I use them all the time. I think they're fantastic. They make me so relaxed I almost cannot move. I relax in a very different way compared to when I meditate (with these it's a much more physical deep relaxation, but when meditating I feel a bit more dissociated from my body).
Yeah, kinda my thought too. Pretty much everything they cite as advantageous with the design also has drawbacks that the traditional umbrella doesn't. Here are some advantages they demonstrate and where that "advantage" leads to other possible issues:
Getting in an out of a car, staying dry. A) not as big of a problem as they show, but also B) if could do similar bad acting of me getting out of a car trying to open up the kazbrella and being annoyed that in poking the umbrella out of the car I got the supposed-to-be-dry-side wet and now it's dripping on me.
Won't drip water inside? No, it won't if you hold it upside down. But now you're carrying a pool of water with you. Careful opening it. And the umbrella will be even worse at drying in tight quarters when you can't open it up.
Dry side is on outside so it doesn't get things wet. They show somebody placing it on seating. Yep, now that pool of water is spilling in some direction. Also, if you do have the umbrella outside and it suddenly starts to rain, the side that's supposed to remain dry is the one getting wet until you get the thing opened up.
It was probably a fun project to design, but I don't think it's as useful as they want you to think it is.
Yeah, and if you are complaining about the mild immune response caused be an attenuated (or even dead) virus, imagine how worse you would feel when infected by the active pathogen.
What ruling? Where does it say "completely safe"? It's hard to take you seriously when you're not even correctly identifying the document in question. If anyone is confused, it's you.
It's about time we stop giving religious beliefs any special treatment at all compared to actual measurable evidence (e.g. inhumanely killing animals, mutilating/indoctrinating children, etc.).
Summary: Hodge wants to make it a criminal offence to sell or promote illegal tax avoidance schemes in the first place. So if HMRC challenge a scheme and it's found illegal, the lawyers/accountants who developed it can be criminally prosecuted as well as those who used it.
I don't know much about this particular tax issue in the UK, but if you think that lawyers are going to draft a bill which other lawyers will then sign into law that criminalizes the typical day-to-day activities of lawyers - well, I'm sorry to say that you are going to be disappointed.
"HMRC can prosecute tax advisers if they try to hide schemes, but has no sanction against those that create and sell artificial trading arrangements designed solely to dodge taxes."
This sounds like something that isn't defined as illegal yet but might be in the grey area - and if HMRC decides it's illegal later then you are punished ex post facto.
Baking everything into AMIs is the "right" way to go, but if AWS had a supported, hosted git server inside their network to push into, I'd rather have the speed of deploying from git, and only bake AMIs when necessary for system upgrades.
