H E A D L I N E S : 2 0 2 2 & 2 0 2 3
- Thread starter titan
- Start date
- Status
I'm stunned.
NBC-TV's Jeopardy host & champion Ken Jennings just taught me:
instead of trying to do the mental arithmetic to determine 12% of 75, instead figure 75% of 12. = 9
I wasn't sure if he was joking so I tried it with a few other numbers. It seems to work.
I'm not sure why, or if there are exceptions to the rule.
12% of 75 = 9
75% of 12 = 9
80% of 8 = 6.4
8% of 80 = 6.4
7% of 250 = 17.5
250% of 7 = 17.5
411% of 3 = 12.33
3% of 411 = 12.33
"Live & learn."
NBC-TV's Jeopardy host & champion Ken Jennings just taught me:
instead of trying to do the mental arithmetic to determine 12% of 75, instead figure 75% of 12. = 9
I wasn't sure if he was joking so I tried it with a few other numbers. It seems to work.
I'm not sure why, or if there are exceptions to the rule.
12% of 75 = 9
75% of 12 = 9
80% of 8 = 6.4
8% of 80 = 6.4
7% of 250 = 17.5
250% of 7 = 17.5
411% of 3 = 12.33
3% of 411 = 12.33
"Live & learn."
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Multiplication and division are commutative. That is (a*b) = (b*a). Same goes for division.
So
12% of 75
= (12/100)*75
=75*(12/100)
=(75*12)/100
=(75/100)*12
=75% of 12
Same logic holds for the rest of your examples.
Op-Ed: Does the 1st Amendment protect a right to discriminate?
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that threatens to open the door widely to businesses being allowed to violate anti-discrimination laws. If the court rules that the 1st Amendment protects the right of business owners to discriminate — based on claims of freedom of speech or free exercise of religion — civil rights laws banning discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation will be severely weakened everywhere in this country.The case before the court, 303 Creative LLC vs. Elenis, involves Lorie Smith, a graphic artist and a web designer. She wants to design websites for weddings, but she refuses to do so for same-sex weddings because of her religious beliefs.
Colorado law prohibits businesses that sell or offer services to the public from discriminating based on “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.” The law also prohibits businesses from displaying a “notice” that “indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods [or] services ... will be refused” based on a protected characteristic.
Op-Ed: Does the 1st Amendment protect a right to discriminate?
Simply by taking a case involving a same-sex wedding, the justices signal interest in carving out exemptions from long-standing civil rights laws.
I'm not comfortable leaving this decision to the Roberts court.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
We've already seen similar cases re bakers who refuse to bake wedding cakes for same sex marriages.
Or if you go back a few years Maurice Bessinger used exactly the same arguments when he refused to seat blacks in his chain or restaurants. He lost - a unanimous decision where the Justices ruled that his arguments were "frivolous".
Or if you go back a few years Maurice Bessinger used exactly the same arguments when he refused to seat blacks in his chain or restaurants. He lost - a unanimous decision where the Justices ruled that his arguments were "frivolous".
S2 #46
I remember the wedding cake deal.
The reason I find this so alarming is not merely the nature of the law suit, but that the Roberts court, the one that just overturned Roe will be deciding on it. I find that extremely alarming.
I remember the wedding cake deal.
The reason I find this so alarming is not merely the nature of the law suit, but that the Roberts court, the one that just overturned Roe will be deciding on it. I find that extremely alarming.
In this rare case I'll have to settle for bitter pessimism.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
If the Supremes say that the graphic artist doesn't have to do work for same sex weddings it's only a matter of time before someone decides to extend that to mixed race marriages. After all, it's not that long ago that a Louisiana JP refused to issue a marriage license to a mixed race couple. And if that's fair game, what's next?
Precisely.
Violent ‘bank jugging’ robberies on the rise, California police warn
“Bank jugging” involves thieves staking out potential victims in bank parking lots and then following them to their next destination to rob them.Popular shopping centers are prime areas for suspects searching for their next target, police said.
https://news.yahoo.com/violent-bank-jugging-robberies-rise-152616320.html
Russia’s Investigative Committee, which probes major crimes, said it was looking into the cause of the fire.
The head of the Moscow region’s emergency services agency said it appeared the blaze was the result of safety regulations being violated during repair work on the building.
Fire rages through shopping mall in Moscow suburbs
Fire engulfed one of the largest shopping malls near Moscow early on Friday, emergency services said, leading to the collapse of part of the structure, which complicated firefighters’ efforts…
nypost.com
Shiftless2
Well-known member
My understanding is that she doesn't have any LGBT customers. She just wants to post a notice on her website that says hetero marriages only.
S2 #52 > S2 #48
Reductio ad absurdum.
If this web designer tricks these authoritarian "justices" into granting web designers authority to discriminate, what about at the grocery store, or the post office, or the doctor's office? Looks like The Sorcerer's Apprentice to me.
Reductio ad absurdum.
If this web designer tricks these authoritarian "justices" into granting web designers authority to discriminate, what about at the grocery store, or the post office, or the doctor's office? Looks like The Sorcerer's Apprentice to me.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Agreed - this is the thin edge of the wedge. If the Supremes let her do that the question is "what next?"
Shiftless2
Well-known member
My prediction .... same sex marriage is the next thing that's going to be attacked.
A friend of Ted Cruz' son?
Have Republicans thought this through? To start with:
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me."
pastor Martin Niemöller
By the time their chew-chew train has momentum, they think they'll be able to protect their own pet interests from it?
And what benefit do they expect? Delighting a rabid minority within the electorate?
PS
Seems to me anyone that deliberately, knowingly uses TikTok is colluding with the ChiComms. HEADS UP PEOPLE !
Shiftless2
Well-known member
If they're going to go after same sex marriages it's only a matter of time before mixed race marriages come under the microscope (Clarence Thomas better watch out).
And then there's birth control - a sizeable percentage of those opposed to abortion want birth control banned (even for married couples). It took a Supreme Court ruling to legalize the pill countrywide. And many of those individuals are opposed to sex education in schools.
And then there's birth control - a sizeable percentage of those opposed to abortion want birth control banned (even for married couples). It took a Supreme Court ruling to legalize the pill countrywide. And many of those individuals are opposed to sex education in schools.
Clarence Thomas Might Have Just Broken the Law in the Supreme Court
By Darragh Roche On 12/9/22 at 7:40 AM ESTU.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas may have broken the law by refusing to recuse himself from a high-profile Supreme Court case, according to legal scholar Laurence Tribe.
Tribe, professor emeritus at Harvard University, told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell that Thomas may have violated 28 U.S. Code § 455 because he has not disqualified himself in Moore v. Harper, a controversial case about the power to draw and strike down electoral maps.
The statute cited by Tribe deals with federal judges disqualifying themselves from cases and he argued that Thomas was in violation of the law because of "two provisions that almost any lawyer would say require Clarence Thomas not to participate at all."
United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas poses for an official portrait at the East Conference Room of the Supreme Court building on October 7, 2022 in Washington, DC. Thomas has not recused himself from a case involving the power to strike down electoral maps. Alex Wong/Getty Images
"One of them says that a justice—and it specifically applies to Supreme Court justices—may not participate if somebody could reasonably question that justice's impartiality," Tribe said.
"Clearly that's the case here," he said, and he also cited a section that says a justice shouldn't be involved if their spouse has an interest in the case.
"It's obvious that Ginni Thomas has an interest," Tribe said. "She was an active participant in the attempt to use something like the independent state legislature theory that was before the court on the argument on Wednesday and Clarence Thomas happily participated anyway."
In Moore v. Harper, North Carolina Republicans are asking the Supreme Court whether state courts have the legal authority to throw out electoral maps and order districts to be redrawn. The justices are considering the so-called "Independent State Legislature theory," which holds that courts do not have the power to strike down maps drawn by state legislatures.
Clarence Thomas might have just broken the law in the Supreme Court
Justice Thomas has not recused himself from a case involving courts' power to strike down electoral maps.
www.newsweek.com
Shiftless2
Well-known member
"Might??"
- Status