Posts by jadebear72

Once the Russians finally chill out—one way or another—do you think Sweden will actually join NATO, or are they just going to dig their heels in and stay out?

If his math checks out—meaning if aggressive tax collection actually forces layoffs—then that’s just how it is. The IRS gets to pick which scenario they want to deal with.

Keep in mind, corporate boards are legally obligated to keep the business profitable. If they managed to stay afloat by dodging their obligations to the government, then once the state actually collects what it's owed, those companies will have to find other ways to make ends meet.

That said, I don't know anything about their specific tax debts. My take? The government needs to collect taxes, and part of this whole mess is because past administrations treated the IRS like some kind of social welfare agency. On one hand, that cooked the books on the actual state of the economy and caused liquidity issues. On the other, illegal moves by the Federal Government opened the door for manipulation. Instead of filing for bankruptcy immediately, companies used tax dollars to keep the lights on until they could rack up debt with private creditors and basically hand over valuable assets to those "creditors" for pennies on the dollar.

Basically, the IRS is like sharks and vultures in the wild. You can call them bloodthirsty predators or stinking scavengers, but they keep populations vital and the ecosystem healthy. If the IRS had actually stuck to its role from the jump, it would have contributed to a healthy economy.

Instead, thanks to orders from ministers in previous administrations, it just helped transfer wealth directly into the pockets of buddies close to those in power.

So, the move is simple: seize every tax debt on time, regardless of how many employees a company has. Unless we have governments capable of maintaining a consistent, legally sound policy for "negotiating" with debtors, and an IRS that actually has some integrity.

northernsailor8 said:It’s a security nightmare and potentially devastating for the environment, but—money is on the table. Then there's the matter of international standing and whether or not we should even be participating in this rare high-level agreement between the USA and Russia...

One has to weigh the options. ☕

Yeah. There's zero cash involved. 😉Joe Biden basically just asked people to do the "humane thing."

The Washington Times is highlighting how Joe Biden mentioned the US might get involved in the plan to destroy Syrian chemical weapons at sea, which has scientists freaking out.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...syrias/?page=1 (pg. 1)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...syrias/?page=2 (pg. 2)

Chemical weapon experts are slamming the Department of Defense's plan to dispose of Syria's chemical arsenal at sea (...)

"There's no precedent here. We're all just guessing and making estimates," says Raymond Zilinskas, director of the Biological Weapons Convention Secretariat. (...) "For instance, you don't even know if the sarin is pure. Iraqi sarin was pretty nasty stuff—it had tons of impurities, and we have no idea if it'll even work for hydrolysis." (...)

"Not a single country wants these chemical weapons being hauled through their territory," Zilinskas noted.

On Tuesday, Joe Biden said his administration is considering joining the effort to destroy the Syrian chemical stockpile—but only if the public is on board.

"The chemicals and how they react are well-understood," a high-ranking Department of Defense official stated. "The Department of Defense has decades of experience handling chemical weapons through various demilitarization programs."

“Absolutely nothing is going to be dumped into the ocean,” the official added.

The Washington Times singled out this guy's statement. Which basically means every single one of those Mediterranean leaders are playing it smart and staying out of trouble—and there are a whole bunch of them. They leave it to their offices and experts to make sure the people proposing this actually know what they're doing.

But then this genius decides to take the lead and goes on record saying that on this matter the citizens will decide—as if the public has any clue what they're talking about or the capacity to understand it. People can decide about this? Please. It’s something they can't possibly make an informed choice on because it requires massive technical expertise. So, naturally, they can either stay quiet or just talk nonsense... whatever they do, the idiot gets to walk away with "glory" and look like some international hero. I wonder if any world leader won't be able to keep a straight face when they see this clown.

Who normally would jump into a high-risk, high-tech operation like this and start blathering to the press, giving general consent and willingness before even knowing the details? What, did he read it in the paper and then decide while sitting on the toilet that it sounded like a good idea? Calling it a "humanitarian act"! How stupid do you have to be to not keep your mouth shut when nobody asked you anything and all your neighbors are staying silent while waiting for the actual experts to weigh in?

It's just twisted—this mind that, after a referendum, now wants to force citizens to perform a "humanitarian act" by destroying someone else's lethal chemical waste right in their own backyard.

Destroying chemical weapons involves electrolysis, which needs water. Probably a lot of it. Maybe way more than a single ship could carry in its tanks. What do we actually know? We can choose to believe, or not believe, unnamed Department of Defense officials claiming "nothing will be dumped into the ocean."

So—we ditched the chairlift, got some fountains instead, and welcomed Snow White. That was our choice.

This whole thing about criticizing the chairlift because it supposedly makes people "lose touch with nature" is straight-up propaganda. It’s basically trying to stage a physical fitness revolution. If Rendolf didn't catch the vibe and logic from the South, he should probably tip his hat, because he hit the nail right on the head.

Looks like a visit from a code enforcement officer or some other agency was enough to make that driving school finally ditch their sign. Either way, it’s been gone since Saturday. Honestly, kind of sucks that nobody else bothered to report it, because that thing sat there for a month straight—just totally random and making it look like driving is some kind of obstacle course...

Anyway, the cops did a sweep (they didn't find the sign), but they mentioned they'll be checking back and having a talk with the people in charge if it pops up again.

Fingers crossed it stays gone.

In case anyone actually cares about how to handle this, I filed reports with the City of Washington, D.C. municipal services (since code enforcement and traffic control fall under the same umbrella), the Highway Patrol, and the dispatch center for Broadway:
-
-
-

It’s not even about who did it—it's just that some driving school slapped up an illegal billboard right at the intersection, positioned perfectly at eye level to block the view to the right where the two-lane road merges.

The sign is a total nightmare. When you approach the junction, you look right, pull up to the main road, wait for traffic coming from the left, and then when you try to peek right again, you’re just staring at a giant advertisement. It creates this massive blind spot in what should be a perfectly clear area. You basically have to edge forward just to see around the thing, then check left again... it's incredibly annoying.

---

Anyway, I reported it to the city council and they started their little process, but get this... apparently, the city has to go through some "administrative procedure" before they can take it down. That’ll probably take a year. Maybe less, maybe more.

So, since the highway patrol is supposed to actually care about road safety, I sent a fax over to my local precinct to report it.

I’m curious if they’ll come up with some excuse for why they can't just move it, and honestly, what's my next legal move here?

I mean, I refuse to believe that in London, a tow truck can haul away a hearse right in the middle of a funeral procession, yet here we are, waiting a year for someone to pick up something that took five minutes to set up. And this isn't just some "aesthetic" issue; it's a legitimate hazard.

I need to vent about how things are handled in the "Law" subforum. People are taking perfectly clear, well-titled, and logical questions and dumping them into that "miscellaneous" mega-thread meant for stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else. I'm not talking about a thread for related topics—I mean a thread that basically has no topic at all.

That catch-all thread is already 40 pages long, and if a question gets moved there, it literally vanishes within a day. Even worse, the "moved" link doesn't even take you to the specific post; it just dumps you at the top of the thread. And even that link disappears pretty fast.

Here’s an example of the kind of question I’m talking about:

THREAD TITLE: What does it actually mean to act "on behalf of" vs "for the account of" someone else?

CONTENT: What are the legal distinctions when doing something "on behalf of" versus "for the account of" another party? Where is the line? Specifically, what’s the difference in terms of the actual paperwork?

Let's say Company A wants to organize a team-building retreat. What would these phrases actually imply:

1) Company B rents a hotel and a bus "on behalf of" Company A.

2) Company B rents a hotel and a bus "for the account of" Company A.

3) Company B rents a hotel and a bus "on behalf of and for the account of" Company A.

A. Thankyou!

On this forum, I try to give serious answers and hold back on the arguments. Sometimes, I actually need an answer myself. I don't post clickbait titles. Dealing with this nonsense is just demotivating and frustrating because the chance of anyone actually seeing my question—and finding the answer later—is basically zero by tomorrow.

It makes sense for forums to have a dedicated thread for a specific topic where people can actually discuss it. But having a "junk drawer" thread is just stupid. It’s essentially a trash can. It doesn't improve the forum's organization—it doesn't really reduce the number of standalone threads—and it makes searching or browsing through the forum a total nightmare.

Anyone else noticed a massive spike in police cruisers cruising around Los Angeles lately? I was driving through town the other day and spotted four or five of them in one go, which felt totally weird.

Is it just me, or is this actually happening? If it isn't, what’s the deal—is it because of Bill Clinton’s trial, or are they just trying to look "busy" since they announced that strike? Or maybe something else entirely?

Look, I’m not being cynical here. Honestly, I want them to get better pay, and I’d rather see more beat cops on the streets instead of a bunch of desk jockeys at the FBI, but when I see patrols out of nowhere like this, it makes me wonder where all those vehicles usually hang out.

Don't we have inspectors for this stuff? Like building inspectors for when people start knocking down walls, or local code enforcement for things like windows and railings?

Out of everything mentioned, apartment renovations seem like the biggest deal since they actually affect safety and property value. There really should be proper inspections for that, and those inspectors need enough teeth to actually verify what's going on inside.

If I were looking into this, I’d probably start by asking questions at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

I've got a "reconfigured" layout in my own place too, but all my interior walls are just drywall—definitely not load-bearing—though I'm not even sure if you need permits for that. I did hear some concrete cutting going on near the entrance once, but I'm banking on the fact that the building is made of those standard 8-inch reinforced concrete blocks, so hopefully nobody's hacking away at anything vital.

But yeah, I get why people are worried.

I see these other issues popping up too, so I'm definitely interested in learning more about it.

---

Regarding the whole heating cost issue, we actually got some quotes for installing remote reading devices. The idea was that every unit would pay for exactly what they used, but the contractors' pricing depended on hitting a minimum number of households switching over. I'm sure there are plenty of other owners in the building paying way more than they should and would jump at the chance to opt out of the shared billing.

From what I recall reading in the news, the utility company is required to offer individual billing to anyone who wants to switch. So, I assume they’d have to find a way to make it work even if only one unit decides to go solo (even though that’d probably be way more expensive if it's even possible).

mistyjackal842 said:They actually asked me for my old contract too, back when I was trying to sign a new fixed-rate savings agreement in early November 2009. My very first one had been signed in early November 2008 for a one-year term. I honestly don't get why there was even a dispute about them needing to review that old rent-style savings contract... they just gave it right back to me anyway.

Is it possible for me to request a formal statement at the end of the year that lists every single deposit made to my checking account regarding this year's interest? I guess I’m just never quite sure if they’ve credited the exact amount of interest they're supposed to. Right now, the only way I can track it is by heading down to JPMorgan Chase every three months to pick up some tiny slip of paper showing the quarterly interest payments. It’s incredibly inconvenient, really, and the little thing is such a mess to read—it isn't even signed or anything.

In my experience, banks generally seem pretty reluctant to hand over official paperwork documenting interest earned on savings. I mean, why do they act like that? And I don't just mean with JPM. Surely I should have the right to see a clear, dated breakdown of exactly when those funds were paid out and what the precise interest rate was on my USD savings.

Would you be so chill if they hit you with a $17 fine just because you couldn't find that old paperwork? I've actually had a bank—Bank of America, specifically—just take my contract from me before.

mistyjackal842 said:They actually asked me for my old contract too, back when I was trying to sign a new fixed-rate savings agreement in early November 2009. My very first one had been signed in early November 2008 for a one-year term. I honestly don't get why there was even a dispute about them needing to review that old rent-style savings contract... they just gave it right back to me anyway.

Is it possible for me to request a formal statement at the end of the year that lists every single deposit made to my checking account regarding this year's interest? I guess I’m just never quite sure if they’ve credited the exact amount of interest they're supposed to. Right now, the only way I can track it is by heading down to JPMorgan Chase every three months to pick up some tiny slip of paper showing the quarterly interest payments. It’s incredibly inconvenient, really, and the little thing is such a mess to read—it isn't even signed or anything.

In my experience, banks generally seem pretty reluctant to hand over official paperwork documenting interest earned on savings. I mean, why do they act like that? And I don't just mean with JPM. Surely I should have the right to see a clear, dated breakdown of exactly when those funds were paid out and what the precise interest rate was on my USD savings.

Back when I held a CD under my business account, the bank automatically sent me a year-end interest statement. It broke down every percentage, how many days it applied, the specific amount earned, and the total interest for the whole period. Sadly, when I tried asking a teller for the current rate, it took them nearly half an hour just to track it down.

It’s pretty funny, though—for the exact same amount, currency, duration, setup (variable rate compounded), and start date, Chase gives individuals one rate (3.4% in this case), but for businesses, the rate is a tiny fraction of that (0.85%). Even though all the terms are identical, apparently to Chase, money isn't all the same.

So, here’s the deal: when you want to close out a CD—like when a client keeps trying to break an auto-renewing term after the initial period ends—JPMorgan Chase basically demands you hand over your own copy of the contract just so the teller can "void" it. Their excuse? They claim it’s so "someone doesn't show up later with that contract." Which pretty much implies—and I'm betting this happens at other banks too—that the bank isn't just shredding the document, but actually pocketing the client's copy for themselves.

If the client refuses to hand over their copy, the teller insists they "have to" charge $17.

Of course, there's zero explanation for how paying those $17 somehow stops "someone from showing up later with the contract." It makes no sense.

But enough about that nonsense. My actual question is: which laws is the bank breaking by doing this? And what’s the move if they refuse to close the account (and return the principal) or if they go ahead and snatch $17 (whether through interest or by dipping into the principal)?

What would be the actual, legitimate way for a bank to terminate a contract? Shouldn't it just be signing an amendment to the original agreement where both parties agree to tear it up?

Because, look, from my experience, you keep legal docs specifically to protect yourself. The whole point of having *my* copy is so that it stays mine. If the bank needs another one, they can go hire a notary to make a duplicate.

On top of all that, this whole "you can't lose this scrap of paper" thing feels like those "unconscionable terms" you see in insurance—like when companies tried to deny claims for stolen cars just because the owner lost the accident report. The Supreme Court stepped in on those kinds of predatory clauses and started tossing them out.

Let’s go over this one more time: do you actually want to be a victim? Someone is blowing up your phone with threats, and what do you and your parents think? That the service provider is going to swoop in and save the day? Like they can just stop one person from threatening you, or magically prevent them from targeting someone else?

The ISP's only job—literally their *only* obligation—is protecting their own network from abuse. They don't have a duty to protect you personally, and they definitely aren't tasked with shielding the entire public from some random individual. Honestly, even if they wanted to, they couldn't.

You need to report this kind of crap to the police immediately. Otherwise, people will start asking why the cops didn't step in sooner. How are they supposed to act if everyone thinks the police should only be called after everything has already gone down, once every other safety net has failed? It’s like going to the doctor or the dentist—you go while it's early enough. Once it's too late, it's too late.

You're really leaning into this victim role, aren't you? What's the hold-up—are you too embarrassed or just too scared to tell the cops and your parents about the psychopath?

If you weren't expecting results like this—especially since you stay on top of your checkups and know your own body—then honestly, there’s no harm in just running the tests again. These "standard" panels aren't exactly breaking the bank, and you don't even need to go private to get them done. Just a heads-up: watch what you eat for a few days beforehand (like, skip the wedding buffet or those protein shakes).

Here’s the price list for the tests. I doubt you'd see a massive difference if you went to a private clinic instead.

And here’s how one of our local private labs describes the tests:

You can also check out this international site for a breakdown of what everything means:
http://www.labtestsonline.org/

*Spike Lee said:So, what's actually driving you to write this? 😉 (leave the math out of it for a second)

It’s just what I said at the start: you can explain anything if you stretch the definition of "pleasure" wide enough. Like, ridiculously wide—to the point where it basically means everything. Someone might say we do what's useful and avoid what's useless. Another person might say we do good and avoid evil. To answer your question directly: I'll say I'm doing it because I seek truth and fight lies. Or I'll say I'm seeking knowledge and fleeing ignorance. It's simple: words are just symbols. If you stretch "pleasure" and "pain" so far that they encompass "good/evil," "truth/lies," or "knowledge/ignorance," then suddenly you've "proven" your point.

Of course it works. In that scenario, "pleasure" just becomes a catch-all for "anything that motivates people to act," and "pain" becomes "anything that makes them stop."

Mathematically speaking, he just said: if a person does something, they did it for reason A or reason NOT-A. Since NOT-A is just everything that isn't A, and A is everything that isn't NOT-A... well, yeah. Great job, genius!

I could argue: I'm not running from fire to avoid pain, I'm running to experience the pleasure of not being in pain.

Honestly, it's just nonsense and empty philosophical posturing about logic.

Using that kind of shallow logic, you could claim: sure, he was a pure atheist who endured torture knowing he'd die without ever feeling "pleasure," simply because his "pleasure" came from the realization that his sacrifice would prevent someone else from feeling "pain."

The question is: why? Why would that give anyone pleasure in the first place.

These kinds of clichés masquerade as profound truths, but they don't actually satisfy any real curiosity.

-------

My personal take, politically speaking, is that the motivation behind these theories is always political: by stating the obvious and the undeniable, you reduce humans to machines, relativize morality, and ultimately strip individuals of all accountability.

Personally, I’d toss that idea out.

If you define things that way, you’d have to massively stretch what we actually mean by "pain" and "pleasure"—beyond just how the brain processes stimuli and dictates behavior.

For instance, anyone who’s ever finished school has felt that "pleasant" rush of clarity—you know, that "a-ha!" moment. It’s the same feeling when someone finally cracks a riddle.

Can we really deny that people solve puzzles because they're chasing that sweet "a-ha!" high? Or that people go to college because they want to dodge the "pain" of being broke or stuck due to lack of education? No, we can't.

And that’s exactly where the issue lies.

Take physicists, for example. They study wave functions and hunt for a single master equation that describes every possible state given certain initial conditions. We could argue that every human action—every thought and decision firing through our biological hard drives—along with every natural phenomenon, is just the result of one universal equation. Wouldn't that be the "correct" explanation?

The reason those explanations technically work is that you can expand the definition so wide that the theory becomes impossible to disprove. But at the same time, you lose any ability to actually predict anything.

I’d ask you: "Predict what I’m going to do next." You’d say: "You’ll do A, but since you’re seeking pleasure by doing the opposite of A, you’ll actually do B... unless I say X... blah, blah." Get my point?

A theory like that doesn't actually help us understand the world because (a) it fails to satisfy curiosity ("Dad, why does it work like *this* instead of *that*?") and (b) it offers zero predictive power, meaning zero control over our environment—no planning, no medicine, nothing to alleviate discomfort.

Regarding (a): even physicists won't settle for "because it's the result of a universal equation." They’ll push further: "But why is the equation shaped like *that* specifically?" Regarding (b): no engineer on Earth gets any value from a law of nature that answers everything but allows for zero actual calculations or predictions.

Honestly, a theory claiming the final answer is just 42 because it's funny would be way more useful.

I’m an early bird right up until > I end up grinding away at work until 1, 2, or even later into the night. Then it's game over. If I've been busting my tail all day, waking up early is actually a breeze.

If you’re dealing with the same thing, your problem isn't "sleep"—it's your PC, the high-speed internet, Netflix, and that sweet, sweet silence you get late at night. Shut down the computer, cancel the Wi-Fi, toss the TV out the window, cut the power, and go buy some chickens. You'll have enough chores to do during the day to make sure you're actually exhausted by bedtime. 🙂