which is, most countries tax profits made within their borders. That is, if Google made money in France, then they must pay taxes in France. So, demanding that these companies pay taxes twice, on the same overseas profits, is not reasonable. Which, IIRC, was the point of why the tax exception was written that way.
I recently took a position at a small industrial equipment manufacturer. We are looking to buy a new ERM software package and my boss, who is looking forward to buy the thing, knows nothing about computers or software. I will be providing basic IT training to the senior management and I am looking for your input on the scope and content of said training. I am thinking: basic components and architecture -> networking -> software -> proprietary vs open source. What do you think?" This has less to do with tech, than it does with salesmanship. What you are selling here is information - you have to teach them in a manner they will "buy" it. To start, in order to be successful, you should learn who you are "selling" to. Some SM's will want to know everything, some just want to know how much it will cost and how much trouble, other may want to know how it will improve the company. Know your audience is the first step to successful "sales". Save your tech jargon and KISS, and keep your pitch in terms a 7th grader can understand. PP is a good idea, but I think it would be good as a simple back drop, if you use PP, then PP should serve only to reinforce your points. Don't be the guy who puts up a PP slide, then reads off of it - you'll lose them quick that way. My suggestion is to build your presentation and allow for a Q and A, maybe as you go along, or maybe at the end, but I think it is a must that you allow them to ask questions and then answer in front of all of SMs. I suggest a step by step response, so you can make sure they understand it as you go along. One SM may not want to see it the way another does, or may not know how to ask the right questions, biut another does, so this will help you make your case without risking blowback, like "you never told us that in presentation."
is to use a remote mike either on the conductor or on an ensemble member, to simply speak the precount or downbeat. or a footswitch, to be stepped on in time to to music, although this can be tricky with different count ins. The footswitch could be rigged to a relay, that would "thump" the underside of the piano bench or a chair. either could be used with a small amp and small monitor speaker, or maybe an open ear ITE monitor
West Virginia, then South Ohio...
is Ammunition (and ammunition making equipment, like reloaders) control. Nowhere does any of these proposals address that. Simply put, a gun with no bullets is as deadly is a brick. And if it was as hard to buy bullets as it is to buy prescription narcotics, then we would not have nearly the number of gun related deaths we have now.
"Should one aggregate and publish with intent to criminalize law-abiding citizens in the eyes of the public?" You tell us you can read the minds of the publisher? You tell us that you can divine the intent of someone you do not know? Get real. And you create a false equivalency. #1 - the paper published what is a matter of public record. for all we know, they could be doing this to let people know who to go to in case they happen to need the help of a person who owns a gun. Certainly, my interpretation of the paper's motive is just as valid as yours is, and is supported by the same facts, which is to say, none. But the truth here is that a gun owner has a huge responsibility that comes with owning a deadly weapon, and they are obligated to be "above" and to be wiser than than others, just as a black belt is obligated to avoid a fight until he or she is attacked. Gun owners should be harder to provoke, and more level headed, and more observant about other's actions and attitudes. And above all, they should never threaten someone with bodily harm, nor death, nor threaten property. They should never brandish a weapon, unless under real and present threat of attack. And certainly, the gun owners should not be trying to intimidate the press for printing public information which they do not like. And I say this, because I own a gun, and was taught from the day I could pick up a gun - always assume its loaded, do not handle it until you have visually checked it to make sure it is not loaded, do not point it at anyone, unless you are fully prepared to kill them, never put your finger on the trigger until you are prepared to shoot, and be practiced enough that you are certain that you can hit your target the first shot. Which is why I find the ranting for owning any type of rapid fire weapon, an admission that the person is too stupid and untrained to be able to hit the target on the first shot. You want to defend your home? Get a nice 16 gauge pump shotgun. Just aim in the general direction and you are gonna hit something with one shot. And if it happens to be a home invader, the sound of the thing is enough to scare them off. And you won't risk your
.223 or .40 caliber ammo going through walls of your house and hitting somebody in the next room, either.
please, then, explain your interpretation of the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, which qualifies the second phrase. That is, are you part of a well regulated militia, and tell us how you are "well regulated"?
the gun nuts say everyone should have guns to protect themselves, yet here is a business hiring guns to protect itself from gun nuts... Oh, forget it,they will never see the irony of it....
how you are able to divine the intentions of people that you have never met and do not know?
the gun owners demonstrate why they should not own guns. They lose their cool and react in hate and threats. People who are that uncontrolled can't be trusted to operate a firearm under stress or for the right reason. They should have their guns taken away until the grow up. The paper published what was on public record, so the gun owners try to intimidate the press - threaten death and violence- for publishing something they didn't like. but is readily available. W T F
Pick someone you can blackmail...
I was stopped by a full of attitude cop, for what he claimed was "speeding". Even though he had no radar gun, he claimed I was doing 50 in a 35mph zone. A lie, I was doing 35. I asked him how he determined that and he said he "paced" me. He was nosing around trying to find something to charge me with, when I said, well, I won't disagree with you, but my car has a data logger, so I guess we''l have to sort it out in court. He wheeled around with a mad look on his face and asked me to explain. I told him that the car records all operational information with a time stamp, (I was fibbing, but, hey, I knew the cop was wrong about speeding), and the data can be downloaded. This made him madder, and he demanded I open my trunk (he was off his rocker- I have a wagon). Then he yelled at me about how I can't record cops. I said, sorry, it's all automatic and it does not record conversations, just data and location, via GPS. Like how long I have been stopped here at this location, how fast I was going, and speeds linked to location, turn signal use, brake use and rate of braking, acceleration etc. He realized that he was in trouble, should he give me a ticket, and I produced the data in court, so he yelled at me for being on the road late at night and drove off. These things can work both ways, you know.
The Power search tool, in the uTunes store is gone. For those who use this to find versions of a song, or research other tunes by artists, this is a valuable tool
impair driving skills. like emotions, anger, fatigue, etc., and there is no way to test for that. I would rather ride with a pot head than a person who just had a fight with his or her SO. Or someone who just got unfairly fired. I think there are way too many people driving who are angry, hurt, stressed, showing off, and they make the worst drivers. But my two cents is that US drivers should be thoroughly tested every five years, and that includes a road test.