Yes. 20 years ago. When I was a lot younger. I was victimised by a gang of bent police men, who arrested me and set me up to get charged with something that I did not do which I believe was connected to other criminals who live in my area, who I believe were connected to a gang of DJ’s who were involved stealing intellectual and copyright works from me (likely their party organisers and drug dealer buddies). I was sent to court and found guilty based on no evidence by a magistrate court judge who was later struck off for corruption after defrauding an old lady of over a million pounds! I was not put in prison for this minor offense but did receive a minor criminal record. This criminal records the same DJ’s and bent ex-police have used to ruin my reputation and career. One of the bent policemen, who incidentally had already been thrown out of the police force for car insurance fraud, even turned up at the uni I went to and spread vicious slander to ruin me there, and in the area that I lived at the time. I was then victimised by the people at the famous college that I went to and all my intellectual and copyright works stolen. Which I note, generated millions for others. Once they made their money and gained credibility on the back of my hard work, innovation and some may say genius, the thieves then did all they could to ruin my reputation in the entertainment industry and in the area that I live. Making my life extremely hard for no more reason than having my work stolen. If I wasn't so tough, and for a few people left who have at least some integrity, I would be dead now, like the rest of their victims. I have lost respect for quite a few people who I used to think were really talented. I now understand where there talent comes from… Shame on them. Why was the author victimized? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - so others could brag - so others could feel superior - not enough information - so others could make money
so others could make money

The U.S. Supreme Court plunged into the politically messy issue of redrawing congressional and legislative districts Tuesday, in a case that could have profound implications for both major political parties for years to come. The high court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin. They argued that a Republican redistricting plan for the state assembly was so overtly partisan that it violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech and equal protection under the law for Wisconsin voters. A lower federal court sided with the challengers last year and against Republican state officials in Wisconsin. Officials argued Tuesday that they had not violated any constitutional rights when they drew up new boundaries for state assembly districts. "Our legislature followed traditional redistricting criteria, which is what they have been required to do and we think they followed that and that the justices will agree," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told reporters in front of the court following the oral arguments. The process of state legislatures redrawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has been enmeshed in politics for two centuries. Early on, the process was referred to as “gerrymandering,” where one party or the other tries to gain an electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries to maximize their voting clout. Republicans have had success in several states in redrawing congressional and legislative voting districts and that has helped them maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats have come under fire as well for partisan maps in states where they control the legislature, like Maryland and Massachusetts. During Tuesday’s oral arguments, the more liberal high court justices seemed open to the case brought by Democratic voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a ruling in favor of the Republican districting plan in Wisconsin would encourage others to stack the deck against their political opponents. “What becomes of the... How long did the supreme court consider the case? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - six months - one week - not enough information - two weeks
two weeks

Years back, following a transition inside a large company where many people got fired and moved around, the decision was made to give the remaining people more work. Now, let me pause here, when I say, “more work” did not mean more of the existing work they already did. “More work” did not mean work of what they already knew, or signed up for when they were hired. More work meant incorporating a completely different role. For me, I’m a programmer. And “management” decided they wanted programmers to also do BA work. Now, mind you, nowhere on my employment contract does it state I’d have to take a BA role. And nowhere on my employment contract did it state taking a BA role would also require me doing all of my programming work. So, after being pushed a few times to attend BA meetings, I got fed up. So I pulled my manager into a meeting and explained this to him. I said, you have two choices: I do two roles, BA and programmer, and I get a new salary to account for the role. When he asked how much, I said, take my salary and multiply by 1.6. Option 2, I go back to programming, and you never pull me into a meeting again on BA work. It’s not what you hired me for, and it’s not what you pay me for. When my boss replied, “Our company is not in the position to pay for two roles”, I told him, then it sounds like Option 2. And by the way, I don’t ever want to have this discussion again. If you want Superman performance, you cannot pay Clark Kent wages. 1 year passed and I was never bothered again about BA roles. Takeaways: Middle managers are one step above one-celled organisms. They can, and will try to get you to do non-role work, with no intention of ever paying you more. They key is to cut it off at the pass. When was the transition where many of John's colleagues got fired and moved around? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - In a dream he had - not enough information - 1981 - Years back

Years back