If you could default on your school loans, the standard procedure would be for virtually every student to declare bankrupcy the day after graduation. Most of them don't have any credit worth protecting. 10 years later, they their still have their degree. They are noticable richer, and they have a clean credit report. No doubt, lenders would also quickly stop even counting the bankrupcy if filed within a year of college graduation anyway, as they would know exeactly what was going on.
There is no need for a patchwork of random cable/phone companies to trench all over the place. What we would all love is to have a random cable/phone companies pulling their cable through pipes that the city buried through a single trenching. Thus giving us massive competition while letting the municipality handle the pipes which they have a great deal of experiance in.
The person who was mugged was an eye witness to identify the mugger. If stopping violent crime where the criminal can be identified with both physical evidence and eye witniesses while carrying around a tracking device to make sure they are easiliy caught, is considered to be the police being "commandeered and led off on a fishing expideition", then we don't need them. At that point, they are no longer police, but mercenaries for business and government.
According to the reports we are reading here, yes, many are taken by force. They likely don't need a warrent due to the GPS transmitting giving them probably cause. Even if they do need a warrant, that isn't a big deal.
You also need to keep in mind that "Environmentalists" did not call out Al Gore when he spouted complete BS. They implicitly accepted him as their spokes person. When that blew up, they tried to distance themselves.
No, it was a robbery. It was someone stopping you and either committing a violent act against you, or threatening to believably enough that you would hand over $500 worth of your personal property.
He is refering to the fact that they assign lots of officers to anything that will produce revenue. A few years ago, in my city, that included fining girl scouts for putting money in people's parking meters at Christmas so that no crime would be commited.
Exactly. The 'thefts' are more specifically ROBBERIES. That means it is a violent crime, not someone slipping a CD into their pocket. The police have no problem showing up at a Target to arrest a non-violent shoplifter. They are refusing to go and arrest violent criminals who are carrying physical evidence of their crime.
Too late. The robbery already took place. The police have the exact location of a known violent criminal, an eye witness, and physical evidence. If nobody goes and deals with the problem, THAT is what is risking life. The alternative is subsistance living, because with no law enforcement against violent crime, the mere act of owning any personal property becomes "risking your life."
Muggings. The GPS on the phone is a GPS to a violent criminal. We are not talking about shoplifting here. We are talking about one person threatinging or doing bodily harm to another. Other than that you are right.
Because there is more manpower hired to do road patrol than to do arrests of violent criminals who have been identified and are holding GPS evidence of their crime.
We need to stop refering to it as the theft of a phone, and describe it with the more accurate turm of violent robbery. As armed robbery when it warrants.
That is BS. We are talking about violent criminals who are holding evidence of their crime. Even if the phone wasn't worth investigating, muggings are. These phones are being stolen via muggings. At a minimum, holding people against their will while you take their phone. At worst, real beatings with a real chance of injury or death. Cops not investigating the stolen phones isn't an issue of cops ignoring petty theft. It is an issue of cops ignoring violent criminals who have been served up on a silver platter with evidence of their ciminal behavior in their possesion, and eye whitneses ready to testify.
Not believing that my children and I are genetically superior to the rest of the human race is 'awfully consipiratorial'? I suppose you could be right, but then if you are, and my children and I truly are the next level of human evolution, then you should take my word for it that kids can read at 3. After all, my genetics make me smarter than all of the people you have previously been listening to.
I don't buy that my children and I are simply genetically superior to nearly the entire human population. You can try to convince me otherwise, but it seems more likely an industry group with an interest in making a false claim is spreading a myth than it is that my children and I are really that far about the rest of the human race on the evolutionary scale.
This is a key line that needs to be in any discussion on teachers salaries/qualifications. A 1st grade teacher simply does not need the same qualifications as an AP science teacher.
Except that you are completely wrong, and your myth is perpetuated by an echo chamber of 'professional' educators. They are the same ones that say 2 and 3 year olds can't read.
That you projecting. Your genital insecurities do not make guns anything like dildos. In fact, one has to wonder what kind of sick fantasies you have that would make you see the two as being related.
That is stupid anit-gun logic. By that logic, you would be happier to have no police force than to have a bunch of cops gang raping you. Or you would be happier to have no job at all than be stuck in your office while the building burns down. Or, you would rather that a grocery store not exist in your neighborhood than to get botulismfrom one of their products.
On the other hand, if your son is depressed enough to shoot himself, having a length of rop and rafters, or even kitchen knives is just about as dangerous. And, burglers as a rule don't burgle armed with a gun. If someone is entering your house with a gun, they are doing it to do you bodily harm. If you happen to be a huge man well versed in martial arts, then you likely don't want anyone armed. Otherwise, the gun becomes more than an equalizer, because in sane states, the intruder who shoots a homeowner goes to prison for murder, while the homeowner that shoots the intruder does not.
The reason that I am "fixating" on BOTTLES is because we all already know that you don't drink from a Pawnee water fountain. But there are legions of people claiming that disposable bottles are posing a special risk that is not posed by any other drinking vessles. Barsteward is one of those people. He made the claim. I called him out on that claim. That is where you came in. You clearly did not read Barsteward's post, as it sounds like you agree with me that the "plastic bottles pose a special risk of infecting water dispensers" claim to be ridiculous.
The claim was that it was specifically plastic bottles that cause the problem. Not plastic cups. Not metal bottles. Not ceramic cups. The claim was that there was something specific to disposible plastic water bottles that was causing people not using the plastic water bottles to become sick. That is simply not a believable story, and saying that people were getting sick from plastic water bottles because plastic cups were making people sick is not an explination as to how plastic water bottles made people sick.
The claim that it was specifically plastic bottles that caused the problem. Your description applies to cups as much as bottles, AND also applies to faucets. You will have to try again if you want to come up with a plausable explination for barsteward's claim.
Slashdot Mirror
If you could default on your school loans, the standard procedure would be for virtually every student to declare bankrupcy the day after graduation. Most of them don't have any credit worth protecting. 10 years later, they their still have their degree. They are noticable richer, and they have a clean credit report. No doubt, lenders would also quickly stop even counting the bankrupcy if filed within a year of college graduation anyway, as they would know exeactly what was going on.
Employers must love you. You actually want to let them off the hook for unemployment payments.
There is no need for a patchwork of random cable/phone companies to trench all over the place. What we would all love is to have a random cable/phone companies pulling their cable through pipes that the city buried through a single trenching. Thus giving us massive competition while letting the municipality handle the pipes which they have a great deal of experiance in.
The person who was mugged was an eye witness to identify the mugger. If stopping violent crime where the criminal can be identified with both physical evidence and eye witniesses while carrying around a tracking device to make sure they are easiliy caught, is considered to be the police being "commandeered and led off on a fishing expideition", then we don't need them. At that point, they are no longer police, but mercenaries for business and government.
My comment was in direct response to 'Environmentalists' trying to distance themselves from Al Gore.
According to the reports we are reading here, yes, many are taken by force. They likely don't need a warrent due to the GPS transmitting giving them probably cause. Even if they do need a warrant, that isn't a big deal.
You also need to keep in mind that "Environmentalists" did not call out Al Gore when he spouted complete BS. They implicitly accepted him as their spokes person. When that blew up, they tried to distance themselves.
No, it was a robbery. It was someone stopping you and either committing a violent act against you, or threatening to believably enough that you would hand over $500 worth of your personal property.
He is refering to the fact that they assign lots of officers to anything that will produce revenue. A few years ago, in my city, that included fining girl scouts for putting money in people's parking meters at Christmas so that no crime would be commited.
Exactly. The 'thefts' are more specifically ROBBERIES. That means it is a violent crime, not someone slipping a CD into their pocket. The police have no problem showing up at a Target to arrest a non-violent shoplifter. They are refusing to go and arrest violent criminals who are carrying physical evidence of their crime.
Too late. The robbery already took place. The police have the exact location of a known violent criminal, an eye witness, and physical evidence. If nobody goes and deals with the problem, THAT is what is risking life. The alternative is subsistance living, because with no law enforcement against violent crime, the mere act of owning any personal property becomes "risking your life."
Muggings. The GPS on the phone is a GPS to a violent criminal. We are not talking about shoplifting here. We are talking about one person threatinging or doing bodily harm to another. Other than that you are right.
Because there is more manpower hired to do road patrol than to do arrests of violent criminals who have been identified and are holding GPS evidence of their crime.
We need to stop refering to it as the theft of a phone, and describe it with the more accurate turm of violent robbery. As armed robbery when it warrants.
That is BS. We are talking about violent criminals who are holding evidence of their crime. Even if the phone wasn't worth investigating, muggings are. These phones are being stolen via muggings. At a minimum, holding people against their will while you take their phone. At worst, real beatings with a real chance of injury or death. Cops not investigating the stolen phones isn't an issue of cops ignoring petty theft. It is an issue of cops ignoring violent criminals who have been served up on a silver platter with evidence of their ciminal behavior in their possesion, and eye whitneses ready to testify.
Not believing that my children and I are genetically superior to the rest of the human race is 'awfully consipiratorial'? I suppose you could be right, but then if you are, and my children and I truly are the next level of human evolution, then you should take my word for it that kids can read at 3. After all, my genetics make me smarter than all of the people you have previously been listening to.
No, it is not difficult to do well.
I don't buy that my children and I are simply genetically superior to nearly the entire human population. You can try to convince me otherwise, but it seems more likely an industry group with an interest in making a false claim is spreading a myth than it is that my children and I are really that far about the rest of the human race on the evolutionary scale.
in the upper grades
This is a key line that needs to be in any discussion on teachers salaries/qualifications. A 1st grade teacher simply does not need the same qualifications as an AP science teacher.
Except that you are completely wrong, and your myth is perpetuated by an echo chamber of 'professional' educators. They are the same ones that say 2 and 3 year olds can't read.
That you projecting. Your genital insecurities do not make guns anything like dildos. In fact, one has to wonder what kind of sick fantasies you have that would make you see the two as being related.
That is stupid anit-gun logic. By that logic, you would be happier to have no police force than to have a bunch of cops gang raping you. Or you would be happier to have no job at all than be stuck in your office while the building burns down. Or, you would rather that a grocery store not exist in your neighborhood than to get botulismfrom one of their products.
On the other hand, if your son is depressed enough to shoot himself, having a length of rop and rafters, or even kitchen knives is just about as dangerous. And, burglers as a rule don't burgle armed with a gun. If someone is entering your house with a gun, they are doing it to do you bodily harm. If you happen to be a huge man well versed in martial arts, then you likely don't want anyone armed. Otherwise, the gun becomes more than an equalizer, because in sane states, the intruder who shoots a homeowner goes to prison for murder, while the homeowner that shoots the intruder does not.
The reason that I am "fixating" on BOTTLES is because we all already know that you don't drink from a Pawnee water fountain. But there are legions of people claiming that disposable bottles are posing a special risk that is not posed by any other drinking vessles. Barsteward is one of those people. He made the claim. I called him out on that claim. That is where you came in. You clearly did not read Barsteward's post, as it sounds like you agree with me that the "plastic bottles pose a special risk of infecting water dispensers" claim to be ridiculous.
Bingo. Until they outlaw hot chicks from jogging, "Distracted Driving" laws are complete BS.
The claim was that it was specifically plastic bottles that cause the problem. Not plastic cups. Not metal bottles. Not ceramic cups. The claim was that there was something specific to disposible plastic water bottles that was causing people not using the plastic water bottles to become sick. That is simply not a believable story, and saying that people were getting sick from plastic water bottles because plastic cups were making people sick is not an explination as to how plastic water bottles made people sick.
The claim that it was specifically plastic bottles that caused the problem. Your description applies to cups as much as bottles, AND also applies to faucets. You will have to try again if you want to come up with a plausable explination for barsteward's claim.
With an 8" x 8" device stuffed into some orifice.