and 55% Hispanic.
This is mostly due to english as a second language.
[Citation needed] that the ~45% of Hispanic college attendees do not complete because English isn't their first language.
Why does the same result not occur for Asians whose first language is also not English? Just single parenthood?
Yes.
Why would you expect the
appropriating the name of the entire continent for themselves, right?
Wait... there's a continent named simply "America"?
When will you be submitting to the academic history of your wife to be examined just as thoroughly?
Wait... now there is a difference?
No doubt you will say the same if/when plagiarism is found by members of the MIT faculty.
War is a terrible thing, doubly so when civilians needlessly die. Hamas chose war, just as it chose not to protect it's civilians from the predictable response which would occur from the from the lawless killing and kidnapping of civilians on October 7th and since, instead opting to hide behind them as human shields.*
Do you have a point?
Or are you seeking to prove the point correct that Dr Gay wasn't forced out because of plagiarism, but because of rampant antisemitism on college campuses such as Harvard which she struggled to condemn or prevent?
*You're welcome to go on your predictable screed about all of the evils you think have been done by Israel, however you demonstrate your point that you not only can't stay on topic, can only play whataboutisms, and are filled with irrational hate which doesn't care to understand how the world works and the laws that govern it.
My citation is the summary.
Thank you for confirming you're only speculating, while attempting to pass off the ideas as facts... sounds familiar. Is yours an alt Dr Gay account?
The examples basically all of the form a passage from the other author(s)
*basically* is a weasel word you are trying to use to defect from the specifics at hand, brushing aside any specific allegations, and before all facts are known. It will be interesting to see how Harvard and Dr Gay respond to the lawyers representing one of the people she plagiarized: https://legalinsurrection.com/...
As a rule of thumb, if you're trying to pass off someone else's work as your own you don't name that person as you're ripping them off.
Pure speculation. Just as likely you name the person you're ripping off in case you're ever accused of plagiarism you can claim it wasn't, but still attempt to benefit from the content illicitly.
The only reason Dr Gay's record of "plagiarism"
Stopped reading at scare quotes, not calling a spade a spade. What's next? More 'duplicative language' euphemisms?
Are they the same standards?
Claudine Gay came under scrutiny because of *her* actions.
His wife came under scrutiny because of his actions.
Can you not see the difference?
Direct accountability vs guilt by association.
Neither Claudine Gay nor Ms. Ackman intended to commit plagiarism,
[Citation Needed]
Claudine Gay had a rather lengthy history of plagiarism *starting* from her PHD thesis and continuing through her later career.
I know nothing of Ms Ackman, time may show similar or different, however your dishonest lumping of the two together at this stage is well... dishonest.
At some point, intent is clear from actions, not words.
and if asked if they had beforehand they'd honestly answer they never had committed plagiarism.
OJ Simpson will also tell you he didn't kill his wife and doesn't know who did... and will seem rather genuine when answering.
Guilty people lie, and sometimes lie so well as to fool themselves eventually.
The Catholics may disagree⦠as they have a Bishop of the Moon: https://web.archive.org/web/20...
Have you looked into what it takes to become an electrician? 4800-16000 hours of work (California-Iowa) as a journeyman. Yes, there may be added demand, also a rather high bar to pass to be able to do such work.
Know what happens when electricians are hard to come by? People do the work themselves, at least residentially. Perhaps the answer isn't maintaining the current incumbent protectionist licensing regime.
Congratulations, you lucked out and got a good government car, not all drivers/owners are so lucky. I've had enough friends try them and run screaming back to ICE vehicle's that my anecdotes outweigh yours.
That's how this works, right?
I'd wager also you're not in a northern state, up here, trading range for heat is not a compelling sell. I had to do an emergency clean-up of a seat in my truck earlier today, and now going to leave it running all night to make sure the wet spots don't freeze and dry, a natural (though slightly expensive) byproduct of an ICE vehicle, where I can be confident that if I am stuck in a ditch overnight, I'm not going to freeze based on how I was driving earlier. 36 gallon fuel tanks are amazing.
The first step is to make it illegal to do it,
Except that's not what this regulation does. At it's core it requires certain sellers to become FFLs and serialize their parts, but has no such requirement on individuals building for their own, or on the machines and software which assist in that.
so there is no doubt and there is a legal basis to intervene if someone does try it.
Intervene... *after* they do it? You're going to find out how?
This is the same fault with expecting that background checks are going to stop mass shootings, ignoring how every single person starts off with a clean and blank criminal background before opting to break the law. Countless eventual mass shooters are able to acquire the tools of their evil legally because there is nothing there, only after they unleash their evil, and are convicted would they be made ineligible, or after a lessor offense, still requiring conviction.
Then software makers can be asked to block printing known 3D gun parts, just like they already block the ability to scan and print bank notes in colour. I'm not sure if software is regulated or not, but all the major commercial packages developed in the US seem to do it.
Notice how you mentioned "major commercial packages"... ignoring what I said previously about open source.
Even if everything you said was implemented, you're only going to catch the lazy and dumb, which might make you feel like you've accomplished something, far far more illicit arms will be built and used that you're unable to stop, not unlike the illicit drug trade today.
Thank you for confirming your solution, like this regulation will do nothing effective.
No, it's about stopping people who might be tempted to become illegal arms dealers because they own a 3D printer and need money.
How exactly will this regulation do that? Be specific.
It's about intervening when some teenager decides to 3D print himself a gun, for self defence or to go shoot up his school.
Again, how exactly will this regulation do this?
Try colour photocopying a bank note. It's not going to stop determined counterfeiters, but the fact that the machine doesn't let you do it is still a useful and effective deterrent to some would-be criminals.
Correct, only who builds that photocopier? Probably a fairly large company who sells to the federal government and doesn't want to be litigated out of business. Sure, a determined counterfeiter may work to hack the scanner and software to get their start, we'll just ignore the bigger complexities of printing.
The same cannot be said for so much of the 3d printing world, nor the CNC machines able to complete an 80% lower or other parts. Large amounts of software and hardware is open source (or already well pirated). The gun genie is out of the bottle, has been for years, and it's wishful thinking to believe that a regulation like this is going to put it back in.
If you've not seen it, take a few min and watch this interview with a builder out of Europe, from nearly three years ago, things have come further since: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
so I'm going to go with a really big "citation needed" here.
Always so entertaining when someone makes a contrary claim, followed by "citation needed", without actually citing anything in the first place.
It's the sort of conspiracy theory thinking which assumes that "though the chain of custody was questionable" (as you claimed above is a valid argument and has any credibility here.
Your claims disagree with what lawyers on both sides said by the end of the proceedings
Here is a copy of the transcript: https://media.marcopolousa.org...
From it:
THE COURT: And you don't have any precedent for that, right?
MR. WISE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have any authority that any Court has ever accepted that or said that they would do that?
MR. WISE: No, Your Honor, this was crafted to suit the facts and circumstances.
THE COURT: I'm concerned that that provision makes me a gatekeeper to criminal charges and puts me in the middle of a decision as to whether to bring a charge. And we already talked about separation of powers and that choice as to whether to bring charges is not -- that's the executive branch, not the judicial branch, so is this even constitutional?
Lawyers aren't saying what you suggest, they make excuses throughout, thankfully the judge saw through the bullshit.
The judge goes on to say as part of rejection of the deal: "These agreements are not straightforward and they contain some atypical provisions."
It sure looking/sounding like you're the one following some misinformation.
The Democrats have been objecting to it continuously since Al Gore lost the election.
Oh I remember. I remember how they were fine with the rules as they were until things didn't go their way. Interesting that!
Sure I can. And so can you with a five-second Google search.
Except that article doesn't link the two arguments, which has been my whole point. She can think the electoral college should be replaced, she can think Trump was an illegitimate president, but until you (or she) provide a quote of her linking those two ideas directly, no, you continue to defend her election denialism. She's spoken more about Russian hacking/collusion than the EC, and in conversations about Trump's legitimacy. It seems pretty clear what she's actually talking about, you just keep trying to deflect.
Here's one from 2000
You mean another one from a hyper-partisan outlet, lamenting the results of an election which didn't go their way? I'm shocked, shocked!
The primary reason for its continued existence is momentum
Again, you keep leaving out important points... like the fact quite a few states like the system as it is, independent of momentum.
That said, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has the potential to work around that design flaw
I'm familiar, and what you call a flaw, I and the framers call a feature.
subject to getting enough states to sign on.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
