I am at the mercy of my children's whims, so I listen to Hamilton constantly. But it's likeable enough that I do enjoy it.
Did you get a permit before you dug the rut?
The thing about Sr Garcia is that all that happened to him was a fine of a year's salary after stoppages, so he's well ahead of the game with 5 - 13 year's money banked while he's presumably been working contracts for himself. And in very large organisations it would be quite easy to do, especially if your job normally entails being out of the office a lot. I read about a guy in America who had full time jobs with two companies in the same building for a couple of years. He'd come into Firm A in the morning, greet everyone, then calmly walk out and downstairs to Firm B. After a day's work at Firm B, he went back up to Firm A and said his goodbyes. He only got caught when somebody from one company saw him actually going into the offices of the other. Probably it goes on a lot more than we think.
I still remember (fondly) the story of the IT guy who got caught having two jobs, neither of which he actually did. He just emailed whatever he was assigned to do to a company in China, paid them to do it out of his own pocket, and then submitted whatever they sent back to him as his own work product. Apparently they charged enough less that he made pretty good money sitting around playing on the internet at whichever job he was supposed to be making an appearance at that day, and it was years before he was caught. I'm not sure what happened to him, though. I think they might have just shrugged and promoted him to a higher up position where he could do it more effectively.
For an IT guy that's a very workable solution, plus it provides work for people in China, which is a net good. I hope the two employers he was working for didn't both promote him though, because that would undermine my faith in something or other.
Sr Garcia is described as an engineer, but I don't think IT. Probably some kind of civil engineer, which means he could plausibly be on site somewhere most of the time.
I was also late to the Hamilton boom -- I hadn't listened to it online, but got the soundtrack last October (I think), and really like it.
To LB, I would say that part of what makes it so impressive is the scope of the project and the whole arc of the story. I think the individual songs are generally good, but I like it much better as a complete album than I would if I just heard bits and pieces of it.
Also, I have to say, Lin-Manuel Miranda is just insanely charismatic and likable as a public figure. For example, here's him writing a song for the Tony's a couple years ago (and NPH performing it).
Several responses to the link (a la Steve Martin in Roxanne, but maybe not so funny):
1) They probably thought he was out of the office, water-boarding.
2) How'd they find out, by water-boarding?
3) If only American water-boarding were no more gruesome or efficient.
Who hasn't been seduced by the sexy sirens of the Planning and Zoning Commission?
I'm sorry, but my hero for the day is Justice Kagan, who began a dissent issued today with the following:
Imagine a friend told you that she hoped to meet "an actor, director, or producer involved with the new Star Wars movie." You would know immediately that she wanted to meet an actor from the Star Wars cast--not an actor in, for example, the latest Zoolander. Suppose a real estate agent promised to find a client "a house, condo, or apartment in New York." Wouldn't the potential buyer be annoyed if the agent sent him information about condos in Maryland or California? And consider a law imposing a penalty for the "violation of any statute, rule, or regulation relating to insider trading." Surely a person would have cause to protest if punished under that provision for violating a traffic statute. The reason in all three cases is the same: Everyone understands that the modifying phrase--"involved with the new Star Wars movie," "in New York," "relating to insider trading"--applies to each term in the preceding list, not just the last.
That ordinary understanding of how English works, in speech and writing alike, should decide this case.
Here's the next bit, citation to the statute omitted:
Avondale Lockhart is subject to a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for possessing child pornography if, but only if, he has a prior state-law conviction for "aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward." The Court today, relying on what is called the "rule of the last antecedent," reads the phrase "involving a minor or ward" as modifying only the final term in that three-item list. But properly read, the modifier applies to each of the terms--just as in the examples above. That normal construction finds support in uncommonly clear-cut legislative history, which states in so many words that the three predicate crimes all involve abuse of children.
9,10: Full opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-8358_o7jp.pdf
I must say, in my lay opinion, I think that Justice Kagan has the better of this argument, which makes me wonder why it was a 6-2 decision against her interpretation.
11.2: If we were just going to rely on an "ordinary understanding of how English works" than why would we need lawyers at all?
An article points out that both sides cited to Scalia's book on interpreting legal text.
9, 10: CharleyCarp, when was the statute in question passed? Current legislative drafting style would number each of those elements out to eliminate the ambiguity, like so:
-----
...if the defendant has a prior conviction relating to misconduct toward a minor or ward for--
(1) aggravated sexual abuse;
(2) sexual abuse; or,
(3) abusive sexual conduct.
---
Or:
----
...if the defendant has a prior conviction for--
(1) aggravated sexual abuse;
(2) sexual abuse; or,
(3) abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.
-----
Presumably this style was created to avoid just this kind of decision, but older statutes (even just 20 years ago) don't always use this kind of hyper-structured drafting.
I think every court case that hinges on statutory interpretation gives every legislative drafter heart palpitations--how can the two halves of statutory law (Congress and the federal courts) misunderstand each other so frequently? We're sort of like poets who have to watch an English class pick apart our friends' poems--if that's what they think those words mean, what absurd interpretations will they find in mine?
(John Roberts' opinion in King v. Burwell was passed around Capitol Hill like a gift from the heavens--for once, a judge that assumed Congress was trying to do something that made sense, and sought an interpretation that supported a sensible outcome.)
12.1: Maybe because us non-lawyers don't know than from then.
13 -- well, at least you guys just lost the most prominent proponent of "it is an outrage to our legal system to even pretend to look at what Congress was trying to do and assume that they were trying to do something that made sense, because that ignores THE LAW."
But it's not just a problem for statutes. The rule of the last antecedent is probably prompting ... maybe 5,000? 10,000? 50,000? --lawsuits and pre-litigation fights about contract interpretation in the United States, right now.
was passed around Capitol Hill like a gift from the heavens--for once, a judge that assumed Congress was trying to do something that made sense, and sought an interpretation that supported a sensible outcome
Well, except for the part that used an incredibly dubious theory to gut a key part of the statute, but it was definitely a net win.
I actually thought the Rule of Lenity was designed to apply in exactly this situation -- when it's not that clear what Congress was trying to do, you find in favor of the criminal defendant. But I guess the Court disagrees.
(John Roberts' opinion in King v. Burwell was passed around Capitol Hill like a gift from the heavens--for once, a judge that assumed Congress was trying to do something that made sense, and sought an interpretation that supported a sensible outcome.)
Do a search on the words "such Exchange" in Roberts' and Scalia's opinions. Roberts seems to find the language difficult, but ultimately resolves the ambiguity in favor of Congress' obvious intent and the fact that the language is not, in fact, ambiguous, outside of SCOTUS sophistry.
For Scalia, however, the language is clear, and he provides an example that shows that it, in fact, clear - and says the opposite of what Scalia says. As with much Scalia reasoning, it's really embarrassing to anyone who can read at an adult level.
11: do you not buy the bit about how the clause refers to section 109A which has section 1: "Aggravated Sexual Abuse", section 2: "Sexual Abuse", and section 3: "Sexual Abuse of a Minor or Ward", thus the "sexual abuse of a minor or ward" interpretation is preferred?
If you asked for "cake, cookies, or pie a la mode" and got cookies a la mode you'd be a little surprised, right?
||
Unofficial Preliminary February Warming Numbers ..Slate;Finally an article that takes this seriously.
Our planet's preliminary February temperature data are in, and it's now abundantly clear: Global warming is going into overdrive.Using unofficial data and adjusting for different base-line temperatures, it appears that February 2016 was likely somewhere between 1.15 and 1.4 degrees warmer than the long-term average, and about 0.2 degrees above last month--good enough for the most above-average month ever measured.
Using the conservative 0.2
November 0.1
December 0.2
January 0.3
February 0.2
These are cumulative so up 0.8 in 4 months;2.4 in a year; 0.8 C
"Keep in mind that it took from the dawn of the industrial age until last October to reach the first 1.0 degree Celsius, and we've come as much as an extra 0.4 degrees further in just the last five months."
Spiking; I'll now give it a 60-70% probability that we blow thru 2.0 degrees C by election day. And then of course, we will have no reason to believe that 3.0 and 4.0 are decades off.
"In fact, El Niño's influence on global temperatures as a whole is likely small--on the order of 0.1 degree Celsius or so.
So what's actually happening now is the liberation of nearly two decades' worth of global warming energy that's been stored in the oceans since the last major El Niño in 1998."
"There, small island nations on the front line of climate change set a temperature target of no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius rise by the year 2100 as a line in the sand, and that limit was embraced by the global community of nations. On this pace, we may reach that level for the first time--though briefly--later this year. In fact, at the daily level, we're probably already there. We could now be right in the heart of a decade or more surge in global warming that could kick off a series of tipping points with far-reaching implications on our species and the countless others we share the planet with."
|>
A resume is a document used by persons to present their backgrounds and skills. Resumes can be used for a variety of reasons, but most often they are used to secure new employment. Resume is very important for people who want to find a job. A good resume will help you a lot in finding a satisfactory job, so learning to make a impressive resume sample is of great significance. Some online resources like http://www.formsbirds.com/resume-templates is good free resource for students to learn to make their own perfect resume.
Just when you think the spammers are getting smarter.
Aren't you sort of looking, teo? Maybe this comment was a sign!
I read all the way through 20 confidently expecting a Scalia-related punchline. Alas, no.
18: I think Section III of Kagan's dissent adequately addresses that - if Congress had wanted to refer back to the first 3 out of the 4 headings in 109A, they could have referred to "the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or sexual abuse of a minor or ward." She agrees that in that case, the modifier would unambiguously apply only to the last term, to distinguish it from the second term. But instead, they used the phrase "abusive sexual conduct," which suggests they had something else in mind.
Academic types might like to make a hero of this lecturer:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/lecturer-caught-working-fulltime-for-two-colleges-26338477.html
In the end he didn't get to keep both pensions.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/double-jobbing-lecturer-
must-pick-one-pension-112094.html
I'm now at 1.5 jobs, because I'm only half Irish.
A true Irishman would have three jobs? Or a true American would have two jobs, and thus you have one job for your American half and half a job for your Irish half, totalling 1.5?
My other ancestors are from Italy and not the industrious parts so I figure them good for one job. At best. (1+ 2)/2 = 1.5.
Congratulations, if that's good, or I'm so sorry, if it's bad?
Italians are perfectly reasonable ancestors.
I assume so. It's not the first time somebody has wondered how I feel about my ancestors.
This is fabulous! "Watch the Schuyler Sisters Rap Feminist Quotes"
Phillipa Soo, Renée Elise Goldsberry and Jasmine Cephas Jones, who play the Schuyler sisters in the Broadway musical Hamilton, were invited by Glamour magazine to rap feminist quotes in honor of Women's History Month.