I doubt they could charge him with a sexual offense, given the statute of limitations.
Note that there is a difference between the actions of an individual that the rest of the party had no clue about, and the actions of an individual that the rest of the party comes rushing to the defense of.
Hastert is most certainly the former - dude does something criminal/stupid long ago, but the rest of the party has no clue that it happened. Note that no one credible in his party is defending his actions, pre or post.
There are however plenty of examples of politicians in a certain other party that have committed outright crimes, yet are hotly defended by their party at large.
It's a pretty big difference.
They didn't charge him with the sexual crime most likely because the statute of limitations ran out on that a very, very long time ago. So... they'll settle for nailing him with this.
I get that, but why target the money when you can instead target the illegal activity, and point to the money-laundering activity as evidence thereof?
IIRC, the original 1980's-era laws were only interested in transactions $10k or greater. The Patriot Act addiction/enhancements were to use semi-regular transactions of under $10k as 'structuring' (that is, to try and close the workaround of, say, withdrawing or depositing substantial amounts under $10k on a semi-regular or regular basis.)
The overall effect is to make you a felon if you cannot fully account for (and prove!) where you got or spent the money. The mortgage payment? Yeah - easy to account for, so you're not a felon. Taking money out on a regular basis to support a pricey hobby where you don't keep all the receipts? Now you're a felon if the Feds decide they want you to be one. This is why it's a bullshit law - it can be very easily abused by the first federal prosecutor who has a hate-on for you, and by the way, happens to know that you throw around a lot of money that you don't have all the receipts for.
Water can be nice, but don't skimp on the ventilation!
This - especially in Western Oregon, where doing that indoors without adequate ventilation is just begging to be plagued with black mold, dry rot, and worse.
OT: I'd lay in a shitload of 3/4" conduit from room to room, and from a central closet/location to all rooms (in case I wanted to put in some sort of server). Terminate each with a blank wall-plate until/unless I needed one for something. That way I could always upgrade any wiring. The rest is simply fungible at this point.
In almost any climate, there are a lot more productive ways to use your land than raising an eternal crop of stuff you just cut and throw away.
Err, not really. Some of us have dogs (makes dealing with dog crap easier, and gives them an open area to play on). Others of us have kids (which are usually happy to have something relatively soft to play on). A few others of us use grass as actual pasture for small livestock such as goats and sheep (at least out in rural areas). And, as you pointed out, grass clippings make great compost.
Agreed with the rest, though a funny thing: the house I live in was built in 1905, yet the porches are perfect for shading out summer sun but letting in winter sun... and unless you're a septuagenerian or older, the porches are the same age as the house - older than the two of us combined. It also has a central HVAC setup built in where the fireplace/chimney used to be, making heating and cooling highly efficient throughout the house. The only thing we really had to do was insulate the crap out of it, and replace a couple of old single-pane windows still in-place with triple-paned ones.
No it shouldn't. If gender is a predictor of ability then the probability distributions are BY DEFINITION not independent. If therefore you use the knowledge of gender after evaluating ability then you are treating them as independent variables when you combine them. This is mathematically bogus.
Actually, that's just mathematically simplistic. Here's what your reasoning does not account for: There are leanings, abilities and competencies that do not exist in isolation from other influences. Gender can be one of those. Therefore, to the extent that affect is possible, it is a valid consideration.
It could be a positive for either sex.
For instance, the air force has definitively determined that females are significantly better at maintaining more comprehensive situational awareness in complex aerial situations. This is because of a real world gender-based difference in information processing.
On the other hand, if one was hiring a bouncer, the competencies lean strongly the other way.
There will be outliers, of course, but that's why we need to think about these things rather than operate by rote. The law, unfortunately, but needfully (due to blind prejudice), specifies decision by rote. This is why many parts of the decision making process have gone missing from public view.
What evil is Google perpetrating, exactly?
In this case (there are certainly others), they are using deceptive reporting to mislead people on the current state of affairs. Ask yourself why they would do this. The answer isn't "because they are angels."
What they should do is publish relevant and clear statistics on the issue instead of attempting to obfuscate the relevant issues at hand.
Try to keep up. It's really not that difficult.
Am I right, or am I right?
You seem fringe left to me. But hey, perhaps you're just trolling. Difficult to tell.
Comparing "murder" with "reporting the race of Google employees in a way you don't like" is a little hysterical, don't you think?
Sure it is. Why are you doing it?
Do you simply love the smell of straw in the morning? Is there a crow problem where you live? C'mon, give over. Inquiring minds want to know!
There is an issue of readability that crops up when maintainance is a consideration. Serious regex reads like APL after being put through a shredder.
I'd rather not use a regex if there's something clearer available:
On the other hand, when writing my own language (yeah, I know, shut up), one of the very first things I did was incorporate regex handling, so WTF.
Or how about don't use tabs at all because it's dumb?
Yes. Much better to type 4 or 8 spaces when you could have just hit tab once. I totally see your point. You bet.
Can I subscribe to your newsletter?