Re: SpaceX
Aren't all rockets "possibly-expodey"? The only difference is the probability of rapid unplanned disassembly.
4161 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
I sort of agree with you, even though I feel guilty about it. Doing exactly what your contract demands shows that you can do exactly what your contract demands. It doesn't show what else you can do that makes you a choice for a promotion, or raise, or job at a different employer. There are a lot of people who think that simply being good at the job they are currently doing is sufficient to move along the career track (indeed, when I was younger I fell into that trap myself), but it can't be. There needs to be something to show that you are somehow developing the skills required for the new role.
None of the laws mentioned affect LGB people, and none of them are "anti-TQ+". Preventing - not delaying - puberty means that the child will never be a physical or psychological adult. Wrong-sex hormones have terrible side-effects only a few years after starting a young person on them. Children as young as 13 are having double mastectomies (https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/breaking-second-lawsuit-filed-in). Minors do not have the ability to consent to these life-changing, permanent physical interventions, commenced in many cases without proper psychological exploration of co-morbidities such as autism, ADHD, depression. Many of them have been the victims of sexual abuse. These laws are not "anti" anything - they are pro-child welfare.
"Sign-off" has a tendency to rapidly become "rubber stamp", and the more accurate the transcriber (whether human or computer) becomes, the less likely the transcript is to be read properly.*
Also, the only way the doctor is going to know if the notes are correct is to keep contemporaneous notes her/himself to refer back to...
*Especially if it gets more [paying] patients through the door.
I came home from work one day to find all the electronics on the side of my house closest to the driveway fried. 2-3 metres away from the furthest fried piece of kit, in the same rooms, everything worked. My neighbours on the other side of the shared driveway (approx 3.5 metres wide) had the same. One of them had been at home and saww a growing ball float between the houses during a thunderstorm, and then dissipate once past the passageway. Fortunately, a) the insurance company paid for the TV, video, and telephone/answering machine, and b) my Atari ST was on the safe side of the house.
... this bus service will take. The traffic varies between easy (across the Forth Road Bridge) to screamingly difficult (tourist/visitor traffic trying to get into the correct lane at short notice), combined with pedestrians crossing roads and the usual range of cyclists from tentative to clueless. When (not if) it all goes wrong, the liability chain is going to make Jarndyce v Jarndyce look like a trip to the small-claims court.
I loved Blueyonder, was quite happy with Telewest, and tolerated VM until we moved house to an area not served by them. That broke the chain, and now we're back in an area "served" by VM, there's no chance I'm going back based on my mum's experiences and what I read here.
If your thinking of the same thing I am, I don't think it was anything more complex than injecting water between two membranes to create an easily variable focal length. They were being heralded as a cheap and easy way to provide spectacles to people who needed them in e.g. poorer areas of Africa, but I don't know what happened to the idea.
I've had a couple of Ford's, one acquired for nowt, the other with malice aforethought. The first one, a Mk2 Fiesta 1100, was meant to be a stopgap, but, as we all know, there's nothing so permanent as a temporary fix - I had it as my only car for years. To be fair, I knew the car (my ex-girlfriend's) and had fixed most of the electrical problems before it passed to me. The bodywork was a different matter - it ended up with two different-coloured front doors and a wing held on with pop-rivets wherever there was enough metal to hold them. However, mechanically it was really sweet - I did thousands of miles, including forest rally stages, with nary a glitch. I'm quite nostalgic for that car, really.
The second - a 2.0 Sierra - for reasons I can't recall became something I felt I must have. It was okay, but the ergonomics left a deal to be desired (the radio could only be safely used on the move if there was a passenger), and boy, was it gutless. One day it started to make an odd pinging noise, and lapsed on to three cylinders. Compression testing showed good on all four pots, but examining the plugs discovered one didn't have an electrode! Head off, number 3 piston had a lump and several pits it shouldn't have. Not Ford's fault, and really a testament to good engine-building. Several months later, the car just failed to start, I was in a position to let it go, so got it towed without any remorse at all.
Tl:dr - I've been quite lucky with Fords.
Yes. Last year we stopped looking at houses through one estate agent (Oulsnam) after we discovered they wanted ID from us. First, the very idea was repugnant, and their Data Protection statement was not confidence-inspiring. We did manage the first viewing without "papers please" due to a cockup on their part. When I asked the seller if they'd had many viewings, they said "No", so I asked if they thought the ID requirement was putting people off. They said "What ID requirement?"...
Is there a difference in the meaning of "double jeopardy" between the USA and the UK? In the UK, it refers to the State not being able to try a person for the same crime again after an acquittal by a jury. There was some fuss about this a few years ago when the rule against it was relaxed if new evidence, e.g. DNA, came to light after the case was heard. The way you are using it seems to be referring to multiple counts - tricky in the example of murder of the same person, but very easy with repeated acts - so is that the correct use in the USA?