Posts by goldengull3

Lawrence Robinson11 said:Right, and who else deserves the same status? An engineer? I don't know, once he finishes his PhD, maybe he can cut in front of me at the bank next.

A medical doctor is a profession, whereas a PhD is an academic title. You simply cannot compare the two...

I haven't noticed any fundamental difference in how doctors carry themselves compared to the rest of the citizenry; they aren't inherently different from a bus driver or a university professor. It’s simply a matter of stakes—since everyone's health is on the line, a doctor's negative traits tend to stick in our minds far longer than, say, a bank teller or a technician repairing a washing machine.

In my estimation, medicine is an incredibly demanding field of study involving immense responsibility, yet it remains an underpaid profession within the public healthcare system.

Regarding social standing, physicians and judges occupy highly respected positions in virtually every society; in America, that level of deference might even slightly exceed what you'd see in the USA.

hollowtrucker77 said:Need a co-pilot, goldengull3?
🙂
I’ve always had a soft spot for the Pacific Islands, and I can hold my own with a camera...
I tend to favor a boat over a plane whenever possible, but hey, I can be flexible.
😁
The best part is that for most people, anything north of a $1,000 budget is considered pure luxury out there.

I could make that work; I already have a potential pilot in mind...

A boat is a solid option, too, though the distances are daunting. A well-equipped Catalina would be a game changer for a trip like that.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/warbirds_en_...RK%2006.91.jpg

I have a vision of purchasing a seaplane and spending my days drifting between the islands of the South Pacific. I would pass the time immersed in scientific pursuits, photography, and the composition of travelogues.

It’s going to cost her significantly more than the price of those shirts ever would have...

If I were in her shoes, I’d strongly advise seeking legal counsel immediately. Dealing with a court system in a foreign country is a different beast entirely.

Jerry Moore2 said:If local employers find specialized expertise too expensive to bother with, they’ll eventually just outsource those roles to whoever holds more market leverage...

And that is exactly what we are seeing—though I don't think it's strictly a matter of cost. It's more a lack of basic awareness regarding how vital this expertise actually is.

In my experience, foreign firms tend to compensate much better because they actually grasp the value of what they're buying; they understand that if they build a massive warehouse without properly analyzing the market, they'll just end up with an empty building. Meanwhile, among our domestic entrepreneurs, there is still this stubborn, outdated mentality where the physical real estate is seen as the primary asset, rather than the quality of the workforce occupying it.

Jerry Moore2 said:One particular sentiment expressed by a user here caught my eye, though I couldn't be bothered to wade through the entire thread to find its origin..

Does knowledge carry a price tag? What are your thoughts? Specifically, what kind of expertise are we talking about if one expects to be compensated fairly for it..

In America, there’s still a fundamental lack of appreciation for how expensive intellectual capital actually is. People will happily pay a mechanic or a contractor to fix a house, but when it comes to high-level consulting or specialized software services, they balk—claiming "it's just sitting behind a computer all day."

Then, inevitably, the IRS hits them with a massive penalty because they skimped on a quality accountant, or a ransomware attack wipes out half their data because they thought a Cybersecurity Inc. specialist was too expensive. That's when the complaining starts.

To be blunt, I see companies across the States offering essential, cutting-edge services struggling to stay afloat because they're deemed "too pricey." Meanwhile, a firm might turn down a Cybersecurity Inc. contract but somehow finds the budget for a new Audi. They act shocked when a foreign competitor swoops in and captures the market after they stumble, but those international firms usually invest heavily in top-tier experts and drive a Ford. 🙂

I’ve even seen businesses face near-catastrophic failures on half-million-dollar contracts simply because, when hiring for a critical leadership role, they chose the candidate with the lowest salary demand instead of the most capable professional.

Keith Taylor4 said:And maybe some trees. It really would be the right thing to plant something new if the old one cracked...

Regarding being honest before a judge—I agree, though I suspect people from around here have an inherent tendency toward obfuscation whenever they face any kind of authority...

Look, it’s simple. When someone spends their time dodging a delivery, and then wakes up one morning to find two cops hauling them into an interrogation room, a judge is naturally going to view them through a different lens than someone who just cooperates immediately. You know, the type who says, "Yeah, I saw the kids, they swerved hard, hit the tree, totaled my dad's car, and that's that... Oh, and I already planted a new sapling; here are the before and after photos along with the receipt from Home Depot."

Keith Taylor4 said:All in all, we aren't even looking at a few thousand dollars here.

Look, the important thing is that everyone is physically fine; nobody was hurt, and the only casualty was some old sheet metal, which is really the only metric that matters.

Now, one simply has to show up before the judge and hope for a modicum of common sense. Usually—and I mean usually—they deliver.

jadesailor14 said:Are you certain?

Of course. A witness can be anyone capable of testifying to the facts they have personally observed; that is one of the most fundamental principles taught in any American law school.

To be blunt, let's look at the specifics regarding the misdemeanor law:

Witness examination.

Subpoenaing a witness.

Article 174.

Witnesses are typically summoned based on their likelihood of providing information regarding a misdemeanor law violation, the perpetrator, or other critical circumstances surrounding the incident. It is worth noting that both the victim and the victim acting as a prosecutor may be examined as witnesses. Under the law, any individual summoned as a witness is legally obligated to respond to the summons and, unless otherwise specified by statute, is required to testify.

A witness is summoned via written notice specifying their full name, the exact time and location of their appearance, the specific misdemeanor law case involved, and a clear designation of their role as a witness. This notice must also include a warning regarding the legal consequences of failing to appear without a valid excuse. In cases involving minors under the age of 16, the summons is issued to their parents or legal guardians. Furthermore, for witnesses who are unable to attend due to advanced age, illness, or severe physical disability, the law allows for testimony to be taken at their residence.

Quincy:

This has nothing to do with traffic, but I've been wondering about it. My daughters were witnesses to a truly senseless act of violence recently. Some drunk individual decided to strike their friend in the groin with a beer bottle. It was nothing short of brutal—the poor girl had all her front teeth shattered. The guy was completely wasted, acting like he just needed to find a place to set the bottle down and happened to hit her instead. Just another mindless incident of someone's bad decisions ruining a life. Piston was about 23 years old at the time, and his record was practically a laundry list of fighting charges. All three of them were only about 16 or 17 at the time, and even the other witnesses involved were minors. They all gave statements to the police, but nothing ever actually happened to the Piston. The officers made it clear right away that nobody was going to be held liable—there wouldn't even be a case filed to force someone to pay for a prosthetics specialist because there weren't any adult witnesses to back it up.

Police officers aren't authorized to make statements like that. It isn't their place to hand out legal advice, and frankly, they haven't been trained for it.

It is quite simple, really.

If a case involves serious bodily injury, the Department of Justice initiates criminal proceedings automatically. However, if the injuries don't meet that threshold, the burden falls on the victim to kickstart the legal process themselves. From there, you have two paths for seeking damages: you can either file a civil claim as an attachment to the perpetrator's criminal trial, or wait until they’ve been formally convicted of the assault and then pursue a standard lawsuit for damages.

If the injuries aren't classified as severe, the victim really ought to have filed a private lawsuit under the relevant misdemeanor law. From there, they could pursue damages—something that can be handled directly within the criminal proceedings or later through a separate civil suit.

Everything you just said will be dictated to you by some mediocre law student, let alone an actual attorney.

There are actually highly developed, specialized methodologies designed specifically for taking testimony from minors and young children, where specially trained experts assist the court to ensure accuracy. If you're interested in digging deeper into this, pick up any standard criminal justice textbook; they almost always include a section on juvenile testimony.

Keith Taylor4 said:Accidents, by their very definition, just happen. That’s why we call them accidents. Brakes can fail mid-drive, and suddenly everything goes sideways... I heard a story recently about someone whose wheel flew off entirely, sending the car careening into oncoming traffic. A total collision. No fault of the driver involved.

If there's truly no negligence or oversight—meaning the vehicle was mechanically sound—then the cause is purely external. It's bad luck. In those instances, there shouldn't be any penalty.

However, what we are actually looking at here is a loss of vehicle control. Either the car had a mechanical failure, or the driver was simply speeding.

Ford Mustang said:What would the fine be for this misdemeanor law violation in dollars? (Does it matter that it’s my first offense, that I’m a college student, that there was no alcohol involved, and that I have no prior record? Also, I mentioned my financial situation is pretty rough.)

It could be a few thousand dollars, but the judge will ultimately decide. You aren't just going to get a ticket in the mail for this; you'll receive a summons to appear before a judge. When you get there, tell them everything. Be honest about why it happened and swear you won't drive an unsafe vehicle onto the road again—because, at the end of the day, the responsibility lies with you for operating a car in that condition. If you remain transparent and don't try to dodge the facts, you might walk away with the minimum fine, especially since no one was injured and you only damaged your own property. If a tree was broken, go buy a sapling, plant it, and show the court a photo proving you made things right.

By the way, a witness can be anyone; their age doesn't matter.

Keith Taylor4 said:What was the fine actually for?

Causing an accident. Under our laws, you can be cited for causing a traffic incident even if you're the only one involved.

George Rogers3 said:I would change him in a heartbeat, but as I’ve mentioned before, the issue is that everyone is too intimidated by him to actually lift a finger. If this complaint to the building inspectors doesn't yield results, I'll likely throw in the towel. It feels incredibly futile to be the only one fighting for the collective interest when nobody else is willing to speak their mind publicly. It's frankly absurd...

It’s quite simple: you call a homeowners association meeting and vote for a new representative. There isn't much philosophy involved. If the neighbors refuse to participate, then they simply don't care.

At the end of the day, you all elected him...

Jane Doe said:Well, you can't just assume that. What if this professor simply doesn't care about cars or what someone drives? That isn't an automatic indicator that he lacks financial expertise. 😁

I am inclined to agree with goldengull3—until I see a certification and a diploma, we shouldn't be discussing professional Charles Schwab services...🙂

First of all, no professor earns a sub-par salary.

I wanted to add something else, and I regret not mentioning it sooner—I would find it highly impressive if such an expert held a specialization in financial advising from a prestigious foreign private university, paired with international experience. In the States, professional financial advising is a relatively established field, but I often wonder if we actually have enough truly qualified specialists.

Since a financial advisor handles such a critical segment of one's life, I certainly hope they are prepared to produce their credentials, certifications, and various other specialized licenses—much like the documentation I would expect from my doctor or my attorney.

Benjamin Ramos95 said:Why bother importing raw materials when we could just manufacture them right here in America? It’s pretty obvious why they don't: because our politicians own little private import firms, and then they go and sit on the boards of oversight committees at the same time...

It simply isn't feasible. We can't even produce the essential steel plates needed for shipbuilding. In fact, most of this wasn't being produced domestically before the 1990s either, back when we lived in a country that actually possessed its own mines, coking plants, and a complete industrial infrastructure...

Even for the stuff we *could* theoretically make—once you factor in the cost of sourcing from Japan, paying the customs duties, and covering those 18,000 miles of shipping, it ends up being cheaper and higher quality than anything currently manufactured in America. I once had a conversation with someone working directly in the industry to confirm this.

I would appreciate it if someone could explain the logic behind why the US Federal Government is pouring massive amounts of capital into an industry where we rely on foreign raw materials just to churn out vessels at bottom-dollar prices for overseas clients.

Paul Walker8 said:To wrap this up, Ronald Moore8, that capital you're talking about won't yield a single cent toward your goals.

In theory—though reality rarely aligns—a city or municipality issues municipal bonds to fund local economic development projects within its jurisdiction...

I'm dying to know if anyone actually included a platform like that in their campaign promises for the local elections this Sunday. 🙂

coastaldrifter10 said:The Federal Reserve manages and regulates the nation's monetary and credit capacity. They set the discount rate, which serves as the benchmark for how commercial banks borrow from them. Furthermore, they oversee financial institutions and money markets, specifically managing the credit potential of commercial banks; by extension, they dictate the maximum credit limits banks can extend to their clients for specific purposes and durations.

Consequently, I am convinced that the central bank has room to intervene here.

While the Federal Reserve can certainly manage total money supply, they aren't in the business of deciding who gets a specific loan. At the end of the day, a bank operates just like any other private firm. If consumer loans—the kind used to buy designer labels or a $1,000 prom dress—yield the highest interest margins, then the bank is perfectly justified in funneling capital there instead of into entrepreneurship. It is their capital, and they will deploy it wherever the return is greatest.

I personally see nothing wrong with this logic. The President certainly has the right to call on banks to contribute more to the economy—and it was a smart move to do so—but he doesn't have the authority to coerce them. Banks function as private enterprises, and there is nothing problematic about prioritizing profit; they invest where they see the best ROI.

Besides, the government still has Wells Fargo, the Federal Reserve, and plenty of other levers to pull to support economic development.