Search for: "One (1) Machine"
Results 5521 - 5540
of 8,037
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Dec 2015, 4:09 pm
As of July 1, the estimated population of the U.S. was 321,195,023; Canada’s was 35,851,800. [read post]
20 Jan 2022, 9:58 am
Mostbet Bangladesh Mostbet League – place bets with a ratio of 1 1.5 or greater. [read post]
1 Oct 2021, 10:47 am
In May, an incident occurred on a machining process in which the employee, and two other workers, were involved. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 11:38 am
Doesn’t this mechanism resemble a giant tax-payer-funded killing machine aimed at one part of the population? [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 1:45 am
The bill would also clarify rules for the use of machine-learning technologies and personal data for scientific research. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 5:01 am
Macs will work just fine with most of existing peripherals and most printers, scanners, and multi-function machines. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 8:22 am
Mary’s L.J. 1, 23 (1996). [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 8:15 am
It’s not kept in some back room.Tobacco shops usually put synthetic marijuana on display.All of this was legal across Illinois, until Jan. 1. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 9:03 am
For instance, a business purchases a machine for $100,000 that is depreciable over eight years. [read post]
24 May 2022, 1:59 pm
’s AEDT law makes it unlawful for an employer to use an automated employment decision tool[1] to screen a candidate for employment, unless the tool has been the subject of a bias audit no more than one year prior to the use of the tool, and a summary of the results of the bias audit is made publicly available. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 4:32 pm
No prizes for guessing that OBG said that their Article 1 Protocol 1 claims in respect of their possessions had been interfered with. [read post]
30 Dec 2012, 9:13 am
Question the breath testing machine DUI Has Two Phases 1. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 11:15 am
Williams, 529 F.3d 1, 4 n.3 (1st Cir. 2008)(authority interpreting one “generally persuasive” in interpreting the other); U.S. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 9:11 am
The words “ski†or “skiing†appear five times in the report, but even there the report mentions snow-making machines offsetting the losses. [read post]
25 May 2018, 2:00 am
Therefore the Supreme Court is to determine whether the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, s 39A(1) which provides for payment of a Widowed Parent’s Allowance is incompatible with EHCR, art 14 read with art 8 and/or Protocol 1, art 1. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 12:09 pm
Even though we get some fresh/novel/crazy readings of 230 here, the opinions suggest that everyone involved in the litigation missed at least two key points: 1) the takedown/stay-up decision is an editorial one, and 230 categorically protects these editorial decisions however they come out. [read post]
15 Nov 2020, 5:53 am
Legal fees in regards to the division of the asset are not tax deductible while legal fees associated with an asset’s income are tax deductible Additionally, a divorce will involve one spouse taking measures to protect their business from the other spouse’s machinations via protective order. [read post]
24 Apr 2011, 8:35 am
There were two pivotal issues at play in this case: [1] Fair Disclosure? [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 1:00 am
IPSO Resolution Statement 08081-21 Jenkins and Jenkins v mirror.co.uk, 4 Intrusion into grief or shock (2021), 1 Accuracy (2021), 3 Harassment (2021), Resolved – IPSO mediation 07939-21 Dix v The Times, 1 Accuracy (2019), No breach – after investigation Resolution Statement 08081-21 Capen Ltd v stokesentinel.co.uk, 1 Accuracy (2019), Resolved – IPSO mediation 09833-21 A man v Mail Online, 1 Accuracy (2019), 2 Privacy (2019), 4 Intrusion… [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 5:38 am
In 1988, Secretary of State George Shultz, when asked (in connection with a confrontation with Iraq) whether Section 4(a)(1) was implicated when a U.S. fighter fired two missiles at an uncertain target in the Straits of Hormuz and a U.S. ship fired machine-gun rounds across the bows of approaching ships, replied that section 4(a)(1) did not apply because “it is not clear that an attack on U.S. forces was imminent, and in fact no such attack occurred. [read post]
