foolishness.
I'm not impressed with what you know about the field to take you seriously.
Sorry, I didn't realize anything significant depended on "impressing" you. Someone forgot to pass me the memo. Let me see, am I impressed by your post? No, looks like you didn't even understand what I said, so I guess... no worries. You just go right on with your unimpressed self, there. Isn't life fun?
one of the most successfully predictive theories of the last century
[rollseyes] Oh, please. Horizon problem? Doppler problem? CMBR problem (well, two of them, really)? Anti-matter problem? Dark matter / energy fudge factor / problems? Large scale void problem? Speaking of fudge, inflation? Really? Distant young galaxy problem? And the really big one, the singularity: BB theory doesn't actually oblige us by conforming to what we know about physics. It's just a math model, and it looks a good deal more like dividing by zero than it does 2+2 at this point in time.
I really don't think "successful" in this context means what you think it means. When a theory is riddled with errors and wrong predictions and fails to match the available evidence, "success" isn't exactly the word of choice, even if it's been fudged (and that is the correct word) to match some, though certainly not all, of the observations.
waving my hands.
I guess since you can't refute the physics (specifically the fact that our physics don't allow for any of the early stages of what the big bang hypothesis describes), I'll just have to watch your hand-waving. But someone should really sit you down with a cosmologist someday and explain all this to you. It's pretty simple, really; you can only fit so much in a particular amount of space. BB theory doesn't actually work because of that slight inconvenience. So, no matter what it predicts, and no matter what it gets right, something else is wrong: Either it's the theory, or its the physics. But again, you need to hear this from a cosmologist. Or perhaps read up on it a bit.
You'll note I don't refute BB theory. I just point out that it is far from settled. Hilarious that you were knocked so off kilter by that, and even funnier that some slashdot moderator came in here and pulled a "moderator disagrees." Sometimes this place is just a circus of the incompetent. Other than that moment of fine humor, though, how have you been, Chris?
Nah, not Assange, Totenglocke's talking about Roman Polanski. Guy was accused of raping a 13-year old about three decades ago; court made a plea bargain agreement with him, but as Polanski tells it, the judge went back on it, he fled the country, and has been wandering around Europe since then. Victim publicly forgave him after receiving a cash settlement, asked that he be allowed to re-enter the US to receive some award or other, but the US judge refused; later, they coerced some other country into arresting him, which they did, but after examining the paperwork, they also decided the US case was insufficient and they set him free.
Totenglocke was arguing that Polanski's guilt is certain because the girl "testified in court" and that the surrounding circumstances were irrelevant. He seems to assume that 13-year olds would not lie in court in order to swindle large amounts of money out of the relatively wealthy, which is an interesting assumption, though perhaps not as iron-clad as he makes it out to be. I'm not so easily convinced, myself, which seems to infuriate Totenglocke, as he's now descended into name-calling.
So not to worry. Assange is still on the run from his own charges, the citizens are working up to panic about it, and all is well with the world.
What Polanski did though was rape seeing as she was begging him to stop and he kept going.
How do you know this? Where you there? Is there a tape or video recording?
Show me definitive evidence and I'll switch immediately to agreeing with you.
If you're quoting this young lady after her momma discovered she had the opportunity to hit a very rich man up for a great deal of money (which is exactly what she ended up doing, by the way), then I'm just going to call nonsense on your conclusion.
Remember: The female in question felt that her situation was completely resolved by the application of money, right to the point of public, official forgiveness and further. That doesn't sound like a rape victim to me, not at all. I've met a few, and at least for that small sample, you couldn't possibly resolve their emotional condition by applying money. They were wrecked.
The extra mass could simply be a much larger black hole in the incoming galaxy that had previously consumed most of it's surrounding matter. There's just too much that isn't known here to draw firm conclusions about anything.
or there is a crap-ton of matter hanging out there that does not produce, block, or reflect any light.
...or there is something blocking the light it is emitting from getting to us. Or... the universe isn't the kind of lumpy they assume it is (there may be another scale of lumpiness beyond where we can see it.) Or we've got the mass estimates wrong. Or there is another force we're not accounting for. Or the forces we know don't act the way we think they act over large scales (20:1, after all, isn't much on a log scale. And guess how we characterize things like gravity and magnetism?) Or something we have no experience with at all. Or some combination of the foregoing.
Basically, the Big Bang couldn't have happened without it.
Well, considering that nothing in our physics confirms that the big bang even COULD have happened, I'm pretty comfortable with not assuming invisible things exist to back up an hypothesis that isn't possible under normal physics anyway. The big bang is just hand-waving at this point in time.
Ascribing it the status of certainty is the result of not consuming the available objective facts, in particular that the states described for the important part of it aren't possible under any configuration of reality we understand.
So it's either wrong (quite possible) or else there's a good bit of science to come before we can confirm it's right.
As for the rotation rates of certain galaxies, that is integral to the mass, and it's not at all clear that we've got mass estimates right as yet, either. Every example we have is in our galaxy, and in our local stellar neighborhood. Those values may hold elsewhere, or they may not. There may be other forces (see the Pioneer anomaly, for one) or there may not. Just too soon to be sure on several fronts. Considering that at least two major forces are only visible to us by their effects (gravity, magnetism), it may be optimistic to presume that there aren't others, especially when the scales change from our local experience to one the size of a galaxy, or spanning many galaxies. Look at the strong atomic force; on a small scale, it's a ripper; across ten feet... means absolutely nothing. We may simply not be able to measure something that is going on because of scale.
And it isn't that I have anything against the idea of matter we can't see. On the contrary, I'm sure there's plenty of that. It's just this assumption of already-settled-truth WRT the big bang that irks me. If it's settled in your mind, then I assure you, you don't understand it. Ask a cosmologist -- they'll be the first to tell you the same thing.
dark matter isn't something intangible. it's matter with not enough light bouncing off it for us to see.
Not quite. It's just matter we haven't seen and so can't account for, if we have the mass estimates for the universe right, which is in itself doubtful. For instance, a small galaxy directly behind a large one in a position that doesn't allow us to see it -- that's "dark" from the dark matter point of view, even though it's glowing like crazy. Some of it might not be radiating, or radiating too dimly; but on the other hand, our math may just be entirely wrong.
Darn it, modded you down, meant to mod you up, and the mod thang disappears after modding, so it can no longer be fixed. So, posting to undo the mod. Bloody broken slash-code.
I'm not too sure that the "13 year old" girl's choice to accept Champagne and Quaaludes from Polanski (or whoever) doesn't disqualify her from being able to claim anything at all. What we have here is a drug using teenager of acceptable age in many cultures, present at Jack Nickelson's for a wild party, being wild, as teenagers often are. I'm also inclined to think that most 13 year olds are ready and willing to have sex under quite a few ranges of circumstances, political correctness aside and truth down on the table. I know I was, and I sure shared a lot of quality sexual time with other teenagers; at the time, many girls were looking for older partners, too, preferably with a car and money, so it was a little challenging for those of us who were in the same age group. But only a little.:)
Also... again, political correctness aside... as far as I'm concerned, if you want to control access to yourself in a defensible way, you shouldn't intoxicate yourself first, particularly with alcohol. That just indicates to me that you want to slough off your own responsibilities on someone else -- and it raises serious questions about exactly what you said, or even if you said anything at all.
Personally, I wouldn't consider anyone who had been drinking at a party as someone you could make a legitimate sexual advance to, because they're clouding their ability to make decisions and they may not see things the same come the morrow -- and to me, "consensual" is half of what makes sex entertaining; but I'm not, and never was, a 1970's California / Hollywood party person, either. Polanski - and this 13 year old - both were. One more thing: IIRC, mom is the one that raised the objection here initially, not the girl; If she didn't want the girl at Jack Nicholson's crazy party, the time to act wasn't the next morning. I don't think she had a decent leg to stand on.
Like I said above, mention sex, and people go right out of their minds. Polanski's case is a good example of precisely that. The reality of it was zero harm done; the upshot was decades of hysteria and legal stupidity. The supposed "damage" was made perfectly ok, according the word of the "victim", by simple application of money. How ok? To the point where she publicly "forgave" him and wrote a letter in support of him coming back to the US to accept some award or other.
Society has made a huge mistake with this whole "hard line" of age approach. There are teenagers who are perfectly responsible and making considered, reasonable choices about who with and when to have sex (and yes, I'd include older partners as perfectly reasonable choices, legal issues aside), and there are older people, even into the 30's, 40's and later, who couldn't make a reasonable sexual choice if you offered them a million dollars to do it right just one time. We probably ought to issue sex licenses pursuant to a test regime. No license, no nookie play. Because the current approach is unreasonable, unworkable, and mostly stupid.
My partner of many years now is the daughter of a fellow who married his very young secretary. That secretary ended up wealthy, honored both as a wife and a mother, and (unfortunately) widowed, all largely due to the age and experience difference. She picked a mate that had a lot more to offer her than one of her own age -- an excellent choice, as it turned out. One result of that was my own partner, their daughter Deb, who is a wonderful, sensible person who I am profoundly glad is in this world, and who would likely not be here if today's politically correct insanity about age differences had been in force in the 1950's.
So yeah, Polanski: Not nearly as out of line as today's sexual craziness is, and it isn't clear at all that he deserves the vilification thrown at him from some quarters.
Look, medical records should be fields in a database. Not on paper, not in PDF, not in text or HTML files. If there is text, it should be in a text or HTML field. Images embedded in the database should be JPEG or lossless PNG. If you don't put the medical records in a database, you have enormously compromised their primary utility: to be employed for the health of the patient (and others with similar problems.) To insist that PDF is required for medical records is to insist that things be the absolute least functional they could be. Don't go there. If you need a legal document, you print something from the database. If that's not acceptable, change the rules -- don't screw up the database to accommodate litigation, for crying out loud. That's a case of the putting the cart miles before the horse. Medicine is for the patients. Not the lawyers.
Here, let me fix that for you: What your clients want... because they are misdirected... is a document that only looks one way. You should disabuse them of that notion, really. That's what I do. Failing that, I tell them to go away.
Indeed. Enjoy your random note looking documents!
I'm not an interior decorator. I'm not concerned about matching the writing tone to the fonts, and I don't flap my wrists in false artistic frustration when a sentence moves down an extra line or wraps to another page. I'm concerned that the document be readable, editable, and flexible. I want to be able to set a larger font for readability, to control what emphasis means, and be able to edit the document if I find that useful. PDF doesn't provide this, so PDF is no good. And, although it's not a problem of mine, PDF isn't an accessible format, so that's just more suck.
Again, wrong problem, wrong solution. Proper solution: fairtax. No tax forms. No filling out tax forms. No more regressive abuse of the low income folks. And no PDFs.
Most contracts and many forms require rendering with specific type sizes, specific layouts etc.
Instead of just stating this, you should be asking, "Why?" Because there is no good reason for it. If you need to reference a particular section, use section numbers. If you need to reference a particular sentence, then you could even number the sentences if you truly believe they are uncountable otherwise. Likewise the illustrations, tables, etc. You see, as it turns out, there is no good reason for rigid document formatting, and a whole bunch of reasons to avoid it.
Somewhere, someone who cannot think their way out of a paper bag said "documents for our purpose must be..." you just need to find that person and crack them over the head with a clue-bat.
Slashdot Mirror
here's an example
You're coming at this the wrong way. The laws are written to make purchasing certain quantities a crime. They don't have to make the case that you made meth; they just have to show that you bought more than you were allowed to. The reason these laws were put into place was the usual "for the children" nonsense with an eye towards meth manufacture, but that doesn't mean they even have to bring it up. All they have to do is say the limit is 2, you bought three, case closed. I posted some reference info here.
RESTRICTIONS ON OVER-THE-COUNTER SALES/PURCHASES OF PRODUCTS CONTAINING PSEUDOEPHEDRINE
STATE LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS
A review of 2005 state bills and/or regulations establishing or enhancing existing restrictions on over-the-counter sales/purchases of pseudoephedrine products. For comparative purposes, applicable provisions of existing laws which were enhanced in 2005 are included. Also included is a review of 2006 state bills enacted by November 3, 2006.
MAJORITY OF STATES TAKE ACTION
41 states in 2005 and to date in 2006 passed measures establishing or enhancing restrictions on over-the-counter sales of pseudoephedrine products.
35 states passed bills in 2005 1 state – Virginia- issued an Executive Order requiring the state
Department of Health (DH) to establish restrictions; The DH issued an emergency order effective until July 1, 2006. Virginia’ 2006 bill will take effective on July 1, 2006 as the emergency order ceases to be effective.
Alaska, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina and Vermont enacted bills implementing new restrictions; Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, South Dakota and Wisconsin passed amendments to their 2005 laws.
Michigan passed HB 5822 in 2006 which bans Internet and mail-order sales of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine products.
COMMON THEMES
Restrictions on the Over-the-Counter Sales/Transfers or Purchases of Pseudoephedrine Products
Four (4) general categories of restrictions on the over-the-counter sales/purchases of pseudoephedrine products are found:
1. Restrictions on the display or offer of the products for sale.
2. Restrictions on who can sell/transfer and/or who can purchase the products, and the requirement to maintain a log/record of the transaction.
3. Restrictions on the quantity of a product that can be sold/transferred or purchased within a specified time frame.
© 2007 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR MODEL STATE DRUG LAWS (NAMSDL). 700 North Fairfax Street, Suite 306, Alexandria, VA 22314. (703) 836-6100. Research current as of November 3, 2006. This document will be updated as NAMSDL receives additional information about state legislative and policy activities regarding precursor chemicals and sales/purchases of pseudoephedrine products.
1
4. Restrictions on packaging of the products. Restrictions on the Display or Offer of the Products for Sale/Transfer
1. Scheduling of pseudoephedrine as a controlled substance:11 states
Schedule V – Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia (sole-active pseudoephedrine), Wisconsin
Schedule III – Oregon; requires a prescription for all pseudoephedrine products
2. Placement of pseudoephedrine products in specified locations.
State legislative language often lists the methods below as options, requiring only that one option be used. However, in certain circumstances multiple placement methods must be used conjunctively.
a. Behind a counter or in an area inaccessible to the public without assistance of an employee.
b. In a locked display case or other locked location. c. Within the direct line of sight of a staffed counter. d. Within specified feet of a counter.
10 feet – Missouri 20 feet – Michigan 25 feet – Tennessee
30 feet – Indiana (convenience packages), Louisiana, Maine (applies only to 60 mg. single dose packages), Mississippi (multi- active), Texas, Virginia (multi-active), Wyoming
e. In an area subject to constant video monitoring/surveillance.
f. Use of anti-theft mechanism or alarm system.
g. Use of restricted shelving which allows a pseudoephedrine product to be released only every 15 seconds.
Display of a limited number of packages of a brand or type in a public area.
No more than 1 package of any brand or type in a public area – North Dakota
No more than 3 packages or 9 grams of each stocked product can be placed on shelf – Louisiana
Restrictions on Who can Sell/Transfer and/or Who can Purchas
Sure they will. Yours. Mine. Anyone's but their own. Do you have *any* idea how easy it is to obtain credit card info?
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
It is a falsehood to claim that because bad situation A is worse than unrelated bad situation B, that B is therefore acceptable. As you would be well aware if you had been falsely accused of anything.
Step 1: Buy a bottle of original NyQuil from a pharmacy
Step 2: Drive across town.
Step 3: Buy another bottle of original NyQuil from different pharmacy
Step 4: Learn how it hurts you
The answer, to save you the trouble, is you get arrested, you pay bail (if you can), you pay lawyers (if you can... if you can't, you're going to jail for a long time, because you're now an easy notch on some prosecutor's stick.) You meth-head, you.
"Oh, but I would never do that"
There are other things, and combinations of things, that can get you a serious, guns-pulled, door-breaking visit from your local gendarmes. Even trying to buy an Erlenmeyer flask or glass tubing can do it in some jurisdictions. Odds are hugely in favor of you having done these things innocently. That won't reduce your legal bills, though.
It's worth looking into.
That's part of the mechanism to create a permanent underclass. Add that to the social conditioning that felons can no longer be forgiven, and they become un-hirable, have more trouble finding places to live, cannot advance... which of course leads them to the (correct) conclusion that the only way to actually get ahead is crime.
One of the nasty facets of this is that many "felons" were only guilty of consensual "crimes"; they really were zero danger to other people. But now, in order to have some measure of material success, crime is the only door that remains open.
One of our more serious social errors, born of hysteria and foolishness.
Sorry, I didn't realize anything significant depended on "impressing" you. Someone forgot to pass me the memo. Let me see, am I impressed by your post? No, looks like you didn't even understand what I said, so I guess... no worries. You just go right on with your unimpressed self, there. Isn't life fun?
[rollseyes] Oh, please. Horizon problem? Doppler problem? CMBR problem (well, two of them, really)? Anti-matter problem? Dark matter / energy fudge factor / problems? Large scale void problem? Speaking of fudge, inflation? Really? Distant young galaxy problem? And the really big one, the singularity: BB theory doesn't actually oblige us by conforming to what we know about physics. It's just a math model, and it looks a good deal more like dividing by zero than it does 2+2 at this point in time.
I really don't think "successful" in this context means what you think it means. When a theory is riddled with errors and wrong predictions and fails to match the available evidence, "success" isn't exactly the word of choice, even if it's been fudged (and that is the correct word) to match some, though certainly not all, of the observations.
I guess since you can't refute the physics (specifically the fact that our physics don't allow for any of the early stages of what the big bang hypothesis describes), I'll just have to watch your hand-waving. But someone should really sit you down with a cosmologist someday and explain all this to you. It's pretty simple, really; you can only fit so much in a particular amount of space. BB theory doesn't actually work because of that slight inconvenience. So, no matter what it predicts, and no matter what it gets right, something else is wrong: Either it's the theory, or its the physics. But again, you need to hear this from a cosmologist. Or perhaps read up on it a bit.
You'll note I don't refute BB theory. I just point out that it is far from settled. Hilarious that you were knocked so off kilter by that, and even funnier that some slashdot moderator came in here and pulled a "moderator disagrees." Sometimes this place is just a circus of the incompetent. Other than that moment of fine humor, though, how have you been, Chris?
Nah, not Assange, Totenglocke's talking about Roman Polanski. Guy was accused of raping a 13-year old about three decades ago; court made a plea bargain agreement with him, but as Polanski tells it, the judge went back on it, he fled the country, and has been wandering around Europe since then. Victim publicly forgave him after receiving a cash settlement, asked that he be allowed to re-enter the US to receive some award or other, but the US judge refused; later, they coerced some other country into arresting him, which they did, but after examining the paperwork, they also decided the US case was insufficient and they set him free.
Totenglocke was arguing that Polanski's guilt is certain because the girl "testified in court" and that the surrounding circumstances were irrelevant. He seems to assume that 13-year olds would not lie in court in order to swindle large amounts of money out of the relatively wealthy, which is an interesting assumption, though perhaps not as iron-clad as he makes it out to be. I'm not so easily convinced, myself, which seems to infuriate Totenglocke, as he's now descended into name-calling.
So not to worry. Assange is still on the run from his own charges, the citizens are working up to panic about it, and all is well with the world.
Well, since you can't be civil, we're done here. Too bad. I thought you might know something worthwhile about the case.
How do you know this? Where you there? Is there a tape or video recording?
Show me definitive evidence and I'll switch immediately to agreeing with you.
If you're quoting this young lady after her momma discovered she had the opportunity to hit a very rich man up for a great deal of money (which is exactly what she ended up doing, by the way), then I'm just going to call nonsense on your conclusion.
Remember: The female in question felt that her situation was completely resolved by the application of money, right to the point of public, official forgiveness and further. That doesn't sound like a rape victim to me, not at all. I've met a few, and at least for that small sample, you couldn't possibly resolve their emotional condition by applying money. They were wrecked.
The extra mass could simply be a much larger black hole in the incoming galaxy that had previously consumed most of it's surrounding matter. There's just too much that isn't known here to draw firm conclusions about anything.
Well, considering that nothing in our physics confirms that the big bang even COULD have happened, I'm pretty comfortable with not assuming invisible things exist to back up an hypothesis that isn't possible under normal physics anyway. The big bang is just hand-waving at this point in time.
Ascribing it the status of certainty is the result of not consuming the available objective facts, in particular that the states described for the important part of it aren't possible under any configuration of reality we understand.
So it's either wrong (quite possible) or else there's a good bit of science to come before we can confirm it's right.
As for the rotation rates of certain galaxies, that is integral to the mass, and it's not at all clear that we've got mass estimates right as yet, either. Every example we have is in our galaxy, and in our local stellar neighborhood. Those values may hold elsewhere, or they may not. There may be other forces (see the Pioneer anomaly, for one) or there may not. Just too soon to be sure on several fronts. Considering that at least two major forces are only visible to us by their effects (gravity, magnetism), it may be optimistic to presume that there aren't others, especially when the scales change from our local experience to one the size of a galaxy, or spanning many galaxies. Look at the strong atomic force; on a small scale, it's a ripper; across ten feet... means absolutely nothing. We may simply not be able to measure something that is going on because of scale.
And it isn't that I have anything against the idea of matter we can't see. On the contrary, I'm sure there's plenty of that. It's just this assumption of already-settled-truth WRT the big bang that irks me. If it's settled in your mind, then I assure you, you don't understand it. Ask a cosmologist -- they'll be the first to tell you the same thing.
Not quite. It's just matter we haven't seen and so can't account for, if we have the mass estimates for the universe right, which is in itself doubtful. For instance, a small galaxy directly behind a large one in a position that doesn't allow us to see it -- that's "dark" from the dark matter point of view, even though it's glowing like crazy. Some of it might not be radiating, or radiating too dimly; but on the other hand, our math may just be entirely wrong.
Darn it, modded you down, meant to mod you up, and the mod thang disappears after modding, so it can no longer be fixed. So, posting to undo the mod. Bloody broken slash-code.
I'm not too sure that the "13 year old" girl's choice to accept Champagne and Quaaludes from Polanski (or whoever) doesn't disqualify her from being able to claim anything at all. What we have here is a drug using teenager of acceptable age in many cultures, present at Jack Nickelson's for a wild party, being wild, as teenagers often are. I'm also inclined to think that most 13 year olds are ready and willing to have sex under quite a few ranges of circumstances, political correctness aside and truth down on the table. I know I was, and I sure shared a lot of quality sexual time with other teenagers; at the time, many girls were looking for older partners, too, preferably with a car and money, so it was a little challenging for those of us who were in the same age group. But only a little. :)
Also... again, political correctness aside... as far as I'm concerned, if you want to control access to yourself in a defensible way, you shouldn't intoxicate yourself first, particularly with alcohol. That just indicates to me that you want to slough off your own responsibilities on someone else -- and it raises serious questions about exactly what you said, or even if you said anything at all.
Personally, I wouldn't consider anyone who had been drinking at a party as someone you could make a legitimate sexual advance to, because they're clouding their ability to make decisions and they may not see things the same come the morrow -- and to me, "consensual" is half of what makes sex entertaining; but I'm not, and never was, a 1970's California / Hollywood party person, either. Polanski - and this 13 year old - both were. One more thing: IIRC, mom is the one that raised the objection here initially, not the girl; If she didn't want the girl at Jack Nicholson's crazy party, the time to act wasn't the next morning. I don't think she had a decent leg to stand on.
Like I said above, mention sex, and people go right out of their minds. Polanski's case is a good example of precisely that. The reality of it was zero harm done; the upshot was decades of hysteria and legal stupidity. The supposed "damage" was made perfectly ok, according the word of the "victim", by simple application of money. How ok? To the point where she publicly "forgave" him and wrote a letter in support of him coming back to the US to accept some award or other.
Society has made a huge mistake with this whole "hard line" of age approach. There are teenagers who are perfectly responsible and making considered, reasonable choices about who with and when to have sex (and yes, I'd include older partners as perfectly reasonable choices, legal issues aside), and there are older people, even into the 30's, 40's and later, who couldn't make a reasonable sexual choice if you offered them a million dollars to do it right just one time. We probably ought to issue sex licenses pursuant to a test regime. No license, no nookie play. Because the current approach is unreasonable, unworkable, and mostly stupid.
My partner of many years now is the daughter of a fellow who married his very young secretary. That secretary ended up wealthy, honored both as a wife and a mother, and (unfortunately) widowed, all largely due to the age and experience difference. She picked a mate that had a lot more to offer her than one of her own age -- an excellent choice, as it turned out. One result of that was my own partner, their daughter Deb, who is a wonderful, sensible person who I am profoundly glad is in this world, and who would likely not be here if today's politically correct insanity about age differences had been in force in the 1950's.
So yeah, Polanski: Not nearly as out of line as today's sexual craziness is, and it isn't clear at all that he deserves the vilification thrown at him from some quarters.
Look, medical records should be fields in a database. Not on paper, not in PDF, not in text or HTML files. If there is text, it should be in a text or HTML field. Images embedded in the database should be JPEG or lossless PNG. If you don't put the medical records in a database, you have enormously compromised their primary utility: to be employed for the health of the patient (and others with similar problems.) To insist that PDF is required for medical records is to insist that things be the absolute least functional they could be. Don't go there. If you need a legal document, you print something from the database. If that's not acceptable, change the rules -- don't screw up the database to accommodate litigation, for crying out loud. That's a case of the putting the cart miles before the horse. Medicine is for the patients. Not the lawyers.
HTML documents are printable. Fail.
Everyone.
Here, let me fix that for you: What your clients want... because they are misdirected... is a document that only looks one way. You should disabuse them of that notion, really. That's what I do. Failing that, I tell them to go away.
I'm not an interior decorator. I'm not concerned about matching the writing tone to the fonts, and I don't flap my wrists in false artistic frustration when a sentence moves down an extra line or wraps to another page. I'm concerned that the document be readable, editable, and flexible. I want to be able to set a larger font for readability, to control what emphasis means, and be able to edit the document if I find that useful. PDF doesn't provide this, so PDF is no good. And, although it's not a problem of mine, PDF isn't an accessible format, so that's just more suck.
Hmmmm... does Australia - or even Sweden - have espionage laws that say it is illegal to gather information about the US?
Again, wrong problem, wrong solution. Proper solution: fairtax. No tax forms. No filling out tax forms. No more regressive abuse of the low income folks. And no PDFs.
That's not a reason. That's a mistake.
Instead of just stating this, you should be asking, "Why?" Because there is no good reason for it. If you need to reference a particular section, use section numbers. If you need to reference a particular sentence, then you could even number the sentences if you truly believe they are uncountable otherwise. Likewise the illustrations, tables, etc. You see, as it turns out, there is no good reason for rigid document formatting, and a whole bunch of reasons to avoid it.
Somewhere, someone who cannot think their way out of a paper bag said "documents for our purpose must be..." you just need to find that person and crack them over the head with a clue-bat.