0
Searching for facts from different files or sources.
What else can I help you with?
What has the author Charles T Schmidt written?
Charles T. Schmidt has written: 'An assessment of the processes of factfinding and advisory arbitration in Connecticut public employment labor disputes, 1965-1969' -- subject- s -: Collective bargaining, Government employees
What has the author Sharad Kerur written?
Sharad Kerur has written: 'Factfinding' -- subject(s): Collective bargaining, Collective labor agreements, Teachers
How do you take a sound card out and replace with a new sound card i need details of proper procedure?
go ahead and remove the cover shut down system, remove the sound card, reboot with the card NOT INSTALLED. let the system get the idea that there ISNT A CARD IN IT. a few clicks later go try and shut down your computer normally.... ATTACH your new sound card... replace ethe cover of your system. power up the unit. as it is rebooting, MAKE SURE ALL YOUR CABLES ARE CONNECTED... speaker,,, in the right hole,,, microphone,,,, etc.... left click sSTART..... left click ACCESSORIES.... left click ENTERTAINMENT... left clickVOLUME CONTROL.... the reason is because usually THE OPERATING SYSTEM will automatically find the new sound card by itself... in the aforementioned paragraph... you are factfinding to see if indeed your system picked up the new install.... There are instances of DRIVER INCOMPATABILITY, don't worry keep track of what your computer complains about. You are almost there. now insert your soundcard's installation DISK. let it install.... it should take seconds.... (if it tells you that your driver isn't a valid or isn't on the "aproval" hardware compatability list ... let it install anyways. ))) when this is done..... it usually wants you to reboot.... VOILA... as you restart your system, you will hear it signing off ...... bling bling bling ...bling.... the sweetest sound ... yup indeed.. enjoy.//
Why didn't the UN leave Palestine alone the Jews and Arabs were living together in peace back then?
This question makes the explicit assumption that Jews and Arabs were living in peace in the 1940s when this was actually not the case and is fallacious. Palestine was quite vuolent by the 1930s and 1940s as will be discussed below. It is important to note that the lack of constant violence is not peace or else what is going on inside of Iran (i.e. massive amounts of torture and vote-rigging by fundamentalist ideologues) would be peace. The Muslim idea of the "Andalucian Solution" is not based on historical fact or precedent. In Andalucia, sure Jews lived in relative security and prosperity for the Middle Ages. It did not come close to peace, though, in that Jews were still repressed, still taxed, and still subject to occasional pogroms. The question supposes that this system, one that rejects universal rights and freedoms applicable to all people, is viable today and would be desirable to non-Muslims is preposterous and absurd. Such a system was what prevailed in Ottoman Palestine a century ago. While there were far fewer skirmishes at that point in time, there was widespread repression of Ahl ad-Dimma (the Protected People or Non-Muslims under Muslim Control). However, there were violent attacks by Muslims under the protection of the Ottoman Banner on Jews and Christians in the territory to recover extra funds for the government. With increased communal awareness and better education, it was the natural trajectory for Jews in Palestine to demand equality and parity with their Muslim overlords. This set the stage for violence when the Muslims were less than willing to give the people they had treated as second-class citizens a seat at the rulers' table. This led to the formation of Arab militias and the Jews (both immigrants and endemic population) responded by forming their own militias as early as the mid-1920s. This made Mandatory Palestine the site of numerous militias and violent activities perpetrated by both Arab Jihadists and Zionist Settlers during the Interwar period. The idea that the British Mandate of Palestine was peaceful actually runs counter to historical evidence. In fact, the violence between Jewish and Arab militias throughout the 1930s was what prompted the British to accept the Arab request to halt all further Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine in 1939 (believing that preventing such immigration would quell the conflict). However, the conflict became more bitter. A UN factfinding mission was actually sent to Mandatory Palestine after the British had conceded in 1947 that it could no longer control the Mandate effectively. It was this UN mission that came to the conclusion that the Jewish population and the Arab population were each large enough to sabotage a single nation for both of them and both hated each other sufficiently to make one state non-viable. The only way to accomodate both of them was through dividing Mandatory Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State. It was after this resolution was implemented that what was originally a set of continual skirmishes became a proper war.
In what case did the US Supreme Court say that juveniles aren't entitled to a jury trial?
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 US 528 (1971)In McKeiver, Justice Blackmun, presenting the opinion of the Court, explained that the purpose of applying due process protections to juvenile court proceedings, as allowed pursuant to the Court's decisions in In Re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967) and In Re Winship, 397 US 358 (1970), was fundamental fairness with regard to fact-finding.In neither case did the Court extend the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to juvenile court proceedings, because the intent of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate, and a jury trial creates a more adversarial environment that can undermine that goal. "Equating the adjudicative phase of the juvenile proceeding with a criminal trial ignores the aspects of fairness, concern, sympathy, and paternal attention inherent in the juvenile court system." Juvenile court is not criminal court.This decision was later upheld in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982) and Schall v. Martin, 467 US 253 (1984).It's important to note that McKeiver did not preclude individual states from providing juveniles with a jury option, but simply did not require them to do so.Blackmun clarified this point: "The imposition of the jury trial on the juvenile court system would not strengthen greatly, if at all, the factfinding function, and would, contrarily, provide an attrition of the juvenile court's assumed ability to function in a unique manner. It would not remedy the defects of the system. Meager as has been the hoped-for advance in the juvenile field, the alternative would be regressive, would lose what has been gained, and would tend once again to place the juvenile squarely in the routine of the criminal process."The juvenile concept held high promise. We are reluctant to say that, despite disappointments of grave dimensions, it still does not hold promise, and we are particularly reluctant to say, as do the Pennsylvania appellants here, that the system cannot accomplish its rehabilitative goals. So much depends on the availability of resources, on the interest and commitment of the public, on willingness to learn, and on understanding as to cause and effect and cure. In this field, as in so many others, one perhaps learns best by doing. We are reluctant to disallow the States to experiment further and to seek in new and different ways the elusive answers to the problems of the young, and we feel that we would be impeding that experimentation by imposing the jury trial. The States, indeed, must go forward. If, in its wisdom, any State feels the jury trial is desirable in all cases, or in certain kinds, there appears to be no impediment to its installing a system embracing that feature. That, however, is the State's privilege and not its obligation."In 1971, no states offered jury trials. As of 2009, ten states grant the right of juveniles to jury trials, and another eleven states allow jury trials under limited circumstances.Often, US Supreme Court decisions follow trends in state courts. At some point in the not-too-distant future, the Court may extend 6th Amendment protection to children and teens.
