Reducing by 100% is not the opposite of increasing by 100%.

I just can't see someone who smokes one joint every Saturday night changing to two joints every Saturday and that causing their grades to drop to literally 0.

That the sun that planet orbits doesn't get closer and closer would be a pretty good indication that the "everthing is doubling in size" explanation for "gravity".

Candy is an impulse buy and something that children will whine and beg for in a checkout line. I don't think pot is really that similar. Plus if it isn't legal chances are you still only gave to walk 30 feet - we are talking about a location where it is available legally for some people. I recall cigarettes and alcohol being easily available in high school because there was always someone old enough to get it and resell it.

I also doubt that smoking 5% more is going to drop your grades by 5%. Smoking double isn't going to drop your grades by 100% after all.

If they have the numbers then they have the numbers (I haven't actually read the study or methodology or anything) I'm not trying to say they are wrong. I'm just saying I don't find it "not surprising".

I find it quite surprising.

Sure being a pot head is going to have a detrimental effect on your grades.

But given my experiences with university in a place where marijuana was not legal I can't believe there are enough students who would not smoke when it is illegal but would when it is legal to swing the overall grade by 5%.

At least he didn't just take 8 bullets to the back.

Making money isn't the motivator for the state and thus that is completely irrelevant.

Australia has no 2nd amendment equivalent and no history of a need to violently overthrow its own government (they used their words so to speak, and will again if the bulk of the people ever decide to go the way of a republic) and thus far less opposition to prohibition of firearms - with a bunch of exemptions.

No. You just can't read it would seem.

"like that" as in "One wants to get paid as much as possible, the other wants to acquire something for as little as possible."

You may notice that was the quoted text. Examples of cases like that that do not result in individual negotiation. No contradiction. Just a counter example to the original claim that the former implies the later.

I want to pay as little as possible when I buy toothpaste. The supermarket wants to get paid as much as possible. And yet we do not negotiate on an individual basis to determine the price. Maybe your supermarkets are different?

You just have comprehension problems.

You claimed they were not hauled or forced. Whether the answers were correct/accurate/truthful/what the askers wanted is irrelevant to that claim of yours.

Most people consider "come and answer questions or go to prison for 6 months" to be forcing you to come and answer.

They clearly aren't smart enough, for the low bar that is wall street.

1. They are teachers.
2. They got caught cheating in tests in the US.
3. They didn't take a deal but instead went to trial and got convicted.

Whether he "fails at business" depends on what the probability of him being caught was and the probability of various sentence options.

How did he "lose"?

He got to be President for the maximum amount of time currently allowed. He got to make a mint (not that he's short a buck to start with) on the speaker tour afterwards. What did he actually lose?

Halo was going to be a Windows and Mac release: http://www.ign.com/articles/19...

Of course it would have been a different game anyway...

None of my questions were "hard". 3 were the street, city, and county and somewhere i had lived - and the correct options where all for one address. And the other question was what bank did you open a credit card with in 2005. So anywhere I had something shipped from that I paid via a credit card had all the answers in that one transaction.