While that would seem reasonable it doesn't reflect reality. You don't actually even need to "do the math" if you know how to count change but it's my experience that the majority of folks simply can't handle making change without the computer. Heck, even WITH a computer they can't always figure it out.

Similar, yes. The difference is you aren't an expert in the field presenting the evidence. That's probably the key to winning: paying an expert to present the evidence. Since the prof in the article is such an expert, he didn't have to pay one to present it.

You must live somewhere like CA where there's lots of sun. Here in Seattle it is less feasible and don't even get me started on Canada, much of Russia and so on.

I agree sales taxes can be harder on the poor in some cases but it's a manageable risk. Blanket statements suchas yours do little more than expose the lack of depth of your understanding. They're only harmful if you assume sales tax is charged on the basics of life. Food, for example, is not taxable in many states. There's no reason the poor shouldn't pay sales tax on a television, however, or a car.

There are ways to make the taxes more fair overall. I'm a fan of the Fair Tax myself which offers a rebate up front every year to everyone that covers the tax paid for everyone up to the income level for poverty. That way nobody pays anything out of pocket until you make more than that base level. I also like that it wouldn't tax used goods. There may be other issues with the Fair Tax that I don't recognize as I am not an expert in the field but that method would seem to work well.

Anyhow, saying a regressive tax is inherently bad ignores that other forms of taxes are too easy to avoid for those wealthy enough to pay accountants and attorneys to do so. How's that any more fair?

Yes, he was. This is detailed in the actual ruling so if you RTFR you'd have gotten that.

He pled guilty to several offenses earlier and was paying off some fines associated with that. When he fell behind on those payments, a hearing was scheduled. When he didn't appear at that hearing, a bench warrant for failure to appear (FTA) was issued. While he may have paid his fine later, the FTA is a wholly separate issue and officers likely had no discretion in that case. FTA is kind of like contempt of court; it's a separate issue from whatever you were supposed to be there for to begin with.

You may have that view, of course, but I take the view that should I be arrested I want to be safe from other inmates. That's one of the duties of an incarcerating agency!

I am not a Mormon and I agree. That article is dealing with specifically posting content. The same information could easily have been summarized, and may now be, on the website without actually infringing the copyright. I can't say I agree with everything any church does regardless of denomination but in that specific case I side with the church's position.

Not a perfect analogy; most mortgage contracts lay out the foreclosure process very specifically. Choosing to stop paying your mortgage doesn't necessarily break the contract, it simply allows them to potentially foreclose on the property. Of course, every mortgage can be different so this may not apply universally.

Do you have Stalkeritis? Do you need that special "treatment" for this serious "medical condition" and just can't manage to convince your preferred provider to, well, provide it? Just call 1-800-Girl-Now! We have genuine look-a-likes for all your medical needs. Offer not valid in all areas, some restrictions may apply. Satisfaction guaranteed, assuming you aren't finicky.

(You may not want to actually call that number; I have no clue what it goes to for real.)

No, that'd be the seniors on Fedicare ... ha!

I'm not opposed to Medicare, BTW.

I could be wrong since I haven't looked it up but rounded corners on a phone wouldn't likely be patent-able but can certainly be considered part of the "trade dress". While both matters covered by "IP law", patents and trade dress are wildly different from each other. I think conflating the two is a bad idea in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress

*facepalm* Yeah, double clicking the preview button auto-posts if you time it just so. Way to go me.

That should have read "You might want to check the actual statute before spouting off about it" ...

before spouting off about it.

There are other parts that apply but this is pretty specific:

I'm not entirely sure but you may have just demonstrated the Dunning-Kruger Effect nicely. :)

As with so many articles I see about "breakthroughs", this is the key bit. The researchers probably just needed another round of funding so they released some information about it. Call me when we actually have serious trials and it's about to start final testing.

While your basic premise is sound, it is not entirely accurate. A law enforcement officer needs a warrant to enter a home, or other private space, uninvited except in cases of exigent circumstances. Now, whether all officers are truthful regarding exigent circumstances after the fact may be debated but the law is pretty clear. We're talking US law, of course.

I went once, not long ago. I'm of the opinion it's stretching the term "museum" to its breaking point. I wish they had more museum-like displays and the owner, when I asked, said they're working on funding. The place is well worth a visit for any pinball fan but don't expect too much "history" other than old machines.