LAUREL, Ind. — A Laurel man was arrested after leading officers on a pursuit through Laurel and into Fayette County over the weekend.Early Saturday morning, the Laurel Police Department received a 911 call regarding a male who displayed a knife and was reported to be in the alley south of Pearl Streel.As police responded, a pickup truck quickly approached the police car.The officer exited his vehicle, and the driver of the pickup swerved toward the officer, and then back towards a utility pole before turning North onto Washington Street.The truck left the roadway at the intersection of Washington and Baltimore, striking a culvert, causing it to go airborne, and blowing the right front tire.Police say the pursuit continued through town.The Franklin County Sheriff’s Department along with Brookville Police had set up spike strips at State Road 1 and Laurel Road.The pursuit came to an end in Fayette County when the driver eventually struck a Fayette County Sheriff’s vehicle.The driver, William Ratliff, of Laurel, was arrested on charges of Resisting Law Enforcement, Reckless Driving, Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated greater than 0.15, and Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated causing Endangerment.Ratliff had a blood-alcohol level of .173, more than twice the legal limit, and also faces charges in Fayette County for Battery on a police officer.Police also determined that Ratliff was the male involved with the knife from the original call, and could face more charges after completion of the investigation.
In a surprising show of journalistic hubris, reporter Robin Nixon of Live Science accused every human being in the world of being a moral hypocrite. “Why We’re All Moral Hypocrites” reported results of a study by Piercarlo Valdesolo at Northeastern University that indicated people tend to judge themselves more leniently than others. The article discussed moral instincts, moral behaviors and moral decisions, and even said “we are instinctively moral beings.” Yet all this morality was ascribed to the amoral processes of evolution: “The researchers speculate that instinctive morality results from evolutionary selection for team players. Being fair, they point out, strengthens mutually beneficial relationships and improves our chances for survival.”Speak for yourself, Robin. This reporter for one of the most egregious of the dogmatic-Darwin news sites has illustrated profoundly illogical and unscientific behavior. She has just besmirched the character of all gentle grandmothers praying for wayward children, all men of God in the pulpit, all self-sacrificing parents, all missionaries, all doctors serving poor people in third-world countries, and all honorable people everywhere by calling them moral hypocrites. Is a guilty conscience here finding comfort in numbers? Worse, she speaks nonsense by speaking of morality as a product of evolution. If “morality” is only about self-survival, and if it bears no reference to absolute standards of right and wrong, it is a meaningless word. Not even survival can be called morally beneficial; death and extinction are equally as meaningless as survival in Darwin’s universe. Who is to judge that survival is a good thing? Who is there to pat the chimps on the back when they act like team players and survive better? “Evolutionary morality” is an oxymoron. The fact that this reporter innately knows right from wrong and makes moral judgments herself refutes her claim that morals evolved. At least she admitted that the researchers had nothing to back up that claim other than speculation. Only the Biblical world view can defend the assertion that we are moral beings, because it teaches moral absolutes rooted in the character of God who created all things. And only the Biblical worldview can judge humans as hypocritical. This hypocrisy, the result of sin, is curable through Jesus Christ. Even thoughtful non-Christians should look at this article as profoundly irrational. Can a contrived lab test on 85 individuals be generalized to all of humanity, of all cultures and all times? What kind of scientific reasoning is that? Robin should have been laughing at this study, not praising it. In our culture, any stupid thing that a so-called scientist publishes in some journal somewhere garners more presumptive authority than something that a righteous man in the pulpit has to say from the word of God. Hypocrisy is not limited to the occasional preacher who strays from the moral standard. It applies also to those who speak vain words of morality while denying its foundation. By indicting all humanity, this reporter indicts herself. Her readers are therefore justifiably entitled to ignore anything she says, including the assertion that morality evolved. How can we trust her word? She’s a hypocrite, too – unless she claims Yoda privileges, which make her an exalted master looking in on the predicament of mankind from the outside. But then, how could we know such a claim is not hypocritical? Evolutionary theory offers no hope for hypocrisy, because whatever moral instincts we have could only be part of a pointless, meaningless, inborn nature; why fight it? The Bible offers forgiveness for hypocrisy (Romans 10) and a moral standard to which we can and should aspire, enabled by God’s Holy Spirit (Romans 12).(Visited 10 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Travellers Down Under are celebrating the end of punitive surcharges on airline tickets after Australia recently became only the second jurisdiction in the world to ban profiteering on credit and debit card fees.But it remains to be seen how airlines and others will react in the long term after the government closed off a lucrative source of so-called ancillary revenue that had been earning them as much as $A68 on an airline booking for a family of four.And the unintended consequences will be closely monitored after the first credit/debit card surcharge ban in the European Union, introduced in December 2015, prompted airlines to introduce new fees to circumvent the government action.From September 1, the four major airlines in Australia have dropped the flat surcharges on ticket purchases of $A7 per booking for Qantas and Virgin Australia and $A8.50 per sector on Qantas low-cost subsidiary Jetstar and Virgin Australia low-cost subsidiary Tigerair.However, in response to “indicative” guidelines published in May by the Reserve Bank of Australia on the cost of transactions that companies such as airlines are now banned from exceeding — 0.5% for debit cards and 1-1.5% for most credit cards, but 2-3% for American Express — the airlines have adopted widely varying standards that they’re passing on to their customers.On Jetstar, for example, the surcharge for a ticket purchase via debit card – previously a flat $A8.50 per sector or $17 per round trip – is now just 0.48 per cent of the purchase price – 48 cents on a $A100 ticket. Its competitor Tigerair’s fees are nearly double that at 0.88 per cent for debit card purchases.The downside is that many travellers, particularly business class travellers on international journeys could pay substantially more now under the percentage fee system than previously under a set fee, although Qantas now caps the surcharge at $A70 for both debit and credit cards.What’s not known, however, are the consequences for credit card perks after European consumers reported that some of theirs had disappeared. Euro airlines are also applying surcharges that are many multiples of the EU-specified costs of 0.2 per cent for debit cards and 0.3 per cent for credit cards.Airlines in the United Kingdom, for example, have been applying surcharges of 1.5 to 3.0 per cent, as well as set amounts of up to £13 ($US17) on top. It’s not yet clear what effect Britain’s decision to leave the EU will have on UK government policy.The chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Rod Sims, has anticipated the potential for unforeseen consequences.”That’s been a fair bit thought about,” he told AirlineRatings.com. “Obviously this change is a government initiative but we did engage with government trying to think through negative consequences.”The main one was that most people don’t charge a surcharge and this could encourage them to do something they weren’t doing before, but they could have done anything before and they chose to do nothing.”It’s not clear to me that being able to charge 1.5 per cent is going to encourage them to do that we they could have done even more before. I don’t think we’re going to run into those sorts of problems.”Sims says compliance by airlines with the new regime has been excellent and he doesn’t expect problems.”What happens when you get a law that’s targeted at a particular behaviour, the main companies like the airlines and the event organisers really know the game is up and we have engaged with them extensively and they’ve made the necessary changes,” he says.”They have, I think, realised the game is up and they’ve been very co-operative and the changes seem to be the ones that should be made.Sims says, however, the ACCC will be watching closely.”We’ll see over time,” he says. “I think this thing will be fairly self-policing. That is, you’ve got the companies that were seriously in the gun who have made the changes and other who probably aren’t as visible, if they start charging these sort of things (high fees), I think there’ll be enough people aware of the fact that’s wrong and will get contact.”All it takes is a couple of contacts to us and we know there’s a problem and we can get onto it. It should be straightforward to follow up those who are trying to do the wrong thing.”America and Asia, meanwhile, are still relatively free of credit card charging restriction.The US Congress about five years ago agreed to cap so-called “swipe fees” on debit cards. However, lobbying by banks left the cap at around 25 US cents – twice as high as initially recommended by the Federal Reserve and an estimated five times banks’ cost of processing debit transactions.Congress has not yet addressed credit card fees.
The medium-term budget presented by finance minister Pravin Gordhan this week is somewhat optimistic. He has released funds to tackle some of South Africa’s more urgent concerns, particularly reforms in education. Finance minister Pravin Gordhan’s medium-term budget is making the best of a challenging situation. (Image: GCIS)Words: Shamin ChibbaDesign: Sandile KhumaloThe 2016 medium-term budget set out by finance minister Pravin Gordhan is somewhat optimistic. While the growth rate has dwindled in recent months, Gordhan expects it to rise next year.He is looking to ease the burden of social grantees, giving them R10 extra a month, and is also trying to make education more accessible to all in the foreseeable future.Below we break down the numbers of this year’s medium-term budget.For more on the mini-budget, check out:Mini-budget 2016 quotesFull text: the mini budgetClick image for larger view.
Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting “Try Before you Buy” – Just an Excuse to Steal?However, the most interesting finding was the one where the “try before you buy” mentality was exposed as being a myth. Despite jailbreakers’ claims that the need to “demo” an app is among their top reasons for pirating, Pinch Media found that this simply wasn’t the case. To test this, they set a baseline for typical conversion rates of legitimate “lite” to paid applications and found that the conversion rate there is 7.4%. That means about 1 in 14 who try the “lite” version go on to purchase the paid version. However, among the pirate community, pirated-to-legitimate conversions are 0.43%. That’s only 1 in about 233 installations. In other words, few users of pirated apps are truly “trying before they buy,” they’re just trying.That being said, the pirates aren’t necessarily using the pirated apps all that much. Pinch Media found that pirated apps are used less frequently than paid applications and for a shorter amount of time. They theorize that this is due to a few reasons: pirates are less attached to apps considering that they didn’t pay for them, pirates often install more applications in bulk and therefore don’t have much time to spend with each one and jailbroken iPhones tend to crash, leading to more frequent app uninstalls. Although these findings may initially disappoint application developers who see piracy as contributing to lost revenue, the argument could be made – as it often is among other content-producing industries – that the people doing the pirating weren’t actually going to pay for those apps anyway. They’re simply sampling them because they can. While it’s still a stretch to say that piracy helps developers, it’s hard to really quantify how much it hurts them. Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… sarah perez Jailbreaking, the act of hacking your iPhone or iPod Touch so that it allows for the installation of unapproved third-party applications, is a popular activity among the tech community. But in addition to allowing you greater control over your mobile device, there’s another – ahem – benefit, if you will. Jailbreakers can install free versions of paid applications. These pirated, or “cracked” apps as they’re called, are distributed through online repositories for easy download to your device. The whole process is as simple as snagging the latest box office release or popular album from the file-sharing site, The Pirate Bay. But many jailbreakers claim that they’re only pirating apps so they can try them out before purchase – a necessary evil since Apple doesn’t offer trial periods for their applications, forcing developers to release “Lite” versions instead. While some do so, many others apps exist only as premium versions. Considering there are now some 85,000 apps to choose from, people want to know if their app purchase is worth the money. Or so they say. However, recent statistics about application piracy prove otherwise. Piracy a Global PhenomenonAt the recent 360iDev conference, mobile analytics company Pinch Media shared some findings about piracy in the iTunes App Store. They’ve been tracking jailbroken devices for several months now and have started to get a handle on this previously unexamined ecosystem. According to their data, which includes 4 million jailbroken devices, 38% have at least one pirated application installed. Pinch Media says this estimate is low since pirates often take extra steps to avoid detection. Still, it’s worth noting that this percentage is nowhere near being the majority of jailbreaking users. There are more people who just want extra control over their device and not an opportunity to steal apps. They also discovered that the piracy phenomenon is not limited to any one particular market. Although piracy rates are relatively low in the U.S., the U.K. and Japan, where perhaps Apple iPhone users have more money at their disposal to spend on premium applications, piracy is a global problem. However, it does appear to be much more rampant in markets like China, Russia, Brazil and Mexico, where it’s negatively correlated with per capita national GDP, notes Pinch Media. A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… Tags:#Apple#NYT#Trends#web Related Posts 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market