Today, I want to share why I think you should interview real estate agents before hiring one. Why You Should Interview Real Estate Agents Truth be told, I have only purchased one house and I'm in the process of selling it. My husband and I thought long and hard about whether we would try to sell our property on our own or hire someone to represent us. In the end, we chose the latter. If you have ever shared with friends or family that you're looking for a home or thinking of selling your own, most everyone says something along the lines of, "Oh! I know a realtor I can recommend!" Many of you may know a real estate agent personally as well. I still think it makes sense to interview any prospective agents because they are being paid by you. When you hire someone to do work on your home, you get estimates and gather information about how and when the work will be done. When you are looking for babysitters, you meet them and see how they'll interact with your child. When you're an employer, you interview any potential employees. Don't Take The Easy Route with Previous Agents and Friends Just because a friend is a realtor, doesn't mean they'll be the best real estate agent for you. Just because a friend recommends their realtor to you, doesn't mean you have to hire him/her. It's business and nobody should take it personally. Interviewing real estate agents just makes sense. Oftentimes, people don't. Why not just use the realtor that sold you the house you're currently in? Well, you can. But do you know how that realtor handles business when they are the listing agent versus the buyer's agent? Do you know if they'll want to pursue the option to be a dual agent (and double their commission)? Why not interview them while interviewing others? It won't hurt. Now that the author and her husband have decided to hire someone to represent them what will they likely do next? - not enough information - hire the person who sold them their current home - interview real estate agents - hire one of the recommendations they got from their friends
interview real estate agents

(Question)
I had seen it before, those fuzzy, furry leaves and stalks, with the pretty, star-pointed purple flowers, but up until that moment that I saw them sitting in a basket at the market stalls, I admit I had never taken notice of it as a food. It grow along cracks in stone walls and along the roadside near my home in Settignano, which is blooming with spring goodness right now: robinia (black locust) trees, wild garlic (three-cornered leek) and even elderflowers are already bursting. I asked the vendor just to double check, "Is this borage?" "Si," Came the answer, "Borragine." He confirmed. "I've had it in ravioli," I started to say, "Brava!" He said, as if we were about to start a guessing game on what could be done with it. Actually, there's a lot that can be done with it. If you can use it as a ravioli filling with ricotta, then you can imagine it taking the place of spinach in gnudi, too, but also soups or frittata or stirred through polenta. I learned that the flowers are just as delicious, if not more interesting, for their delicate cucumber-like flavour people told me of their use in salads or cocktails like Pimms, and someone even mentioned she freezes them in ice cubes, what a pretty idea for those first warm nights when you can dine al fresco, homemade cocktail in hand. Then there's risotto and of course the fritters, much like these ones. Or you can simply deep fry the clusters of buds that haven't yet burst open like these deep-fried robinia flowers. borage and ricotta crepes The problem, I was thinking, as I took home my bag of borage, is that I can't decide what to make. There's simply too much choice. I consulted two of my favourite books that also happen to be cookbooks. Patience Gray's Honey from a Weed and Luigi Ballerini's A Feast of Weeds. Both had wonderful ideas for borage (and indeed many other edible, foraged plants). What is probably true about the author? - needs a cookbook - not enough information - she enjoys trying new foods - she doesn't like cocktails
(Answer)
she enjoys trying new foods

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may be open to new limits on the government's ability to track someone's movements by accessing data on that person's cellphone. A case before the high court could result in a landmark decision in the ongoing debate over civil liberties protections in an era of rapid technological change. At issue is whether law enforcement will be able to access cellphone data that can reveal a person's whereabouts without having to first obtain a court-issued search warrant. The case stems from the conviction of Timothy Carpenter for a series of robberies back in 2010 and 2011. Prosecutors were able to obtain cellphone records that indicated his location over a period of months, information that proved crucial to his conviction. On Wednesday, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union argued that law enforcement should be required to obtain a court-ordered search warrant before obtaining such information. They also argued that allowing law enforcement to access the cellphone data without a warrant would violate the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "It is impossible to go about our daily lives without leaving a trail of digital breadcrumbs that reveal where we have been over time, what we have done, who we spent time with," said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who spoke to reporters outside the Supreme Court following oral arguments. "It is time for the court, we think, to update Fourth Amendment doctrine to provide reasonable protections today." Some of the justices also raised concerns about privacy in the digital age. "Most Americans, I think, still want to avoid Big Brother," Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who often sides with the liberal wing of the court, said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who often sides with conservatives on the court, said the central question was whether the cellphone information should be accessible to the government "without a warrant." Why did people argue that accessing a cellphone without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment? - not enough information - it would be a case of unreasonable search and seizure - it would be a case of lacking freedom of speech - it would be a case of hacking
it would be a case of unreasonable search and seizure