The Contractor vs. Employee distinction is based on typically a 20-factor test, which focus on the amount of control the Principal exerts over their Agent and the various aspects of the work (See, e.g. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/f...). Controlling the rates that customers pay goes to the control over how and with whom the Agent performs work, but the list of factors is neither exhaustive, nor is any single factor necessarily determinative.

Not only is it 1 card per week, it's also a RESTAURANT gift card. Great for whenever they open for business again!!!

In the bay area, craigslist is a must for apartment searching. You are doing yourself a huge disservice if you don't. Demand is so great here that you just post a craigslist ad and professionals just show up in hours ready to sign applications and background check authorizations. There are lots of landlords who are renting out part of a multi-unit, or renting an in-law unit and they don't go through commercial sites. I've seen lots of places based on Craigslist, and ultimately rented our last apt from a craigslist ad.

Consent to sex can be voided under the law if that consent was provided under false pretenses. The result isn't necessarily rape, which is traditionally the criminal act of sexual intercourse under force or duress (traditional rape laws are somewhat narrow and gendered, and focused on the element of penetrative sex). However, un-consented sexual contact can give rise to a claim of sexual battery or sexual assault, which is more closely related to the concept of battery (offensive or harmful touching of the body). A common law-school example is someone consents to have sex because the other person promises they don't have an STD. However, in reality, they do have an STD - that scenario can result in sexual assault.

Some jurisdictions have modernized their criminal code to either expand the definition of rape, or include a definition of sexual battery that subsumes the concept of rape, or makes rape a specific version of sexual assault.

Back in the day, the RAZR was stylish and impossibly thin. One could even say impractically thin. The thinness made it hard to use as an actual phone, and the extremely flat buttons were difficult to use, and the battery life was mediocre. It was so small and light that you could slip it in your pocket and forget it's there. It's almost as if they optimized the experience for when you weren't using it.

This new iteration looks much the same. It has mediocre specs, and unimpressive battery capacity, and it costs a boatload. The difference is that smartphones have ballooned in size, and this design lets you carry a relatively large screen phone in a much smaller package (when closed). Plus, there isn't much in the smartphone market that currently lets you have a "small" phone. I could see the form factor holding value for women (or anyone using women's clothing and accessories), because fashion hasn't really tracked with smartphone size trends, and some people might want a device this size that will fit comfortably in their pocket, or a small clutch. I think the price is a real sticking point, because you're really paying out the nose for that form-factor, and the phone on paper is years behind the times (besides the fancy folding screen).

I wish it worked as a phone when closed, and was ruggedized for running/fitness applications, where the smallness of it would be a benefit. Being a foldy-screen, it's probably not well-suited for that.

Nah, if they caused cancer, we'd put a Prop 65 warning label on them like most things in a grocery store.

Just because you are collecting a fee and possibly writing off all of your taxes due to massive capital losses doesn't mean there are profits at the end of the day. Tax write offs reduce your tax liability, but don't actually put anything into your coffers. They are letting their scooters get impounded because they are ten kinds of incompetent. They don't have the logistics to manage their fleet of scooters. They aren't even re-buying their scooters from impound in many cases.

The scooters retail for around $400, although I don't know what their wholesale price is. I read previously that these scooters had no projected break-even point because their durability/lifecycle meant that they would *never* pay for themselves. Some scooter companies are moving to a more robust design that is much more expensive and durable, which probably also has no projected break-even point.

The reason why you are wrong is that you have not presented terms or facts that would constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. Taking an action that benefits executives *rather than* shareholders does not necessarily violate a fiduciary duty because this is no where near precise enough. An action that solely acts to benefit executives, and not serve the interests of the corporation is usually a breach of fiduciary duty (e.g. having the corporation purchase an executive's vacation home, which is only for that executive's personal use), but an action that merely benefits executives *rather than* shareholders (e.g. paying bonuses to executives instead of converting every excess dollar into dividends) can still benefit the corporation, and be in the shareholder's best interest. You're acting like you have some sort of slam-dunk argument when your own words and understanding are maybe half-way there. In reality, there are many actions that an officer can take that "benefit executives rather than shareholders" that are within their discretion as a fiduciary. You just don't seem to understand the concept.

While true, companies are still usually composed of humans making decisions. Companies are less likely to fire permanent position individuals because they've typically been through more vetting, training and personal development, tend to carry more responsibilities, and the company has invested more in them. This is not rational behavior, mind you, just another form of sunk cost fallacy, but it still plays a part. Companies tend to work much harder to 'make it work' with perm employees than the contractors that fill the gaps with less permanent ties.

Your answer is so off-base that it's not even wrong, it's simply irrelevant, but here goes my attempt to address some of your inaccuracies.

For individuals versed in the First Amendment, and religious rights jurisprudence, both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are understood to provide the substantive basis for the concept of "separation of church and state" (SoCaS). The two are the same thing. What you mean to say is that SoCaS does not mandate a complete division between state action and any religious entity.

Unless you live in the 19th Century, this concept is not a legal position that has come about 'lately'. It has, in fact, been repeatedly upheld by generations of the SCOTUS, and doctrinally the concept of incorporation has existed for over a century. In the past decade, every sitting justice has penned, or joined in an opinion that explicitly relies on incorporation in some way, and it cannot be maintained that the notion is either a recent development, or not broadly accepted.

It certainly interacts with the 10th Amendment, but the Constitution is abound with interactions between and among its several clauses. Understanding these interactions, as opposed to suggesting that they cannot occur, is required for any sort of meaningful understanding of the law.

No, as this is equating any religious activity that seeks public funding as necessary to the free exercise of that religion, which has never been held to be the case. Your faith may require you to build a rocket ship out of elephant tusks and diamonds, but that doesn't mean the state is obligated to fund such an endeavor. This example just fails to parse either of the 1st Amendment religious rights in any meaningful manner.

On this point we are in complete agreement. You have vividly demonstrated what it looks like for an individual to lack any substantive understanding of incorporation, or religious rights, state action, or separation of church and state, whatsoever. I agree it's complicated, non-intuitive, and easy to get wrong, just as you have done here.

(the quick and dirty as to why this isn't unconstitutional is because the issuance of a municipal bond basically allows an electorate to vote with their dollars as to whether they wish to fund a project of some kind. The issuance of the bond is not considered an entanglement running afoul of the Establishment Clause because the funding is ultimately sourced from private investors. Religious rights jurisprudence is already a doctrinal mess, and we don't need you getting it so wrong.)

This is very "green lantern-ish" sounding to me. The way it's explained here: http://time.com/2987551/thor-m... makes it sound like whoever wields Mjolnir is Thor. Current Thor becomes unable to wield the hammer, so the hammer choses someone else, who happens to be a woman. She becomes Thor, and previous Thor becomes "big muscular guy but not superhero" or something.

You're referring to Darrell Issa's debunked congressional report on the IRS group flagging. It was demonstrated to be false a few weeks later when IRS filtering procedure documents provided via FOIA request demonstrated that the IRS flagging terms included more progressive search terms than conservative, and flagged more progressive groups for review. Your facts are simply wrong. This does, however, demonstrate the power of misinformation in the manufacture of controversy.

Unless it was a systemic problem, or there was otherwise a generally high level of failures that occurred during that time. I'm not saying there is nothing to see here, but merely that it doesn't actually have to be a coincidence. At least when republicans were covering up their alleged misdeeds, they just told congress, "NO," instead of producing these elaborate excuses.

In what drug-induced hallucination did you convince yourself that such a fiction as a civil union equal to marriage could ever have existed? Let me clear that up for you right now. There is no such thing as a civil partnership that gives equal rights to marriage. There was never such a thing, there was never going to be such a thing. There was no way for our nation to pass laws that would bring it about. Federal law ensured, in no less than 1,400 separate legal provisions, that civil unions were not equal to marriage in the eyes of the law. States refused to recognize the unions of other states. Same-sex couples in civil unions were denied familial visitation rights, inheritance rights, tax treatment, etc. etc. of married couples. Conservative state legislatures were actively crafting an untenable framework to prevent equal treatment of CU couples for the past several years. It strains incredulity, and rings profoundly insincere to suggest that marriage equality came about after the LGBT community rejected an equivalent, attainable legal status in civil unions, not to mention the callous disregard for reality that maintaining such a fiction requires.