Sex Trafficking is and should always be a bipartisan issue not beholden to the usual contest of opposing political forces coming from sources of legitimate disagreement. People being held in slavery in the modern United States is not a partisan issue. Children getting raped multiple times per day is not a partisan issue.
Selling sex for money or anything is illegal in pretty much every state of the US but Nevada. That means that anyone that is dealing in the sex trade is engaged in sex trafficking even if the individual is not a child and even if the individual is not being held in effective slavery. I'd hazard to guess, and likely wouldn't have a difficult time backing it up, that the vast majority of sex trafficking is conducted by consenting adults which is a behavior that should be regulated at best, for the purpose of controlling STDs and other infections, and not considered illegal.
Laws like the one propose here are put forth to solve the outlier situations like what you mentioned but they will be used far more often to bludgeon the sale of sex between consenting adults.
It's pointless more to the fact that you can calculate how long it will take and you are capable of automating at least one significant portion of the task (issuing commands in battle), potentially automating the other significant portion of the task (causing the character to run into walls to trigger random encounters), leaving the only task that you need to do being period saving so that progress isn't lost.
Combat readiness can generally be referred to as a question on whether a combat unit is supplied, trained, and retains enough manpower in order to carry out the missions it might have to perform. The only one of those aspects that excluding transgendered soldiers would impact is the retained manpower but seeing as how they account for less than a tenth of a percent that means you need an organization combat unit at the battalion/regiment/brigade level for you to even be short one soldier. The study you link is basically a big pile of common sense. They don't impact combat readiness because they aren't a large enough group to be able to impact it.
The French Revolutionary Army had a high point of manpower of nearly 1,000,000 soldiers thanks to conscription. That's extremely impressive for the time. Within two years that manpower had been cut in half and the majority of that loss was due to desertion due to the fact that the soldiers were poorly trained and the army relied on bayonet charges treating the soldiers as fodder. Their morale was crappy and if it wasn't then they wouldn't have seen such massive amounts of desertion. This worked in many battles due to overwhelming numbers and inadequate training on the part of their opponents with regard to handling bayonet charges and because of the latter the French were blessed with low casualty rates once the charge got into the enemy line. Of course, officers in the army that lived a little too lavishly while the soldiers suffered frequently met untimely deaths.
The US Army during Vietnam was still a conscription based force. MP units had been established specifically to deal with combat units that were being flagged as "fragged or refusal" units where the officers met unusual deaths or the soldiers refused to follow their superior's orders.
The Israeli army is also conscripted although they do not conscript Arabs but do permit them to volunteer. Israel also has a rather unique geopolitical problem that might see a majority of those conscripted wanting to serve if it were voluntary and even the conscripted that don't typically understand the why behind the conscription and don't suffer as much morale damage from the conscription.
Conscripted armies have known morale problems because you have soldiers in the army that don't want to be there and when some groups of individuals are arbitrarily excluded it causes further problems. When you conscript you better have a damn good reason why you're refusing certain groups, such as the Israelis, otherwise the resentment of the conscripts increases, decreasing their morale, and increasing their resistance to the hierarchy. These morale issues are generally not present in voluntary forces because all soldiers who are there at least made the decision that they wanted to at some point. Whether some group of individuals aren't permitted doesn't typically breed resentment based morale problems or morale problems in general.
You've made a completely ridiculous argument for why transgendered should be allowed to serve. Your argument is based on "feels good" not facts and realities. The argument to make is that there's no reason to prohibit them unless they're undergoing hormonal therapy at which point it's the drugs, not the individual, which is the liability, much like why asthmatics are not permitted to serve in any capacity, or they have undergone surgeries if those surgeries physically alter the soldier sufficiently that the soldier is no longer capable of performing at the necessary level. If you wanted to suggest that these issues should still permit non-combat roles then I would just point at what happened to non-combat US medical personnel during the Ardennes Counteroffensive or what was done with non-combat personnel during the US push across Europe. Just because you're currently a non-combat soldier doesn't mean you won't be put into a combat situation because of an enemy attack and it also doesn't mean you won't be conscripted from a non-combat to combat position to address manpower shortages in combat units.
I honestly have no idea what you're advocating for. Are you suggesting that the military needs to have transgendered people because it would improve morale? I would like to see a study or citation that would show that in a voluntary force, transgenders not being permitted to serve causes cynicism and a loss of morale.
Non-combat only means that you won't be expected to be deployed in the line. It does not mean you will not come under assault or otherwise be attacked by the enemy and you must be capable of fighting. It also does not mean that you will not be pulled from your non-combat duties to serve in the line in the event there is a need for able-bodied solders to replace losses suffered by line units.
Youtube will force 5 seconds of ad viewing before showing you the video. Since YT is one of the larger delivery platforms for ads I doubt this is a 5-6 second attention span as much as you have 5-6 seconds to make your ad compelling enough that someone won't click the skip ad link.
What insanity? Outside of perhaps some substances that shouldn't be controlled if there's no addiction or overdose concerns, under what circumstances would you consider it sane that a patient should be permitted to have any more of a quantity of a drug that is necessary to treat the problem it was prescribed for when said drug can lead to addiction and dependence, or negative health consequences? It provides a system by which a patient's chance of overdose and addiction can be reasonably controlled when the patient isn't under supervision since in order to get the refill you must go back to the same pharmacy, which holds a record of the last time you filled the prescription, or you have to use the prescription information presented on the container in which the medication was dispensed or a reprint of the prescription provided by the filling pharmacy both of which have the date the prescription was last filled. This lets pharmacies not refill a prescription too soon. For example, you were given a month's prescription with 5 refills (a half-year prescription) of an opiate substance. If you come in 1 week after your initial prescription was filled for a refill the pharmacy is most likely not going to fulfill that request.
The 16 vs 15 pill thing would be an insanity of the legal system, not of the prescription system.
Doctors don't issue the same uniform prescription usage guidelines across the US. A drug may be issues for twice a day for one week to one patient, one a day for another patient, and once a day for 10 days for a third patient.
From a legal perspective, controlled substances are always illegal to possess unless your possession is permitted under an exception, which is pretty much entirely just within a container labeled with the prescription, repackaged into a container for ease of use, or in use from the aforementioned prescription. You are proposing a situation where you must provide a universal package with a prescription on it where you can repackage an indeterminate amount of blister packages for pills.
Think of all the times patients are prescribed a medication but they cannot finish taking them (there are side affects, or the medicine isn't effective so another med is prescribed, etc, etc) and there are full pill bottles sitting around that could be used to treat other family members when they become ill. That would be.... efficient, would it not?
It might be efficient, assuming that the family member was given a prescription for the same medication and dosage as you had however that is illegal and if the family member didn't receive a prescription for the medication it is potentially dangerous as you are treating someone with a substance that may or may not be relevant to the actual sickness but based on your fully amateur diagnosis. The prescription is the permission given to the person listed on the prescription to possess and consume and amount of the controlled substance as listed on the prescription. If you possess 16 pills when the prescription is for 15, they would be illegal possession. If the prescription is for John Doe and Jane Doe takes one of the pills that is illegal usage. Whether these qualify as misdemeanors or felonies will depend on the jurisdiction and the type of medication.
And it's 2500 for an urban clusters so you need to drill down into the stats and ask yourself, when someone is talking about urban, are they referring to only urban areas or is the statistic also including urban clusters. "Urban area" is easily an overloaded definition with both technical and non-technical definitions.
Axle weight values are not hard to determine and while cars are averaging around 4,000 lbs GVW you're not going to see very many cars with a GAWF of 2700 and a GAWR of 1300.
You can check the GAWF/GAWR of any vehicle you can gain entry to. You'll find a sticker, it's typically on the inside of the door jam on the driver side, which looks similar to the following. https://pictures.dealer.com/m/...
That one's for a 2015 Chevy Malibu, which is a fairly well selling passenger car. The GVW is 4516lbs (like what your article describes) with a GAWF of 2295 lbs and a GAWR of 2221 lbs. For that Malibu to achieve a 2700 axle weight the other axle would have to be 1816 lbs. Realistically, you need to start to exceed about 5250 lbs GVW to make a 2700 axle weight on a car a possibility.
I thought you might be joking so I did a brief look. I'm not a tax accountant so it's a bit indecipherable to me this early in the morning but the IRS most definitely wants you to report it as income on the year the debt is canceled. I just can't tell if this debt cancellation is an exception to canceled debt. This looks to be a fairly brutal tax hit. The minimum that you would owe the IRS should be $3578.75 for the $31,000 and that's assuming no income (besides the debt cancellation) and the standard deduction. You'd pay 10% on $9,275 and 15% on $17,675. It definitely doesn't qualify as an exception to gross income because the debt isn't being cancelled as part of bankruptcy.
At 2,200 sqmi it's relatively close to double the size of Rhode Island (1214sqmi). It also makes it about the size of Brunei (2226sqmi). It's larger than 33 countries. It's land mass is equivalent to the 19th smallest nations in area. Vatican City. Monaco. Nauru, Tuvalu, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Marshall Islands, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Maldives, Malta, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, Seychelles, Palau, Andorra, Saint Lucia, and the Federated States of Micronesia
Replying to self, suit is brought under 1st Amendment, not Presidential Records Act. Disregard that line as it's not relevant. The rest of the response is relevant to the deletion of tweets, however.
Here's the text from section 2201 of the Presidential Records Act (the law under which the suit is brought forth). This section defines numerous things.
44 U.S.C. Chapter 22 2201. Definitions
As used in this chapter--
(1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form.
(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term--
(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but
(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.
(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes--
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
Whether or not someone in the White Staff says the account is official is not relevant as it's who created the tweets and the content of the tweets that matter. Presidential records have to be created by the President, the President's immediate staff, Vice President (as per an executive order), or a unit or individual advisor to the President. At the very least we can all agree that the tweets are created by someone covered by the statute however tweets that respond back to the President do not originate from someone whose records are subjected to the statute and would not need to be preserved. The question then becomes whether the President's tweets "relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President;". So I present the following two scenarios.
The President tweets: "Should I focus on a trade negotiation with Japan or Mexico?" vs "I'm going to renegotiate NAFTA." In the former tweet it's soliciting a poll which could conceivably construed as advising the President on a course of action to take as President
Regarding the study it seems like they hold the oil extractors responsible for all the emissions from cars so it is more a list of top fossil fuel companies than top emitters.
This might be a better way to put it.... with the way that the fossil fuel companies are given credit for emissions, if Ford/GM/Chrysler/etc were to suddenly shift to all electric vehicles then the fossil fuel company would get credit for significantly reducing their carbon emissions despite performing zero action on their part.
Those are just the cities that do it themselves and the advice to move to a state that prohibits city income taxes is unhelpful unless the state also prohibits county income taxes. Cities do draw income from county taxes. Since cities tend to have a majority of the population in a county they frequently have control of the county board that deals with taxes. I'm aware of one city income tax that is being proposed right now that is being levied as a county income tax. My guess is that the encouragement for a city income tax is going to depend on how many counties the municipality exists in and whether there are some counties where it hasn't managed to successfully gain control of the taxing board therefore the city level income tax is a much simpler method to increase taxation.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are many states which prohibit city income taxes but that doesn't mean an effective city income tax cannot occur. It's only in states like Washington which prohibit income taxes entirely or reserve taxing income for the state where a city income tax cannot occur. There's plenty of cities which are entirely bound within counties which generally results with the lionshare of the county's population residing within the city. This can end up with a few outcomes including a special county taxing district that only covered the city limits or the poor sods not in the city that reside in the county having to pony up more cash to pay for the city they don't live in. In either case, while the tax is applied at the county level, it is basically a tax or tax increase that only exists because of the city and therefore makes it effectively a municipal income tax.
While there are some larger metropolitan areas which exist within multiple counties (Atlanta, Columbus, New York).there's plenty more which do not (Detroit, Seattle, any metropolitan area in California). It would be interesting to find out how city income tax permission coincides with multi-county status for cities but of course we would need to determine how much of a controlling share the city generally has over the county board which determines county taxes.
This is not uncommon? It's also addressing an issue for modern planes, which is takeoff speed.
We've progressed from...
1. Turning the carrier into the wind and adding the ship's speed. 2. Catapult systems. 3. Ski-jumps.
Each of these designs serves a purpose to either increase the speed of the aircraft, and thus lift, or effectively increase the length of the runway for takeoff. In this case the runway is the distance the plane covers before it crashes into the sea. Watch footage and you will find it common for planes to "fall" off the end of the aircraft carrier before coming back up. A ski jump is a practical method to increase the effective distance the plane has to obtain the required speed/lift because the other method of doing so is constructing even larger hulls and longer flight decks all of which has a cost associated with it that is much higher than a ski jump.
Who says they have to operate from ground level? Put them on rails and suspend them. Telescope the scanning apparatus and retract it when a person is nearby. Bonus points for incorporating the rail system for restocking.
I like your idea though. It's a clever use of horizontal space.
Because people believe the auto in autopilot stands for autonomous rather than automatic.
In both air and sea craft, the autopilot maintains your course and heading. More sophisticated autopilots can accept a course as an input that it will follow which allows you to change direction. It doesn't steer you around hazards. It's also not guaranteed to keep you on the course if other conditions make it impossible to do so (more common in seacraft than aircraft). You still have to maintain a watch for hazards and respond to them accordingly.
Your understanding is correct. Too many people confuse the auto in autopilot for autonomous rather than automatic. This leads to a misunderstanding of the purpose and intent of autopilot. We can certainly have a discussion on whether cars should have adaptive cruise control and lane assist steering and whether Tesla should call it that rather than autopilot but Tesla labeling the feature as autopilot is entirely accurate with regard to its capabilities.
Everything you described suggests you have a food allergy to wheat. It is not unheard of for people who are allergic to wheat to have no reaction to spelt which is unsurprising since they are two separate species of plant. Wheat is one of the eight most common food allergies in the US (Milk, Egg, Fish, Shellfish, Tree Nuts, Peanuts, Wheat, Soybeans) and food allergies can manifest with numerous symptoms involving the bowels. Allergies can also develop later in life. The FDA requires spelt to be labeled as wheat because of the gluten content in spelt.
I have many similar symptoms as you. I will periodically have pains throughout the colon region of the abdomen as well as around the stomach and esophagus. I have long periods for passing bowel movements which isn't considered constipation due to the soft consistency of movements. I went to my doctor because the pain had me concerned about my heart. He referred me to a GI where they performed an endoscopy and discovered inflammation in the esophagus and are referring me to an immunologist to test for food allergies. I'm expecting to find out that I'm allergic to egg or wheat as those are the two foods in the top eight that I regularly consume.
It does not seem to be that extraordinary of a claim. We know that blacks accounts for a disproportionately high number of murderers at 40%. We also know that blacks support Democrats at rates around 87%:7% for D:R. Those are the two component facts that make the claim fairly believable because that gives you one third of all murderers right off the bat. Hispanics are roughly 20% of the white population and support Democrats at rate of 63%:27% D:R. Non-hispanic whites are support Democrats at a rate of about 26%:36% D:R. The other minorities are basically a non-factor at this point.
If we assume 5,000 murders then we should expect 1740 done by Democrat blacks, 624 by Democrat whites, and 378 by Democrat hispanics with 140 done by Republican blacks, 864 by Republican whites, and 162 by Republican hispanics. This brings our totals to 2742 murders by Democrats and 1166 murders by Republicans with 1092 murders by individuals who would be considered independent or affiliated with a non-major party. Those figures do show a 2.35:1 ratio of D:R murderers.
This is what we should expect given national demographics. The question to ask at this point then is what factors would cause the murderer population to veer away from the national distribution for party affiliation in order to drop the ratio from 2.35:1 to below 2:1. One big factor would be income level which is a factor that would lead one to believe that it would increase the number of Democrat murderers and decrease the number of Republicans. What factors can you think of that might cause it to swing towards Republicans?
Slashdot Mirror
Sex Trafficking is and should always be a bipartisan issue not beholden to the usual contest of opposing political forces coming from sources of legitimate disagreement. People being held in slavery in the modern United States is not a partisan issue. Children getting raped multiple times per day is not a partisan issue.
Selling sex for money or anything is illegal in pretty much every state of the US but Nevada. That means that anyone that is dealing in the sex trade is engaged in sex trafficking even if the individual is not a child and even if the individual is not being held in effective slavery. I'd hazard to guess, and likely wouldn't have a difficult time backing it up, that the vast majority of sex trafficking is conducted by consenting adults which is a behavior that should be regulated at best, for the purpose of controlling STDs and other infections, and not considered illegal.
Laws like the one propose here are put forth to solve the outlier situations like what you mentioned but they will be used far more often to bludgeon the sale of sex between consenting adults.
It's pointless more to the fact that you can calculate how long it will take and you are capable of automating at least one significant portion of the task (issuing commands in battle), potentially automating the other significant portion of the task (causing the character to run into walls to trigger random encounters), leaving the only task that you need to do being period saving so that progress isn't lost.
Combat readiness can generally be referred to as a question on whether a combat unit is supplied, trained, and retains enough manpower in order to carry out the missions it might have to perform. The only one of those aspects that excluding transgendered soldiers would impact is the retained manpower but seeing as how they account for less than a tenth of a percent that means you need an organization combat unit at the battalion/regiment/brigade level for you to even be short one soldier. The study you link is basically a big pile of common sense. They don't impact combat readiness because they aren't a large enough group to be able to impact it.
The French Revolutionary Army had a high point of manpower of nearly 1,000,000 soldiers thanks to conscription. That's extremely impressive for the time. Within two years that manpower had been cut in half and the majority of that loss was due to desertion due to the fact that the soldiers were poorly trained and the army relied on bayonet charges treating the soldiers as fodder. Their morale was crappy and if it wasn't then they wouldn't have seen such massive amounts of desertion. This worked in many battles due to overwhelming numbers and inadequate training on the part of their opponents with regard to handling bayonet charges and because of the latter the French were blessed with low casualty rates once the charge got into the enemy line. Of course, officers in the army that lived a little too lavishly while the soldiers suffered frequently met untimely deaths.
The US Army during Vietnam was still a conscription based force. MP units had been established specifically to deal with combat units that were being flagged as "fragged or refusal" units where the officers met unusual deaths or the soldiers refused to follow their superior's orders.
The Israeli army is also conscripted although they do not conscript Arabs but do permit them to volunteer. Israel also has a rather unique geopolitical problem that might see a majority of those conscripted wanting to serve if it were voluntary and even the conscripted that don't typically understand the why behind the conscription and don't suffer as much morale damage from the conscription.
Conscripted armies have known morale problems because you have soldiers in the army that don't want to be there and when some groups of individuals are arbitrarily excluded it causes further problems. When you conscript you better have a damn good reason why you're refusing certain groups, such as the Israelis, otherwise the resentment of the conscripts increases, decreasing their morale, and increasing their resistance to the hierarchy. These morale issues are generally not present in voluntary forces because all soldiers who are there at least made the decision that they wanted to at some point. Whether some group of individuals aren't permitted doesn't typically breed resentment based morale problems or morale problems in general.
You've made a completely ridiculous argument for why transgendered should be allowed to serve. Your argument is based on "feels good" not facts and realities. The argument to make is that there's no reason to prohibit them unless they're undergoing hormonal therapy at which point it's the drugs, not the individual, which is the liability, much like why asthmatics are not permitted to serve in any capacity, or they have undergone surgeries if those surgeries physically alter the soldier sufficiently that the soldier is no longer capable of performing at the necessary level. If you wanted to suggest that these issues should still permit non-combat roles then I would just point at what happened to non-combat US medical personnel during the Ardennes Counteroffensive or what was done with non-combat personnel during the US push across Europe. Just because you're currently a non-combat soldier doesn't mean you won't be put into a combat situation because of an enemy attack and it also doesn't mean you won't be conscripted from a non-combat to combat position to address manpower shortages in combat units.
I honestly have no idea what you're advocating for. Are you suggesting that the military needs to have transgendered people because it would improve morale? I would like to see a study or citation that would show that in a voluntary force, transgenders not being permitted to serve causes cynicism and a loss of morale.
Non-combat only means that you won't be expected to be deployed in the line. It does not mean you will not come under assault or otherwise be attacked by the enemy and you must be capable of fighting. It also does not mean that you will not be pulled from your non-combat duties to serve in the line in the event there is a need for able-bodied solders to replace losses suffered by line units.
Youtube will force 5 seconds of ad viewing before showing you the video. Since YT is one of the larger delivery platforms for ads I doubt this is a 5-6 second attention span as much as you have 5-6 seconds to make your ad compelling enough that someone won't click the skip ad link.
What insanity? Outside of perhaps some substances that shouldn't be controlled if there's no addiction or overdose concerns, under what circumstances would you consider it sane that a patient should be permitted to have any more of a quantity of a drug that is necessary to treat the problem it was prescribed for when said drug can lead to addiction and dependence, or negative health consequences? It provides a system by which a patient's chance of overdose and addiction can be reasonably controlled when the patient isn't under supervision since in order to get the refill you must go back to the same pharmacy, which holds a record of the last time you filled the prescription, or you have to use the prescription information presented on the container in which the medication was dispensed or a reprint of the prescription provided by the filling pharmacy both of which have the date the prescription was last filled. This lets pharmacies not refill a prescription too soon. For example, you were given a month's prescription with 5 refills (a half-year prescription) of an opiate substance. If you come in 1 week after your initial prescription was filled for a refill the pharmacy is most likely not going to fulfill that request.
The 16 vs 15 pill thing would be an insanity of the legal system, not of the prescription system.
Doctors don't issue the same uniform prescription usage guidelines across the US. A drug may be issues for twice a day for one week to one patient, one a day for another patient, and once a day for 10 days for a third patient.
From a legal perspective, controlled substances are always illegal to possess unless your possession is permitted under an exception, which is pretty much entirely just within a container labeled with the prescription, repackaged into a container for ease of use, or in use from the aforementioned prescription. You are proposing a situation where you must provide a universal package with a prescription on it where you can repackage an indeterminate amount of blister packages for pills.
Think of all the times patients are prescribed a medication but they cannot finish taking them (there are side affects, or the medicine isn't effective so another med is prescribed, etc, etc) and there are full pill bottles sitting around that could be used to treat other family members when they become ill. That would be.... efficient, would it not?
It might be efficient, assuming that the family member was given a prescription for the same medication and dosage as you had however that is illegal and if the family member didn't receive a prescription for the medication it is potentially dangerous as you are treating someone with a substance that may or may not be relevant to the actual sickness but based on your fully amateur diagnosis. The prescription is the permission given to the person listed on the prescription to possess and consume and amount of the controlled substance as listed on the prescription. If you possess 16 pills when the prescription is for 15, they would be illegal possession. If the prescription is for John Doe and Jane Doe takes one of the pills that is illegal usage. Whether these qualify as misdemeanors or felonies will depend on the jurisdiction and the type of medication.
And it's 2500 for an urban clusters so you need to drill down into the stats and ask yourself, when someone is talking about urban, are they referring to only urban areas or is the statistic also including urban clusters. "Urban area" is easily an overloaded definition with both technical and non-technical definitions.
Axle weight values are not hard to determine and while cars are averaging around 4,000 lbs GVW you're not going to see very many cars with a GAWF of 2700 and a GAWR of 1300.
You can check the GAWF/GAWR of any vehicle you can gain entry to. You'll find a sticker, it's typically on the inside of the door jam on the driver side, which looks similar to the following. https://pictures.dealer.com/m/...
That one's for a 2015 Chevy Malibu, which is a fairly well selling passenger car. The GVW is 4516lbs (like what your article describes) with a GAWF of 2295 lbs and a GAWR of 2221 lbs. For that Malibu to achieve a 2700 axle weight the other axle would have to be 1816 lbs. Realistically, you need to start to exceed about 5250 lbs GVW to make a 2700 axle weight on a car a possibility.
I thought you might be joking so I did a brief look. I'm not a tax accountant so it's a bit indecipherable to me this early in the morning but the IRS most definitely wants you to report it as income on the year the debt is canceled. I just can't tell if this debt cancellation is an exception to canceled debt. This looks to be a fairly brutal tax hit. The minimum that you would owe the IRS should be $3578.75 for the $31,000 and that's assuming no income (besides the debt cancellation) and the standard deduction. You'd pay 10% on $9,275 and 15% on $17,675. It definitely doesn't qualify as an exception to gross income because the debt isn't being cancelled as part of bankruptcy.
At 2,200 sqmi it's relatively close to double the size of Rhode Island (1214sqmi). It also makes it about the size of Brunei (2226sqmi). It's larger than 33 countries. It's land mass is equivalent to the 19th smallest nations in area. Vatican City. Monaco. Nauru, Tuvalu, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Marshall Islands, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Maldives, Malta, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, Seychelles, Palau, Andorra, Saint Lucia, and the Federated States of Micronesia
Replying to self, suit is brought under 1st Amendment, not Presidential Records Act. Disregard that line as it's not relevant. The rest of the response is relevant to the deletion of tweets, however.
Here's the text from section 2201 of the Presidential Records Act (the law under which the suit is brought forth). This section defines numerous things.
44 U.S.C. Chapter 22 2201. Definitions
As used in this chapter--
(1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form.
(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term--
(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but
(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.
(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes--
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
Whether or not someone in the White Staff says the account is official is not relevant as it's who created the tweets and the content of the tweets that matter. Presidential records have to be created by the President, the President's immediate staff, Vice President (as per an executive order), or a unit or individual advisor to the President. At the very least we can all agree that the tweets are created by someone covered by the statute however tweets that respond back to the President do not originate from someone whose records are subjected to the statute and would not need to be preserved. The question then becomes whether the President's tweets "relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President;". So I present the following two scenarios.
The President tweets: "Should I focus on a trade negotiation with Japan or Mexico?" vs "I'm going to renegotiate NAFTA." In the former tweet it's soliciting a poll which could conceivably construed as advising the President on a course of action to take as President
Regarding the study it seems like they hold the oil extractors responsible for all the emissions from cars so it is more a list of top fossil fuel companies than top emitters.
This might be a better way to put it.... with the way that the fossil fuel companies are given credit for emissions, if Ford/GM/Chrysler/etc were to suddenly shift to all electric vehicles then the fossil fuel company would get credit for significantly reducing their carbon emissions despite performing zero action on their part.
Those are just the cities that do it themselves and the advice to move to a state that prohibits city income taxes is unhelpful unless the state also prohibits county income taxes. Cities do draw income from county taxes. Since cities tend to have a majority of the population in a county they frequently have control of the county board that deals with taxes. I'm aware of one city income tax that is being proposed right now that is being levied as a county income tax. My guess is that the encouragement for a city income tax is going to depend on how many counties the municipality exists in and whether there are some counties where it hasn't managed to successfully gain control of the taxing board therefore the city level income tax is a much simpler method to increase taxation.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are many states which prohibit city income taxes but that doesn't mean an effective city income tax cannot occur. It's only in states like Washington which prohibit income taxes entirely or reserve taxing income for the state where a city income tax cannot occur. There's plenty of cities which are entirely bound within counties which generally results with the lionshare of the county's population residing within the city. This can end up with a few outcomes including a special county taxing district that only covered the city limits or the poor sods not in the city that reside in the county having to pony up more cash to pay for the city they don't live in. In either case, while the tax is applied at the county level, it is basically a tax or tax increase that only exists because of the city and therefore makes it effectively a municipal income tax.
While there are some larger metropolitan areas which exist within multiple counties (Atlanta, Columbus, New York).there's plenty more which do not (Detroit, Seattle, any metropolitan area in California). It would be interesting to find out how city income tax permission coincides with multi-county status for cities but of course we would need to determine how much of a controlling share the city generally has over the county board which determines county taxes.
This is not uncommon? It's also addressing an issue for modern planes, which is takeoff speed.
We've progressed from...
1. Turning the carrier into the wind and adding the ship's speed.
2. Catapult systems.
3. Ski-jumps.
Each of these designs serves a purpose to either increase the speed of the aircraft, and thus lift, or effectively increase the length of the runway for takeoff. In this case the runway is the distance the plane covers before it crashes into the sea. Watch footage and you will find it common for planes to "fall" off the end of the aircraft carrier before coming back up. A ski jump is a practical method to increase the effective distance the plane has to obtain the required speed/lift because the other method of doing so is constructing even larger hulls and longer flight decks all of which has a cost associated with it that is much higher than a ski jump.
Who says they have to operate from ground level? Put them on rails and suspend them. Telescope the scanning apparatus and retract it when a person is nearby. Bonus points for incorporating the rail system for restocking.
I like your idea though. It's a clever use of horizontal space.
Because people believe the auto in autopilot stands for autonomous rather than automatic.
In both air and sea craft, the autopilot maintains your course and heading. More sophisticated autopilots can accept a course as an input that it will follow which allows you to change direction. It doesn't steer you around hazards. It's also not guaranteed to keep you on the course if other conditions make it impossible to do so (more common in seacraft than aircraft). You still have to maintain a watch for hazards and respond to them accordingly.
Your understanding is correct. Too many people confuse the auto in autopilot for autonomous rather than automatic. This leads to a misunderstanding of the purpose and intent of autopilot. We can certainly have a discussion on whether cars should have adaptive cruise control and lane assist steering and whether Tesla should call it that rather than autopilot but Tesla labeling the feature as autopilot is entirely accurate with regard to its capabilities.
With sour cream and faux-tomato.
Everything you described suggests you have a food allergy to wheat. It is not unheard of for people who are allergic to wheat to have no reaction to spelt which is unsurprising since they are two separate species of plant. Wheat is one of the eight most common food allergies in the US (Milk, Egg, Fish, Shellfish, Tree Nuts, Peanuts, Wheat, Soybeans) and food allergies can manifest with numerous symptoms involving the bowels. Allergies can also develop later in life. The FDA requires spelt to be labeled as wheat because of the gluten content in spelt.
I have many similar symptoms as you. I will periodically have pains throughout the colon region of the abdomen as well as around the stomach and esophagus. I have long periods for passing bowel movements which isn't considered constipation due to the soft consistency of movements. I went to my doctor because the pain had me concerned about my heart. He referred me to a GI where they performed an endoscopy and discovered inflammation in the esophagus and are referring me to an immunologist to test for food allergies. I'm expecting to find out that I'm allergic to egg or wheat as those are the two foods in the top eight that I regularly consume.
It does not seem to be that extraordinary of a claim. We know that blacks accounts for a disproportionately high number of murderers at 40%. We also know that blacks support Democrats at rates around 87%:7% for D:R. Those are the two component facts that make the claim fairly believable because that gives you one third of all murderers right off the bat. Hispanics are roughly 20% of the white population and support Democrats at rate of 63%:27% D:R. Non-hispanic whites are support Democrats at a rate of about 26%:36% D:R. The other minorities are basically a non-factor at this point.
If we assume 5,000 murders then we should expect 1740 done by Democrat blacks, 624 by Democrat whites, and 378 by Democrat hispanics with 140 done by Republican blacks, 864 by Republican whites, and 162 by Republican hispanics. This brings our totals to 2742 murders by Democrats and 1166 murders by Republicans with 1092 murders by individuals who would be considered independent or affiliated with a non-major party. Those figures do show a 2.35:1 ratio of D:R murderers.
This is what we should expect given national demographics. The question to ask at this point then is what factors would cause the murderer population to veer away from the national distribution for party affiliation in order to drop the ratio from 2.35:1 to below 2:1. One big factor would be income level which is a factor that would lead one to believe that it would increase the number of Democrat murderers and decrease the number of Republicans. What factors can you think of that might cause it to swing towards Republicans?