There are clues in the sentence. They are used so often that they are worth noting and looking out for in the future.
Whenever you see “currently” it is a clue that the writer wants you to know that the situation is a change from normal practice. Normally, Davison River farmers do not have to make this decision. However, something has changed and they must make this decision now.
“Usually” is a clue that means “not in this case”. The two kinds of wheat are usually equally profitable. This year they are not expected to be equally profitable.
What follows “because” tells you why the usual or the normal does not apply. A condition has changed. Irrigation water will be less available.
“Therefore” is the conclusion. In a change from normal practice, the lower amount of irrigation means that less winter wheat can be grown.
It is like a little logic puzzle.
Currently - a change is contemplated
Usually - what happens in the past
Because - what is happening in the present
Therefore - why the future will not be like the past
No, it’s using “modern” to mean both “existing right now at this time”, which these forager societies also do, and to mean “in contact with advanced societies”. In other words, the forager societies that exist now have had some contact with global civilization and may not be reliably equated with ancient forager societies.
No, your original assumption was correct, but it didn’t capture the whole story.
Winter wheat is a particular set of species of wheat, but the term also describes its growing cycle. It’s planted in the fall, it sprouts before freezing weather, but then it goes dormant during the coldest part of winter, and then finishes its growing cycle in the spring.
Spring wheat, on the other hand, describes those species of wheat which are planted in the springtime, and harvested in the summer or fall (making it more similar to most other crops).
One variety of partially biodegradable plastic beverage container is manufactured from small bits of plastic bound together by a degradable bonding agent such as cornstarch. Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic refuse per container is produced when such containers are discarded than when comparable nonbiodegradable containers are discarded.
>>>>no less plastic refuseper container
refuse ? refuse = deny.
I refuse . you refuse . How come a plastic refuse ?
it says "no less plastic refuse " .
>>>when such containers
which container ? **partially **biodegradable container ?
Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic **RUBBISH **per container is produced when such containers are discarded.
why it says no plastic rubbish is produced ?? .it said when bonding agent degrades, it produces small bits of plastic
is not plastic rubbish = small bits of plastic ?? are they different ?
>>>>Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic refuse per container is produced when such containers are discarded than when comparable nonbiodegradable containers are discarded.
I summarize this way then
partially biodegradable and nonbiodegradable plastic beverage container both produce same amount plastic RUBBISH when degrades.
Yes, that would be another way to say that idea. Partially biodegradable and nonbiodegradable plastic beverage containers both produce the same amount of plastic rubbish when they degrade.
What they are saying is that the volume of plastic is not less after the non-plastic elements have dissolved. That means the bonding agent must be a very small proportion of the container.
After the bonding agents have dissolved, you still have all the plastic. The volume is no smaller (no less) – 99% of the plastic container remains.
By the way, when “refuse” is used as a noun, it is pronounced differently; there’s a different s sound and different emphasis.
noun: REFuss
verb: reFUZE
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise. Therefore, if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisements that do not specify [COLOR=“Red”]fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions[/COLOR]
A “fee” is a payment for a service of some sort. “Fee arrangements” just means “the arrangements for paying the fees”. In other words, how they will expect to be paid by their client for ther services.
>>>**how **they will expect to be paid by their client for ther services.
do you mean whether the fee will be paid by cash or by cheque or by wire transfer ?
>>>>against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements
what is the problem with this ? suppose I’m a lawyer . Now if I put an advertisements and SPECIFY there that the fees can ONLY be paid by cheque for all criminal cases.
DO you call it a **restriction **which the argument is arguing ? or we are talking about a different kind of legal restrictions here ?
Also, does it really matter if someone specify how they want to be paid ? (in reality)
More likely: is there an upfront fee? Do they charge an hourly rate for consultation? If you’re filing a lawsuit, what percentage will they take if you win? This is particularly an issue among lawyers who take on poorer individuals, and especially those who deal in bankruptcy or lawsuits (which, in the U.S., is often the type of lawyer who advertises).
I don’t actually know the answer to your question, but I suspect a thorough answer is much more complicated than you’re really interested in.
To start with, in the US, most laws of this type are made by the state government rather than the federal government. That means there may be 50+ different answers to your question.
Reading between the lines of your text, I suspect the advertising restrictions were put in place to discourage predatory practices, such as charging a large amount for a consultation, but not telling the client about the fee up front in the advertisement.
In theory, advertisements are good. The concern has always been that the ads could be misleading (and some lawyers have had concerns that allowing advertising makes the profession as a whole look unseemly).
In the U.S., lawyers were often barred from advertising by their state bar associations, which are the organizations which grant lawyers the right to practice law in each state (I may be mistaken, but I don’t think there was ever a federal law which banned legal advertising). In a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, it was determined that legal advertising fell under the First Amendment as protected free speech.
A lot of the legal advertising we see here is for personal-injury attorneys (“Were you injured in an accident? We can get you money!”) and personal-bankruptcy attorneys. And, honestly, a lot of it is pretty bad, and it clearly targets poor or ignorant people who may not know any better.
“fee arrangements” in legal terms refer to the manner in which the fee is calculated, not the means by which payment is made.
Some examples of different fee arrangements include:
Hourly fee – you pay a per-hour rate for the work that is needed
Flat fee – you pay a single price for any amount of work that is necessary
Contingency Fee – you don’t pay anything; the attorney takes a percentage if you win (if you lose, the attorney cannot seek payment except for very minor expenses such as the fee for filing papers with the court) (a contingency arrangement for a criminal matter is an ethical violation for the attorney and may be specifically illegal in some states).
Other arrangements are possible.
Yes, in the US there are rules for advertising by attorneys. They vary by state but have some general things in common, intended to eliminate deceiving or misleading people who do not know much about the legal system. For example, you cannot promise a particular result. There are complicated rules for contingency arrangements, and rules about advertising that you work on contingency.
>>>>The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,** the more** lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise.
lawyers who advertise charge less.
lawyers who does not advertise charge more.
so, I really can’t tell that the lawyers who advertise are doing predatory practices …because they are charging less .
do you mean lawyers ( who advertise their service) charge less , they don’t tell the client up front and later they charge hefty amount , hidden cost . …is it the odd things happening here ? if this is true ,then these lawyers are bad lawyers…
How government put restrictions ?does the govt circular says that each legal service advertisement have to **mention **hourly fee/contingency fee/flat fee / up front ? is it the kind of restriction govt impose ?
