"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators."
So the power to set rules for elections resides with the States _unless_ Congress explicitly makes a law to alter such regulations. The relevant questions would be:
1) Did Congress actually ratify the treaty? 2) Does the treaty actually address how close monitors can be to the polling places? 3) Does any other Congressional law address how close international monitors can be to polling places?
If the answer to any of those questions is 'No' then unfortunately for you, what Texas thinks does matter. The US Federal government is (theoretically) one of limited and enumerated powers. Setting the times, places, and manner of the election is a power that's reserved for the States but that Congress can override. When Congress is silent the State is, in this respect at least, sovereign.
Perhaps you're from that country known as the EU and you don't understand how individual states can have authority separate and independent of your controlling federal government.
TFA only lightly touches on the economics but recognizes that it must scale to be cost competitive with producing a gallon of gas from stuff you pull from the ground. That it provides a potential way to time-shift (admittedly in-efficiently) energy delivery from intermittent green energy sources (solar, wind) is another benefit figuring into the TCO.
It may, in fact, turn into a pig-in-a-poke but there's reason to believe that if it can scale and efficiency can be improved there's a business case.
Actually, it's slightly better than carbon neutral (assuming green energy inputs) because every gallon of gas you're burning that's created through this process is offsetting a gallon of gas that would otherwise be contributing additional CO2 to the atmosphere.
Hooray! Finally, disaster porn I can really get worked up about!
Don't listen to those mother hubbards at Chick-fil-a: chicken is not the answer! We need more pork! Porking is the answer. Wait, what type of porn were we talking about again?
Which, if true, is really funny because WA doesn't have a reciprocal relationship with Texas which requires a full day course plus a practical examination. (IIRC WA objects to TX CHL licenses because 18 year olds with military service can carry which is still illegal in WA. Someone should check me on that though.)
No, what's silly is pretending a penalty is not a tax for the purposes of avoiding the restrictions of the Anti-Injunction Act but then later pretending the penalty IS a tax so you can go ahead and rule it constitutional.
Roberts argues that the SCOTUS is confined by precedent (Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 675) which requires the Court to use "every reasonable construction" to rescue a statute from unconstitutionality and thus the penalty is really a tax and that this tax is a legitimate exercise of Congress' taxing power. Roberts fails to square this argument with his position that the Court has authority to hear the case because the penalty ISN'T a tax. Go read the opinion; his logic is tortured.
Without any specifics it's hard to tell what you're thinking of but in most instances I can recall the victims of the shootings were prohibited from carrying and were thus unable to defend themselves.
"...longer life spans, higher quality of life, and more stable governments."
I don't know if you intended any order in that list but 'stable government' has to be the first step. By and large third world poverty is the result of kleptocratic governments and a general lack of fair and dependable rule of law. Education is necessary, yes, but without a stable framework within which to exploit it education is an investment with limited or no returns.
Go check your sources. Obama's problem with the PPACA wasn't the Republicans which, you're correct, he could have easily steam-rolled. It was his own Democratic party that balked at passing the PPACA. Google 'Cornhusker kickback' if you're looking for a place to start.
No, Obama's problem was that, like all politicians, he got greedy and arrogant. He stopped listening to people outside his own echo chamber. He failed to show leadership: when he should have been reigning in his allies in Congress he instead let them indulge in their own worst tendencies. He, and his closest allies, still don't seem to understand that the bill they passed was and is deeply unpopular.
What I think will ultimately cost him his office though is the fact that he wasted his political capital fighting a fight that most American's didn't care about (Health Care Reform) instead of trying to solve the problem they DO care about which is the economy.
"New construction would be an obvious choice as tacking 25K onto the asking price of a home already north of 150K is minimal considering the immediate savings gained."
I think you should run your numbers again. Adding $25K to a typical 30 year mortgage at 3.6% is going to add about $115 dollars to your mortgage payment per month and that number's already low because I'm assuming you have excellent credit and I'm not including the effect on your property tax.
What's the average electricity bill for an average home in the US? I don't know but let's stack the deck in your favor and assume it's about $300 which is probably a gross overestimation. (In the dead of summer in TX most newer McMansions are going to run in that range.) Let's also assume your $25K (materials and labor) installation is exactly matched to your energy consumption needs over the course of the year (so any net metering zeros out). That means that you're paying $115 per month against $300 in energy costs netting you $185/mo. in savings. That's about $2200 a year and since your $25K installation actually costs you about $40K by the time you're done paying off your mortgage you're looking at a return on investment in about 18 years. (Your ROI is 7 years assuming you just pay the $25K out of pocket.)
That's your best case: low interest rates, excellent credit, no PMI, really high energy bills, no opportunity cost calculations, no tariffs on cheap solar panels, and no property tax or maintenance considerations.
"they just plain [expletive deleted] up this IPO and it may hurt their IPO underwriting business."
Maybe, maybe not. You could argue that they priced the IPO pretty much optimally, for FB that is. The fact that the shares tanked on day 1 means they didn't leave any money on the table and FB got the most they could have possibly hoped for in the offering. The IPO investors got screwed but if they didn't see this train wreck coming then perhaps they should be looking for a less intellectually demanding line of work.
The United States engages in all kinds of economic protectionism including artificially manipulating its currency not to mention import tariffs. So, by leveling these accusations at China, they sound awfully stale and hollow.
or to simplify:
Greedy politicians engage in all kinds of economic protectionism including artificially manipulating their currency not to mention import tariffs. So, by leveling these accusations at other greedy politicans, they sound awfully stale and hollow.
No, what you're doing is temporarily preventing a visible and politically favored group of workers from being unemployed while simultaneously putting other invisible and unfavored groups out of work now. A tariff is a tax on everyone who isn't a member of the favored group; they get to pay for the preferential treatment received by the 'in' group in the form of higher prices for current consumption. This is a net loss for your entire economy and it won't save the protected group in the end anyway.
Now, if you want to argue that it's a temporary measure to help ease the sunset of a failed industry in your home economy so that everyone can transition to something else, then fine, make your case. Of course, it's not. This is just a political stunt, a payoff for favored constituencies, and one more tactic out of the 'blame-the-other-guy' playbook for politicians.
AC isn't arguing that it changes manufacturing prices outside of China, he's arguing that the tariff will raise the cost to install solar and end up hurting (as usual) the very industry it's supposed to be saving. I think the AC is also implying that the majority of solar cells are made in China and that there's not another similarly priced source of cheap cells. I have no data to confirm or refute that assumption.
Since US manufacturers are arguing that their higher prices represent the true cost of producing cells, the tariffs should (in theory) bring the import prices in-line with the 'real' costs of the US manufacturers. At current prices ROI for a solar installation is still too long for most people. (Last time I looked ROI for me was seven years and I'm in a pretty optimal location to use solar.) If solar doesn't make sense for most people at today's allegedly subsidized prices then raising the total cost is only going to make the financial case weaker and reduce the number of solar installations (compared to what it would have been).
Tariffs are almost always a terrible idea; unless your objective is to buy off/payoff a favored constituency, which is exactly what's happening here.
Yeah, sure go ahead and mod parent post Troll; (s)he's completely right. This is nothing but a naked payoff for a (currently) favored US industry and on the whole everyone loses here except for the US companies getting the payoff.
"Working in investment industry, I would seriously suggest buying Facebook shares."
Hah! FB's investment banks must be really concerned to have moved their pump-and-dump scheme to./!
Unless you're already an insider stay far far away from this scam. Not convinced? Take a look at FB's P/E compared to Google or Apple. Now try a little though experiment: which one of these companies has the business model that would be the hardest to replicate? (i.e. who has least sustainable competitive advantage.)
"Short barrel rifles are legal for civilians to own, they just again need a $200 tax stamp upon transfer, like silencers."
With one important caveat: your state may have additional restrictions on SBRs or silencers that make them illegal (in that state) even if you've got a tax stamp.
Slashdot Mirror
Section 1 Article 4 states:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except
as to the Place of Choosing Senators."
So the power to set rules for elections resides with the States _unless_ Congress explicitly makes a law to alter such regulations. The relevant questions would be:
1) Did Congress actually ratify the treaty?
2) Does the treaty actually address how close monitors can be to the polling places?
3) Does any other Congressional law address how close international monitors can be to polling places?
If the answer to any of those questions is 'No' then unfortunately for you, what Texas thinks does matter. The US Federal government is (theoretically) one of limited and enumerated powers. Setting the times, places, and manner of the election is a power that's reserved for the States but that Congress can override. When Congress is silent the State is, in this respect at least, sovereign.
Perhaps you're from that country known as the EU and you don't understand how individual states can have authority separate and independent of your controlling federal government.
+1
TFA only lightly touches on the economics but recognizes that it must scale to be cost competitive with producing a gallon of gas from stuff you pull from the ground. That it provides a potential way to time-shift (admittedly in-efficiently) energy delivery from intermittent green energy sources (solar, wind) is another benefit figuring into the TCO.
It may, in fact, turn into a pig-in-a-poke but there's reason to believe that if it can scale and efficiency can be improved there's a business case.
Actually, it's slightly better than carbon neutral (assuming green energy inputs) because every gallon of gas you're burning that's created through this process is offsetting a gallon of gas that would otherwise be contributing additional CO2 to the atmosphere.
Hooray! Finally, disaster porn I can really get worked up about!
Don't listen to those mother hubbards at Chick-fil-a: chicken is not the answer! We need more pork! Porking is the answer. Wait, what type of porn were we talking about again?
LOL...yeah right up until they start to replicate.
Let's take your numbers at face value: you've just made a very convincing case to NOT let the US government have anything to do with health care.
I bet Sarcastic Rover's feeling much better about Mars now: http://twitter.com/SarcasticRover.
"what's the cost (in term of energy) to get originally un-entangled particles to be "entangled"?"
I'd guess about $20 in drinks plus some sweet talk.
Which, if true, is really funny because WA doesn't have a reciprocal relationship with Texas which requires a full day course plus a practical examination. (IIRC WA objects to TX CHL licenses because 18 year olds with military service can carry which is still illegal in WA. Someone should check me on that though.)
No, what's silly is pretending a penalty is not a tax for the purposes of avoiding the restrictions of the Anti-Injunction Act but then later pretending the penalty IS a tax so you can go ahead and rule it constitutional.
Roberts argues that the SCOTUS is confined by precedent (Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 675) which requires the Court to use "every reasonable construction" to rescue a statute from unconstitutionality and thus the penalty is really a tax and that this tax is a legitimate exercise of Congress' taxing power. Roberts fails to square this argument with his position that the Court has authority to hear the case because the penalty ISN'T a tax. Go read the opinion; his logic is tortured.
Without any specifics it's hard to tell what you're thinking of but in most instances I can recall the victims of the shootings were prohibited from carrying and were thus unable to defend themselves.
Because the debate is over; the science settled.
"...longer life spans, higher quality of life, and more stable governments."
I don't know if you intended any order in that list but 'stable government' has to be the first step. By and large third world poverty is the result of kleptocratic governments and a general lack of fair and dependable rule of law. Education is necessary, yes, but without a stable framework within which to exploit it education is an investment with limited or no returns.
Go check your sources. Obama's problem with the PPACA wasn't the Republicans which, you're correct, he could have easily steam-rolled. It was his own Democratic party that balked at passing the PPACA. Google 'Cornhusker kickback' if you're looking for a place to start.
No, Obama's problem was that, like all politicians, he got greedy and arrogant. He stopped listening to people outside his own echo chamber. He failed to show leadership: when he should have been reigning in his allies in Congress he instead let them indulge in their own worst tendencies. He, and his closest allies, still don't seem to understand that the bill they passed was and is deeply unpopular.
What I think will ultimately cost him his office though is the fact that he wasted his political capital fighting a fight that most American's didn't care about (Health Care Reform) instead of trying to solve the problem they DO care about which is the economy.
"New construction would be an obvious choice as tacking 25K onto the asking price of a home already north of 150K is minimal considering the immediate savings gained."
I think you should run your numbers again. Adding $25K to a typical 30 year mortgage at 3.6% is going to add about $115 dollars to your mortgage payment per month and that number's already low because I'm assuming you have excellent credit and I'm not including the effect on your property tax.
What's the average electricity bill for an average home in the US? I don't know but let's stack the deck in your favor and assume it's about $300 which is probably a gross overestimation. (In the dead of summer in TX most newer McMansions are going to run in that range.) Let's also assume your $25K (materials and labor) installation is exactly matched to your energy consumption needs over the course of the year (so any net metering zeros out). That means that you're paying $115 per month against $300 in energy costs netting you $185/mo. in savings. That's about $2200 a year and since your $25K installation actually costs you about $40K by the time you're done paying off your mortgage you're looking at a return on investment in about 18 years. (Your ROI is 7 years assuming you just pay the $25K out of pocket.)
That's your best case: low interest rates, excellent credit, no PMI, really high energy bills, no opportunity cost calculations, no tariffs on cheap solar panels, and no property tax or maintenance considerations.
+1
"they just plain [expletive deleted] up this IPO and it may hurt their IPO underwriting business."
Maybe, maybe not. You could argue that they priced the IPO pretty much optimally, for FB that is. The fact that the shares tanked on day 1 means they didn't leave any money on the table and FB got the most they could have possibly hoped for in the offering. The IPO investors got screwed but if they didn't see this train wreck coming then perhaps they should be looking for a less intellectually demanding line of work.
"although google+ was a failure"
Have you seen the new iPhone client for G+? If not, give it a try. It may be premature to write off Google.
Obligatory FTFY:
The United States engages in all kinds of economic protectionism including artificially manipulating its currency not to mention import tariffs. So, by leveling these accusations at China, they sound awfully stale and hollow.
or to simplify:
Greedy politicians engage in all kinds of economic protectionism including artificially manipulating their currency not to mention import tariffs. So, by leveling these accusations at other greedy politicans, they sound awfully stale and hollow.
No, what you're doing is temporarily preventing a visible and politically favored group of workers from being unemployed while simultaneously putting other invisible and unfavored groups out of work now. A tariff is a tax on everyone who isn't a member of the favored group; they get to pay for the preferential treatment received by the 'in' group in the form of higher prices for current consumption. This is a net loss for your entire economy and it won't save the protected group in the end anyway.
Now, if you want to argue that it's a temporary measure to help ease the sunset of a failed industry in your home economy so that everyone can transition to something else, then fine, make your case. Of course, it's not. This is just a political stunt, a payoff for favored constituencies, and one more tactic out of the 'blame-the-other-guy' playbook for politicians.
AC isn't arguing that it changes manufacturing prices outside of China, he's arguing that the tariff will raise the cost to install solar and end up hurting (as usual) the very industry it's supposed to be saving. I think the AC is also implying that the majority of solar cells are made in China and that there's not another similarly priced source of cheap cells. I have no data to confirm or refute that assumption.
Since US manufacturers are arguing that their higher prices represent the true cost of producing cells, the tariffs should (in theory) bring the import prices in-line with the 'real' costs of the US manufacturers. At current prices ROI for a solar installation is still too long for most people. (Last time I looked ROI for me was seven years and I'm in a pretty optimal location to use solar.) If solar doesn't make sense for most people at today's allegedly subsidized prices then raising the total cost is only going to make the financial case weaker and reduce the number of solar installations (compared to what it would have been).
Tariffs are almost always a terrible idea; unless your objective is to buy off/payoff a favored constituency, which is exactly what's happening here.
Yeah, sure go ahead and mod parent post Troll; (s)he's completely right. This is nothing but a naked payoff for a (currently) favored US industry and on the whole everyone loses here except for the US companies getting the payoff.
"Working in investment industry, I would seriously suggest buying Facebook shares."
Hah! FB's investment banks must be really concerned to have moved their pump-and-dump scheme to ./!
Unless you're already an insider stay far far away from this scam. Not convinced? Take a look at FB's P/E compared to Google or Apple. Now try a little though experiment: which one of these companies has the business model that would be the hardest to replicate? (i.e. who has least sustainable competitive advantage.)
"Short barrel rifles are legal for civilians to own, they just again need a $200 tax stamp upon transfer, like silencers."
With one important caveat: your state may have additional restrictions on SBRs or silencers that make them illegal (in that state) even if you've got a tax stamp.