Member At Large Description Of Duties: Fill & Download for Free

I don't understand politics.I pretend to, but I don't really know what the heck is going on.Most of the time, I am all too flummoxed by the confusing charade which is supposed to be a comprehensive American political system.Perhaps a lot of people feel the same way, but are also just pretending to understand what's going on, just like I do.Maybe that's the intention of the politicians? To make a deMOCKracy of American politics?To deliberately confuse us, so we don't really understand what we're voting on.I am one of those people who actually studies, researches, and carefully reads my voter information in order to prepare myself for every election.I consider it my duty to vote.It's a drag.Preparing for the SAT took less time than voting.I spend weeks with a highlighter marker, dutifully studying my voter pamphlet, and everytime I don't understand something I Google it.I use Google a lot during election season.Annoying.Why is it they write intentionally misleading descriptions of each measure on the ballot, using the most complicated language possible?They know many Americans do not read past a high school level; some are reading English as a second language. So what's with all the fancy word mumbo-jumbo?From an article in The San Diego Union-Tribune:"Shall Ordinance 09-E01 be enacted, repealing Measure D which was enacted in 2008 and Ordinance No. 31, and providing that members of the legislative body of the City of Wildomar shall be elected AT LARGE as set forth in the terms and conditions of approval of the incorporation of the City of Wildomar imposed by the Riverside County Local (Agency) Formation Commission and approved by a vote of the people."WHAT!?I'm a reader. I read a lot. I've had a lot of practice. But reading that paragraph from the voter information pamphlet, I can honestly say, I have no clue as to what it means!On our recent County ballot was the following measure. This is the verbatim description which appeared in our voter's pamphlet:PROP 65-CARRYOUT BAGS. CHARGES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.SUMMARY:Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through mandated sale of carryout bags. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund to support specified environmental projects. Fiscal Impact: Potential state revenue of several tens of millions of dollars annually under certain circumstances, with the monies used to support certain environmental programs.WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANSYES- A YES vote on this measure means: If state law (1) prohibits giving customers certain carryout bags for free and (2) requires a charge for other types of carryout bags, the resulting revenue would be deposited in a new state fund to support certain environmental programs.NO- A NO vote on this measure means: If charges on carryout bags are required by a state law, that law could direct the use of the resulting revenue toward any purpose.Okay. I get that I'm voting on bags, folks. But would it have killed them to specify whether they meant I was being charged for plastic, paper or those specifically designed carry-totes which are reusable up to several visits? And which environmental “programs” would benefit? Are we talking putting in a huge line of adult palm trees on golf courses run by politicians? Shoring up an eroded hillside directly in front of the Governor's mansion? Landscaping the senator's yard?How much would they be charging for a frigging' bag?What “programs” would benefit?I, The People, want to know!What are we giving up our hard earned money for, exactly?If a NO vote was enacted, what does “any other purpose” mean?Was that a threat?Why can't they just write it in a way that most people would understand it? Is it really that difficult?I just nod my head and pretend to understand. It's easier than arguing. I can't hold my own in a political debate, because, to be perfectly frank, I have no idea what I'm talking about!WILDOMAR: Voters can pick election system

It's unlikely you will join any U.S. police agency as a cyber crime investigator. That happens on TV a lot, but very rarely in real life. If you want to join a police department, regardless of your age, you'll have to take the police officer exam, pass all the qualifying milestones (R. Justin Freeman has an excellent description of the process here: What is it like being a police officer?), complete the academy and a field training program, and then work in uniformed patrol for several years--as many as 20--before you can try for a detective slot. Large departments may have one or more detectives dedicated to cyber crimes, but most (over 80% of the police agencies in the U.S. have 20 or fewer members) will have this assigned as a collateral duty, or may have no one with this expertise at all.Edit, 10/02/2015: Some federal agencies have non-sworn computer forensics examiners. See Al Saibini's comment below.Some agencies have a maximum age for applicants, but most don't. I worked with a cop who was a barber for over 20 years before he joined the police department at age 43. He worked 20 years and retired. I've heard of men in their 60s completing the police academy and going on the street as a patrol officer, but most men in their 60s (I'm one of them) are not in anywhere close to the physical condition necessary to do this.I have no basis for knowledge on how this would work in countries outside the U.S.

Short answer: Nobody knows. If you really want to know about specific techniques, the best anybody can say about any form of European weapons usage prior to the 15th century is based on extrapolation and educated guesswork.But if you’re looking for a less technical answer, we have a bit to work with, so read on.The only description of Roman shield usage that even approaches technical detail of which I’m aware is from Polybius’ Histories XVIII.30:Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man—because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,—it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect.He adds, in XVIII.3:The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others.People sometimes have this notion that Roman soldiers fought in grim lockstep, shoulder to shoulder, with their stubby little swords poking out between or over the shields, like this:At least in Polybius’ day, though, there is no reason to think that was the case - not on the attack, anyway. What Polybius describes as the Republican attack order is essentially each man given a box of space six feet square in which to work. The man himself is assumed to occupy 9 square feet, and he has 36 square feet to fence in before he encroaches upon the space allocated to a rankmate or filemate. Essentially, this is enough to take one step forward, back, or to the side. And what does his fencing look like? Polybius paints a very active picture. The shield itself is moved to either side of the body to catch incoming attacks, not hidden behind like a wall. The sword is used not just to thrust (Vegetius says otherwise, but Polybius is contemporaneous to the events he describes, while Vegetius is not), but also to cut. Technical details are lacking, but you get the definite impression that Roman sword and shield use was a very active thing and that the men had not inconsiderable skill at fencing with sword and shield (and, we may presume, pilum, and dagger).He also notes - and this is a point that all too many people in our own day miss, as apparently they also did in Polybius’ own - that warfare need not consist of set piece battles in which both sides line up on a flat plain and throw themselves at each other. Indeed - and Polybius says elsewhere in the discussion to which I linked - the main reason the Romans conquered Greece was that the Greeks were the undisputed master of that kind of set piece warfare, and the Romans simply refused to play. As a result, a goodly amount of Roman fighting was in small units or even as individuals.For what it’s worth, Polybius’ description makes sense to me as a historical fencer. You certainly can fight shoulder to shoulder with a tiny sword and a large shield, as plenty of Roman reenactors can attest. But if your plan is to fence shoulder to shoulder with a large shield, a tiny sword is silly to adopt as your primary close combat weapon. There are other weapons, such as spears, much better suited to such a doctrine. But a short sword and a large shield make a very formidable combination for individual combat.So, contra Mr. Winter’s answer, I think the evidence - admittedly paltry, but unanimous - is that Romans used their shields quite actively and very much did fight as individuals. The technical details of that are beyond our firm reach.As for whether or not using a large shield in individual combat (even if that “individual combat” is taking place in the context of a larger action in which the men three feet to your left and right are also engaged in “individual combat”) is cumbersome … well, sort of. Certainly, active use of a large shield is more tiring than active use of a small shield. That should be no surprise. But can you use a large shield actively? Well … yes. Yes, you can. I’m not sure there’s much more to say about it than that.Actually, let’s take a look at a well-known battle scene from the opening of Rome:Take a look at the shield use here. Most of it is quite plausible: the men move their shields to cover attacks along various lines, and that certainly is tiring (believe me!), but as you can see, it’s not like they have to move their arms and bodies very much. If you look at the shield use at 0:28 against the flying leap, that is exactly the sort of exaggerated motion that absolutely would exhaust even a very fit man quite quickly.Fortunately, that sort of flying leap is among the more sensationalized elements of this battle.Two footnotes:About that battle scene: first, the men are approximately 50% closer to each other than Polybius says actual Roman soldiers were (granted, this scene takes place a generation later than Polybius wrote, and granted, they’re on the defense here, not the attack); second, the file rotation system here (where men fight briefly on the front line and then rotate to the rear) is highly speculative, essentially the result of modern people asking how the rear-rankers contributed to the fight. For my money, I think it’s probably wrong, and contrary to what Polybius says in XVIII.30 (emphasis added):The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily—seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigour to the use of their swords.About the lack of technical detail in Roman shield fencing: One of the things you often hear about Roman shield use is that the bottom rim of the shield was used to strike. Rome depicts this, for instance:This use of the shield is not precisely implausible. Nearly 1,700 years after Polybius wrote, the Bolognese fencing master Achille Marozzo would teach a number of techniques with the imbraciatura that involve striking with the lower edge of the shield, and as you can see, an imbraciatura is a shield of a type that would look quite familiar to a Republican legionary:That said, striking with the rim of the shield is only plausible, and we should be careful to avoid stating that we know Romans used their shields that way. No ancient authors ever discuss such a technique to my knowledge, let alone suggest that it was a regular part of Roman military fencing.