State Of Minnesota Pricing Page: Fill & Download for Free

Marvel released this comic book as a supplement to the Planet Hulk story arc for the Hulk.I was lucky enough to find one of these at a half-priced books near my house in Minnesota back when I started reading comics, and it’s actually in really good condition.Anyway, inside the book they have all kinds of information, but just a couple pages in, we find this page.Here, we’re shown the solar system inside of which Sakaar is found.Sakaar is stated to have an equatorial diamerter of 12,150 units, though those units are not defined. Could be miles, could be kilometers, could be meters or feet(though that’s unlikely).The Earth’s equatorial diameter is 7,917 miles.So, if we assume that Sakaar is measured in miles in the guide book, it would be roughly 1.5 times larger than Earth.

July 2017 Update: LinkedIn has changed their upgrade system to forcing you to request a demo of the product in order to see pricing. I will update if I find a different way to see customized pricing/if it has gone up/down!Here is what I get when I attempt to upgrade to Linked Recruiter, as of September 2016:Tax is added to your monthly rate if your billing address is in the following states: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois (Chicago Only), Indiana, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.If you choose to pay per year rather than per month, you’ll save up to 25%. However, if you don’t want to spend a lump sum that can total up to $8,999.88 (nice marketing ploy to make it less than $9,000, LinkedIn), then you will pay a pretty hefty price each month. If you don’t choose the single payment option, you will either pay $239.99 for Recruiter Lite or $899.99 for Recruiter Corporate - per MONTH.Let’s go over the features you get, just to see if this fee is worth it compared to other similar programs.Now, everyone likes to be one of the infamous people on LinkedIn who can receive InMail - or do they? Is it easier to make connections without this? That’s a conversation for another time. Sure, you can view more LinkedIn profiles, but what stops you from finding these candidates on other areas of the internet? An advanced search is also quite nice. However, there are ways of doing this with search engines or even sites that have open API. Filters can also make you miss interesting potential candidates that have just entered a keyword differently, for instance. If you like to see who is looking at your snazzy profile picture and impressive background, then maybe you could shell out the money each month.However, there are several ATS (applicant tracking systems) that allow you to do similar, if not better, recruitment. Recruitee is a good example, as it is highly focused on team collaboration. A sourcing extension and custom hiring pipeline are just a few of Recruitee’s similar features (not to mention, you can recruit from everywhere, not just LinkedIn). The pricing is also drastically more affordable, as it is based on active jobs. You don’t have to pay per seat or anything like that.I don’t know about you, but I like the numbers on Recruitee’s pricing page a lot better! I can see how LinkedIn Recruiter could be beneficial for extremely large companies, but Recruitee can cater to any size company. It also allows you to post to free and premium job boards. It’s definitely something worth considering, as LinkedIn is over-saturated with recruiters. Hope this helps! You can find more information on Recruitee’s features here.

Wow! I wasn’t going to write an answer since I’m not “right” wing, but reading these answers, from what I presume to be left-wingers, describe the conservative movement as racists who support “white supremacy” really irritated me.Not because I want to defend conservatism, but because I’m tired of my country being divided by these self-righteous mountebanks.First things first:“American conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, support for Judeo-Christian values, moral universalism, business (which lead them to support free trade when it is good for business), anti-communism, individualism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by socialism, authoritarianism, and moral relativism.” Conservatism in the United States - WikipediaSpare me the Wikipedia ad hominem. Everyone and their grandmother knows you use it too.Now compare that to American liberalism:“Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy centered on what many see as the unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion for all belief systems, and the separation of church and state, right to due process, and equality under the law are widely accepted as common foundation across the spectrum of liberal thought.” Liberalism in the United States - WikipediaI recommend, at the LEAST, reading both of these Wikipedia web pages to get a better idea of the history and the differences of the two main systems of political thought in the United States.Political parties like the Republicans (associated with the color red, an elephant, and the right-wing) or the Democrats (associated with the color blue, a donkey, and the left-wing ) want the average citizen of the United States (you can’t even call yourself American without triggering half the world nowadays) to believe they are static creatures that can go up and down the political spectrum.The reality is we are multifaceted individuals that can swing to either side depending on the situation.These situations are based on self-interest and self-preservation.Two terms you should be familiar with to understand each end of this spectrum is radical and reactionary.A radical, in the politically minded sense of the word, is someone who wants to change society in a fundamental, perhaps extreme way.Maybe toppling a current political power or creating a new party. American abolitionism is a radical shift from laissez-faire, let do, keep all the slaves because it is good for the economy mindset.Let’s put our Wikipedia scholar hats back on for a more textbook definition of the word:“The term political radicalism (in political science known as radicalism denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary or other means and changing value systems in fundamental ways.” Political radicalism - WikipediaEnding slavery in the United States is a textbook definition of radicalism because not only did it fuel a civil war, but it altered social structures that still exist today with Jim Crow Laws that “enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States,” indentured servitude, and perhaps even the Great Northward Migration when “six million African-Americans” moved out of “rural Southern United States to the urban Northeast, Midwest, and West that occurred between 1916 and 1970.”[1]The origin story of the Republican party is a radical movement to stop the spread of slavery, to promote abolitionism in the United States.“The Republican Party began as a coalition of anti-slavery Conscience Whigs such as Zachariah Chandler and Free Soil Democrats such as Salmon P. Chase, who were opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act…The act opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission as slave states, thus implicitly repealing the prohibition on slavery in territory north of 36°, 30′ latitude which had been part of the Missouri Compromise.” History of the United States Republican Party - WikipediaCheck out this map and notice the green line indicating the 36°, 30′ latitude; all that land above the green line would be opened to slavery if the people in those territories wanted it.Figure 1. “Map of the United States c. 1849 (modern state borders), with the parallel 36°30′ north – slave states in red, free states in blue” [2]This put the new Republicans in direct opposition to those on the other side of the spectrum—the reactionaries.A reactionary, again in the politically minded sense, is an individual who wants to return to the good ol’ days, the status quo.The Kansas-Nebraska act is an example of a reactionary policy that returns to a previous political mindset by overthrowing the radical policy of The Missouri Compromise.Here’s another Wiki definition for your reading pleasure:“In political science, a reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (economic prosperity, justice, individual ownership, discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society.” Reactionary - WikipediaDo you want to ban abortion in America? Then you can consider yourself a reactionary because you want to go back to a previous political policy that made terminating unwanted fetuses illegal.Do you support presidential candidate Andrew Yang on his Freedom Dividend of giving one-thousand U.S. dollars to all American citizens? Then you can consider yourself a radical because you want to alter a social structure in a fundamental way.Now you understand the two spectrums of the American political system: radical on the left, reactionary on the right.Figure 2: French Revolution Political Spectrum It says French because Americans take everything from the French: Statues of Liberty, French fries, and Political Spectrums ;)An easy way to remember which R is on which side is by reminding yourself of Radicals are blue because they want to change you and Reactionaries are red because they can’t make their beds. Stupid but it works for me.Some argue that this is a simplistic view of politics and that it doesn’t include for all the “existing variations.”“Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left-right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and often include other axes.” Political spectrum - WikipediaI don’t know. I’m not a political scientist. I just know it is easier to understand complicated material by simplifying it first then complicating it to scale to develop a further understanding that encompasses all the nitty-gritty bits.Are you going to study female biology before you ask the cute girl out? No! So let’s move on.With the abortion and Freedom Dividend examples above, you might think if you fall on one side of the spectrum for one issue you’ll keep falling for the same side for other issues.Let’s see.Do you believe universities should create areas where a person or a “category of people” don’t have to worry about being emotionally or physically harmed?“A place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm.” Google FeedbackIf you think yes, then you’re a radical on the issue of safe spaces.Do you believe the United States should have a responsibility to open their borders to allow less privileged citizens from other countries in?If you think yes, then you might be considered a reactionary wanting to go back before the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 that limited immigrants, mainly Jews, in the U.S.“The Emergency Quota Act, also known as the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921… was actually formulated mainly in response to the large influx of Jews fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe and thus successfully restricted their immigration and that of other ‘undesirables’ into the United States…. it added two new features to American immigration law: numerical limits on immigration and the use of a quota system for establishing those limits.” Emergency Quota Act - WikipediaNow a right-winger is someone with a static political ideology cemented in conservatism.Perhaps they want to go back to defining marriage between a man and a woman and make abortion illegal again. But for the most part, they want to preserve the status quo not revert back to a previous status quo.Alt-righters are people with a political ideology cemented in reactionary policies: re-establishing a “whites” only nation, closed borders, zero intervention in other countries disputes, and racial purity except for Asians.The big take away is that alt-righters want to make their own country for only white people, similar to the black nationalist that want a country for only the descendants of former slaves with the difference being the black nationalist calling for a radical policy and white nationalists asking to go back to a previous reactionary one.Which brings us to the left and their tactics of polarizing political rivals to gain the upper hand.The United States is 60.7 % White out of a population of 327,167, 434 according to the 2018 United States Census Bureau.Figure 3: U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: UNITED STATESFor white liberals to gain an upper hand they have to convince the rest of the population that the white conservatives are these racist, sexist, horrible people.Don’t believe me? Look below this post and read for yourself some of the comments.“The Alt-Right says aloud what the Right-Wing is afraid to say, but more than willing to support.”Notice how this attack has no concrete examples only superfluous virtue signaling meant to demonize conservative people.Here’s a quote Richard Spencer said in July of 2014 at the Metrapolitics of America, “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created unequal.”This popular Quoran should be ashamed of himself for trying to link conservatives who don’t want to be made to feel ashamed of their American culture to this man holding racist thoughts.Answer me this if other countries can be proud of their culture, then why can’t Americans feel proud of theirs without triggering those who feel a constant need to remind us that Canadians and Latinos are American too?What racist systemic policies are Republicans passing? Tight border patrol policies that detain parents crossing the country separating them from children? Okay, maybe insensitive, but most liberals AND conservatives didn’t agree with Trump hence, “President Trump signed an executive order reversing his policy of separating families — and replacing it with a policy of detaining entire families together, including children, but ignoring legal time limits on the detention of minors.”[3]But here’s a racist systemic policy left-wingers at Harvard passed to limit the amount of Asians at their institution.“The basic claim by the plaintiffs, a group representing Asian-American students rejected by Harvard, is that the university has systematically discriminated against Asian-Americans by holding them to a higher standard than other applicants. Harvard argues that in trying to compose a diverse class, it considers each applicant as an individual and does not discriminate.” The Harvard Bias Suit by Asian-Americans: 5 Key IssuesAll fair in love and diversity, right left-wingers? Keep in mind that Asians make up 5.8% of the population in America. Talk about attacking a tiny minority group.Left-wingers like the popular Quorans attacking popular right-winging Quorans completely ignore Blacks and Hispanics that either identify as Republican or lean towards Republican, convincing themselves that only white “racist” men voted for Trump. The reality is left-wingers only care about “minorities” in so much as they can get them to vote for their liberal amigos into office.How about Homophobic? Liberals accuse conservatives all the time of fearing members of the LGTBQ+, for example, Trump banning transgenders from serving in the military.They forget to mention many Republicans were against this decision including “John McCain, Susan Collins and Orrin Hatch have criticized the policy and more than 50 retired generals and admirals signed a letter saying the ban would degrade military readiness.”[4]Not to mention this passed the Supreme Court 5–4, so plenty of opposition to it. But is the issue hatred for a group or is Trump banning trans people from serving because he doesn’t want to spend money on trans-inclusive medical services?“Trump would effectively return to the pre-2016 era in which trans troops could not serve openly. It would also ban the military from paying for gender-affirming surgeries, with some exceptions to ‘protect the health’ of someone who had already begun transitioning.” Trump’s ban on transgender troops, explainedThis reactionary policy seems, to me, to be about paying for the medical cost of trans people, not some inherent hatred for them. But let’s see what Big Red has to say for himself:Do those 366 thousand people who liked his tweets all hate trans-people or do they simply not want to spend their tax dollars on gender-affirming care?Hey, I don’t agree with it and I think if we can spend more than a half a trillion dollars each year on the Department of Defense then surely we can spend a meager “$2.4 million and $8.4 million annually”[5] for gender-affirming surgeries.Call Trump and those who support his decision cheap bastards if you like but demonizing him as a bigot against trans because he doesn’t want the taxpayer to pay for their transitioning is a different issue altogether.You don’t turn those you disagree with into villains unless you’re looking for someone to fight.And let us not forget which side passed The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA):“The Defense of Marriage Act enacted September 21, 1996 was a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states… Initially introduced in May 1996, DOMA passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in September 1996.” Defense of Marriage Act - WikipediaDenying homosexuals the right to marry seems to me more indicative of prejudice.Perhaps you say that Republicans had a house majority and it didn’t matter if Bill signed it because it would have passed anyway. But I would argue that even if the Dems held the house it would still pass since 118 Dems supported the bill with only 65 against.http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xmlBut no, only the right-wingers are capable of discrimination.Here’s another quote demonizing the right by another popular Quoran:“The American right embraces neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Popular conservatives on Quora and elsewhere may say they aren’t racist, but they still vote for white supremacists, defend white supremacists, openly embrace white supremacists as part of their political party, and advocate for people who promote white supremacist ideology.”No, sir, the only bigot is you who is generalizing an entire group of people based on their ideology.This is what the left, or better yet said, the left with a platform to express their views, do to those they disagree with: a sweeping statement without facts to back them up.How long have I been writing this answer with quotes supporting what I’m saying and footnotes to point where I got my material from? It’s already been 12 hours composing this post! Why? Because radical leaning individuals can’t stop objectifying the opposing side into their symbols of hate the left love fetishizing over.Excuse me, mister, and I only call you mister out of respect for civility, something ideologues like you know nothing about—conservatives have real fears, okay. They are not Islamophobes. They’re scared of bringing people from a culture into their country that have a track record of forcing their women into symbols of oppression called a hijab, burka, niqab, chador, shayla, Al-Amira, and Khimar.And I say symbol of oppression because women don’t have a choice.“Although the Taliban regime ended in 2001, some women continue to wear it out of security concerns or as a cultural practice.” Hijab by country - WikipediaHow can you have peace in the world when women are afraid to show their hair in public? That’s not being an Islamophobe. It’s called loving your sisters from other misters.I, and a lot of conservatives, don’t want any American, regardless of race or ethnicity, to be forced into marriage by an Imam leader thinking he’s quoting the Prophet.“Among some Muslim faith communities, early marriage is sometimes justified by citing the example of the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) marriage to his youngest wife Ayesha bint Abu Bakr. This is despite the fact that her exact age at the time of marriage is unknown and Islam requires that all males and females reach puberty before they are married.”https://www.islamic-relief.org/wp-content/.../03/FORCED-MARRIAGE-CSW62.pdfI criticize the Catholic church for not turning over evidence of their priests and nuns molesting little boys and I criticize Islam leaders forcing girls into marriage. Neither is bashing or speaking badly about the religion as a whole but condemning evil practices.Guess what, I DESPISE the cultural practice of slashing a girl’s clitoris. It’s disgusting and should be outlawed, but here we go again with one more example of religion-inspired customs spreading evil.“The decision, in the first federal case to involve FGM [female genital multilage], dismissed the main charges in a case against Jumiana Nargarwala, a doctor who performed the procedure on nine girls, aged 7–13, from Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota at another doctor’s clinic in Livonia, on the outskirts of Detroit. The prosecution said she may have performed the procedure on as many as 100 girls. Four of the eight defendants, including three of the four mothers accused of subjecting their daughters to the procedure, were dismissed in the case. The defendants are members of a small Muslim Dawoodi Bohra community.” ‘US is moving backwards’: female genital mutilation ruling a blow to girls at riskWhile the left are concerned about microaggressions, manspreading, and creating enough space spaces for the hypersensitive, little girls around the world in Muslim communities are having their clitorises mutilated.Wave your virtue signaling flag again. Let the world see how righteous you are by calling conservatives who speak against these atrocities Islamophobes because they don’t want to bring these crimes to their neighborhoods.Conservatives are tough on immigration not because they hate other countries but they hate certain evil practices that those countries practice like forced marriages, FGM, bride prices, machismo (aggressive masculine pride), censorship (not believing in freedom of speech), and the list goes on.When you bring people to your country, they bring their country with them, the good and the bad. It’s the responsibility of those in power to protect us from the bad that put their citizens in jeopardy, not sell their citizens well-being for a couple million cheap votes masquerading as righteousness. It’s not about bashing other countries, something you and your ad hominem team of logical fallacies love feigning ignorance about.Right-wingers worry about their daughters walking home and encountering an immigrant male from an Islamic country used to seeing women fully clothed in a burka or other attire.You call right-wingers racist and prejudice, completely dismissing their fears since you’re rich off book sales that let you live in a posh neighborhood.Here’s what they are afraid of that your rich gated community protects you against:“Authorities now think that on New Year’s Eve, more than 1,200 women were sexually assaulted in various German cities, including more than 600 in Cologne and about 400 in Hamburg. More than 2,000 men were allegedly involved, and 120 suspects — about half of them foreign nationals who had only recently arrived in Germany — have been identified.”[6]They don’t want this to happen to their hometowns. It’s not hate. It’s called protecting your daughters, something you probably don’t know anything about with your lifestyle.It’s incidences like these that made mothers and fathers vote Trump in over Hillary, not being racist, sexist, bigoted, or any other popular buzz words you want to use to overinflate your gigantic self-righteous ego.Leftist like you condemn girls [7]for embracing other cultures by labeling something beautiful as ugly. It is the racist individuals that want nothing to do with other cultures.The truth is when you visit another country the people of that country want to dress you up in their clothes, they want to feed you their food, they want you to speak their language, they want to share their traditions and cultures with you because they want to welcome you into their world. That’s how you create peace and harmony.So far I’ve been to 16 countries and what I just said proved true in all of them except the United States of America.Looks nice, I know ;) The people of South Korean couldn’t wait to dress us all up in their traditional clothes.Political correctness, identity politics, race baiting, demonizing political opponents, threatening violence against those you disagree with, all these tactics need to end now if we want to build a better world for the next generations.Footnotes[1] Great Migration (African-American) - Wikipedia[2] Parallel 36°30′ north - Wikipedia[3] What We Know: Family Separation And 'Zero Tolerance' At The Border[4] White House announces ban on transgender people serving in military[5] Trump’s ban on transgender troops, explained[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/10/leaked-document-says-2000-men-allegedly-assaulted-1200-german-women-on-new-years-eve/?utm_term=.176041c9d51a[7] People are furious at teen for wearing a traditional Chinese dress to prom