If the IOC had been smart, they would have also trademarked the factorization (2 * 19 * 53) to ensure than any year derived from any of those was also kept in check. Heck, just trademark the number "1"…
I'd be interested to view the same statistics framed in a per-capita context to see whether it's just because population is rising (and thus there's a corresponding rise in output). I suspect that, even looking at the per-capita stats, one would still see a rise, but it would be helpful to have that included.
The filing runs only two pages but is loaded with adjectives.
The two-page, bare-bones Summons With Notice accuses the newspaper of "falsely, maliciously, recklessly, slanderously, libelously and irresponsibly publicly stating in the interactive website www.lohud.com that plaintiff First Impression LLC is a licensed handgun owner."
I presume you're talking about the surfeit of adverbs?
My first thought was to use the star+digits (e.g. *57 or whatever) for reporting after the call. Thich is both easy and reasonable for the telcos to implement. Issues I saw:
- marketing that the feature is available. This can be addressed with money which the telcos certainly seem to rake in hand-over-fist. I still remember *69 from the telco advertising back in the 80s.
- pranksters that report people. This could be mitigated by the telcos maintaining a "this phonenumber/source has received more than N complaints from more than M recipients" tally, and only take action against those that exceed a certain threshold.
27-28% isn't nearly as much as the 6-year increase at 1987 which was +76% total (and a jump of almost +90% of base tuition). No wonder academic publishers figured ridiculous pricing hikes were the norm. For Harvard to complain that it "far exceeds not only the consumer price index, but also the higher education and the library price indices" sounds a bit rich to me. Literally.
Prices for online content from two providers have increased by about 145% over the past six years, which far exceeds not only the consumer price index, but also the higher education and the library price indices
my first thought on reading this article was "Hmm, there's a business opportunity here for somebody to set up an auto-request-extensions business because this judge isn't meeting the needs of his government customers..."
Which is why the redaction-of-the-final-letter(s) case interested me :) Does one treat it as if the terminal "s" is there, or does one treat it as if it's not an "s", or is there some peculiar exception for redacted letters?
From your first two links, it sounds like either is acceptable as long as one is consistent. :)
commnet.edu: "Some writers will say that the -s after Charles' is not necessary and that adding only the apostrophe (Charles' car) will suffice to show possession. Consistency is the key here: if you choose not to add the -s after a noun that already ends in s, do so consistently throughout your text."
purdue.edu: "James' hat is also acceptable."
Personally, I'm from the Strunk & White category that would use "James's" (or in this case, the original "Mr. Smarta**'s" as was in the post), but I can't see things like that without at least wondering about it.
Even if you wanted to argue that it's somehow "good for the economy" to artificially prop up pharma companies with longer and stronger patents, if it comes at the expense of public health, that's not going to help the economy at all. A healthy population is a consuming population. Letting people die around the world is not good for the economy.
Do you have any studies backing this? My gut feeling is that people with endangered health assume a "whatever it costs" desperation, even if it means driving them to the brink of bankruptcy (or over the edge). And if the poor are a burden on society's coffers, their deaths free up funds to better stimulate the economy.
Unless of course, there are causes more important than a free market... :-)