Willie

They requested the delay to July, since he is in court for another case in another area. I suppose it was reasonable to grant it. It’d be unfair for someone to not get their right to a trial, even if they were found guilty of a crime in another area.

It’d make more sense to keep him in custody in the meantime though. I mean, that’s what they do for normal people. Right?

Ready for nothing to happen?

Yeah, that’s the internet for you. Anything you want to stay around will vanish someday, and anything you want gone will be here forever.

Yeah, you get to pick your cat in Prism.

I haven’t seen any of these bad boys in probably over a decade. They used to be all over the place.

Steam will do refunds to the payment method used if fewer than 30 days have passed, but after that point, they’ll only refund to Steam Wallet. At least, that’s how it worked last time I checked.

Nope,

I preheat the oven consistently but don’t consistently read terms and conditions or license agreements.

I know exactly what she’s thinking from that expression.

How unprofessional.

Samsung’s clock application did this pretty well, where you don’t even have a reset count button until you press the button that stops the stopwatch from counting.

I mean, they’re useful instructions. How often at the time did you need to take a photo of the tv? And you were likely not going to know how the photo looked until you got it developed, so it’s important that you get the photo right the first time, because there may not be a second chance, since you’ll have to run down to the pharmacy, grocery store, or wherever you get your photos developed, and wait for them to come back to see that you messed it up or not, and by then, your parents may have turned the console off.

I’d imagine we’d see insurance invest money into making offers to providers. They’d refer the patient to a health insurance company instead of negotiating, and in exchange they’d get a large one time payout for a successful referral. This would please investors in the providers, because they’d see short term gains, and it’d please the insurance company because patients would be forced to have insurance again. Everyone (with money) wins!

Can we really handwave away the whole Adam and Eve thing though?

If we do, then what did Jesus die for?

While there’s no ‘and’ after ‘(A)’, it appears that’s the standard format for a list like this. Every list of x, y, and z in this bill is written in the same way. It seems like it’s supposed to be written like you would a list you give in English. There’s a list of conditions under which a prisoner can be transferred to a prison closer to their home when near release time, and the conditions are listed in the same exact way.

‘‘(2) TRANSFER TO INSTITUTION CLOSER TO RELEASE RESIDENCE.—A prisoner who is successfully participating in an evidence-based recidivism reduction program shall be considered by the Bureau of Prisons for placement in a facility closer to the prisoner’s release residence upon request from the prisoner and subject to—
‘‘(A) bed availability at the transfer facility;
‘‘(B) the prisoner’s security designation; and
‘‘© the recommendation from the warden of the prison at which the prisoner is incarcerated at the time of making the request.

There’s no way they will allow you to transfer to a prison that has no space for you, so long as you can fulfill both B and C, it’d be physically impossible! It’s clear they intend for you to meet all 3 requirements, just like in the segment being discussed by the supreme court in the article. There’s also like a seven item list of responsibilities the Attorney General has in the bill too, formatted with the same (A); (B); ©; … (G); and (H) format. And there’s no way they let the dude just pick which task from the list he’s responsible for. Once you become familiar with the bill’s format, it’s extremely clear how this is supposed to work.

I feel like that specific issue is pretty cut and dry, but that’s just me.

So I looked it up, and the law appears to be worded like this:

‘‘(1) the defendant does not have—
‘‘(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
‘‘(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
‘‘© a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;’’

So let’s simplify this into English. Because the header says that “The defendant does not have” and then has subsections, we will append that idea to the start of each subsection.

The defendant doesn’t have more than four crime points

and

The defendant doesn’t have a 3 point offense

and

The defendant doesn’t have a violent 2 point offense.

Simplifying it down like this makes it seem like the way it is written is the more strict way the supreme court decided on. It sounds like the supreme court is correct in this case, but they don’t know why they’re correct, since their reason is all wrong.

Let’s look at it this way.

Condition 1 is to disqualify anyone with 5 or more crime points.

Condition 2 is to disqualify anyone who has committed any crime that is worth 3 crime points.

Condition 3 is to disqualify anyone who has committed a crime worth 2 points, but only if it is a violent crime.

So basically, they intend for a violent crime worth 2 points to disqualify you, and they intend for any 3 point crime to disqualify you as well. And they intend for having 5 points to disqualify you.

Worrying about the value of added points is missing the point of the wording of the entire set of rules. Especially if there exist crimes worth 1 crime point. There’s a whole range of crimes you can commit and still qualify.

You could commit:

Up to 4 crimes worth 1 point each.
Up to 2 crimes worth 1 point each, as well as one non-violent crime worth 2 points.
And up to 2 non-violent crime worth 2 points each.

The point of condition 1 is to put a cap on the amount of crimes worth 1 or 2 points you can commit.

I hope this helped you understand it the way I understand it.

So by putting a stamp on an absentee ballot, therefore paying the postal service to deliver it, am I committing an Alabama felony? Or are interactions with the postal service explicitly exempted from it?

And be careful, a lot don’t have built in speakers either. Don’t just expect to get a TV out of a commercial display.

Well, it shouldn’t be hard to write in an exemption just for folks with wheelchairs. It’s almost a non-issue.

Windows has been getting worse and worse all the time. With any luck, as Windows gets worse, interest in Linux will rise on its own. But it’s hard to say what tomorrow brings.

No, it’s better to be honest. The average user isn’t ready for Linux, because Linux is not ready for the average user. I’d never try and get someone to use it if they’re not already interested. I hate that it is this way, but it is. Linux is only really for people who already want to use it. Because if you’re not interested in using it, you’re not going to put forth the time investment to gain the benefits from it. No matter what angle I look at it from Linux is not for the average person.

Your second paragraph says it all. Find out if the user needs to dual boot? The answer is obviously “No” because no matter what they’re using the computer for, Linux is unneeded for them, since they have Windows. There are tangible benefits to using Windows, since it runs their software, meanwhile, you failed to list any real benefits to using Linux for the average user. It’s faster? No, not really, since they’ll be learning how to use it, and even ignoring that, it’s not so much faster that they’ll perceive it anyway. It’s more secure? Not really, Windows is the better choice for the average user in that respect, since it’ll automatically force them to restart the machine every week to install security updates. Main choice of professionals? That’s not entirely true, and even if it were, it’s not relevant, the average user is not a professional. And for anyone who already owns a computer already running Windows, Windows was ‘free’ too.

The only time to have this discussion is if the user is having a PC built, and then the answer is also “No” to Linux, because they’re going to buy Windows anyway, since it’s better for gaming, and that’s the primary reason for someone to build a PC, unless they’re doing a specialized task like video editing, and if they are invested enough into the task to want a PC just for that, they have specialized software that almost always runs only on Windows, and even if it were able to run on either, it’s not my place to alter their workflow.

The real elitist attitude is thinking people need to use Linux in the first place. For me and (maybe) you, it might get the job done, but for my family and friends. It’s better that they use what they’re comfortable with. The main point of a computer is to accomplish tasks, and giving them Linux is a hindrance to that.

Linux is great, but it’s not for everyone, and it may never be.