The FBI is headed by a Republican who was nominated by Obama partially due to his threatening to resign his position in the Bush administration over wiretapping. The USDOJ is headed by a Democrat. USDOJ is responsible for bringing forth charges. Both report to the President although Comey has the position until 2023.
Here's some possible explanations for why Hillary hasn't been charged. In some of these cases the pardon isn't necessary and in some of these cases the pardon could be off the table once the primary season is over or when Obama leaves office.
1. The FBI hasn't collected enough evidence for the USDOJ to file charges. (No need for a pardon) 2. The USDOJ doesn't believe a crime has been committed. (No need for a pardon) 3. Party politics causing the USDOJ to protect Hillary. a. The USDOJ is protecting Hillary as she's a frontrunner for the Democrat nominee for POTUS. (Pardon could be off the table if Hillary loses the nomination) b. The USDOJ is protecting Hillary as she's a high profile Democrat. (Pardon could be off the table if a Republican wins the Presidency) 4 The USDOJ is not charging Hillary to protect Obama. A trial of Hillary could reveal things Obama does not want revealed. (Pardon could be off the table once Obama leaves office) 5 The USDOJ is not charging Hillary because of the noise Comey has recently been making. (Pardon could be off the table once Comey falls in line with the USDOJ).
Given the relatively short period of time it was operating for, the most likely problem was a failure in one of its systems (coolant or propellant) that caused an explosion.
That's not sexy and doesn't fuel speculation or nerd-rage about space debris.
When you view the primaries as political class vs everyone else it makes a whole lot more sense. This election is, in my mind, a punitive one by the voters directed at the Republicans and Democrats.
You forgot Croatia and Yugoslavia as signers to the Tripartite Pact however the major and original signatory nations to the Tripartite Pact were Germany, Japan, and Italy and these three nations are the ones traditionally thought of as Axis nations. When you say "both Axis power" that is a phrase that is non-sense unless you define the Axis powers as the original signatories to the Anti-Comintern Pact which would qualify as Germany and Japan.
It is really prudent to differentiate between the Tripartite and Anti-Comintern Pacts as people seemingly love to make the conflict out to be two sides when there was three sides with two expressing cooperation towards defeating the third. If you look at the "major" nations of the conflict you essentially have Germany, Japan, Italy, Soviet Union, France, UK, and United States. The Anti-Comintern Pact was signed by Japan and Germany against the Soviet Union while the Tripartite Pact was signed by Germany, Italy, and Japan as an anti-US measure to keep her from siding with the UK and France. Thus it is best to refer to major factions of WW2 as the Allies (US, UK, France), the Axis (Germany, Japan, Italy), and Comintern (Soviet Union) with minor nations aligned with a particular faction.
Finland was never part of the Tripartite agreement and throughout WW2 it was only ever at war with the Soviet Union and Germany as major belligerents and the UK as a minor belligerent. You may call Finland a participant in the Axis nations because it fought against the Soviet Union and the UK was a minor belligerent (not sure what the UK may have actually done) but since Finland was not at war with the majority of the nations that were "Allies" I would not call it a member of the Axis.
NATO was created in response to Soviet actions following WW2, specifically the Berlin Blockade served as a major catalyst for its formation. The Axis alliance had been dismantled before that.
I think you're on to something but instead of an athlete I think he should go with a female pop star to counteract that Hilary votes for gender. To further sweeten the deal she should be a black female pop-star to court the black vote. That leaves but one apropos running mate.
There is a practical reason. Nothing about the situation required that she bring her vehicle to a stop in a lane of traffic let alone the passing lane. She could have brought her vehicle to a stop on the side of the road. She let common sense be overridden by her animal loving sentiment. Her actions, negligent as they were, created the hazardous situation that resulted in the death of the motorcyclist. In the US she could have easily been charged with involuntary manslaughter.
The other examples you cite, except the animal one which the dead animals that are hazards are rare, are all hazardous situations that would not have been of her creation or due to negligent behavior on her part.
If hunting was primarily about controlling the deer population then it would be the other way around - focus on killing the does.
Indiana has bag limits based on the season. It also has bonus deer bagged in reduction areas that is in addition to the bag limit statewide. Each season allows you to take a number of bonus does up to a bag limit on a per county basis. So if you live in a county with a bonus of 8 does and live adjacent to counties with 4, 8, 4, 4, 4, and 8 bonus limits and you could pick 8 does in your county then go to another county and get more does. The only condition is that these additional does require bonus doe license per kill. Presumably, that's to help limit the harvesting on does.
Youth Season - 1 Buck (+Bonus Does) Reduction Zone Season - 1 Buck + 9 Does or 10 Does [You must kill a doe before you can kill a buck during this season] Archery Season - 1 Buck + 1 Doe or 2 Does (+Bonus Does) Firearms Season - 1 Buck (+Bonus Does) Muzzleloader Season - 1 Buck or 1 Doe (+Bonus Does) Antlerless Firearms Season - Bonus deer per county but only in county with a bonus of 4 or more
Indiana does appear to be encouraging the hunting of does by having one season explicitly for doe hunting and a second season where you have an earn a buck.
So I expect that, even with a perfect cure for ageing, being still active to take advantage to the earth's rotation averaging out to an integer multiple of turns per orbit, is a "solution" only available to a lucky few.
I'm not sure I would call those people lucky. The psychological toll would be immense.
Unemployed is based on whether you are looking for work or how long it's been since you've looked for work. I believe you qualified as unemployed under U3, the officially reported figure, if you're currently unemployed and actively looking for work. If you're unemployed and not looking for work but have looked for work in the past year you're considered a discouraged worker and not counted in the U3 figure. If you're unemployed and haven't looked for work in over a year you won't be counted in any figures.
The way unemployment data was collected and gathered differed during the Great Depression and current time. Concepts like U3 and U6 did not exist but it estimated that the U3 in the great depression peaked at 25.2% and the U6 peaked at 37.6%. The current U3 is 4.9% and the current U6 is 9.9%. The U3 rate only looks at employed individuals and those currently looking for work. The U6 rate includes those who are unemployed and willing to work but not looking for work and have looked for work in the past twelve months as well as those who are currently employed part-time due to part-time employment not always being able to provide enough income to support the household adequately.
I don't know if there's a figure that includes unemployed that haven't looked for a job in the past twelve months.
The general complaint regarding the U3 is that due to how easy it is for people to fall off from being on that figure while being unemployed. If you've not currently looking for work you're not counted. This can lead to a situation where it's hard to describe the economic burden faced by the workforce in having to support individuals who are not working.
Again, lethality is not a feature in modern warfare. A dead soldier takes one enemy out of the fight, while a non-lethal casualty takes more than one.
The wounding maxim is more a result of humanitarian views on warfare where we should seek to injure instead of kill enemy combatants and capture instead of injure whenever it is reasonable to do so. That is what is proposed by the International Committee of the Red Cross. If the military believed that were a true statement then they would train and teach its soldiers to kill by targeting center of mass. That maxim is also reliant on enemy combatants that have a camaraderie and humanity for each other that they would help each other (good luck with Islamic extremists that would believe dying serving the cause will net them virgins in heaven) and additionally not employ combat medics which have Geneva protections to tend to wounded on the battlefield. This puts you in a position, in modern warfare where wounding a soldier is the worst option of capture, wound, kill as a wounded soldier is only temporarily removed from combat since he can be taken to a field hospital, treated, and can put back into the line of duty later on. With the increase in medical knowledge and equipment it makes this outcome more likely.
Income taxes are based on your taxable income with exemptions taken. The tax code, which is 6,500 pages long, describes both what qualifies as taxable income as well as the exemptions that can be taken to reduce how much of the taxable income is taxed. For the purpose of income tax, what qualifies as income can be described in 36 pages. 36 pages describing what all gets lumped together to be taxed at the 15-20% rate that was proposed.
Look at the VLT for an example of an array of telescopes. It's an array of four telescopes with 8.2m mirrors. Each telescope has a 0.05 arcsecond resolution while the array of four can get 0.001 arcseconds. For comparison Hubble has a 2.4m mirror with a resolution of 0.1 arcsecond but that's kind of deceptive. The VLT and the TMT are both optical telescopes and will have better resolutions than Hubble. You may ask, wasn't the point of Hubble to get a better telescope without having to deal with interference from the atmosphere? Yep, that's it's purpose and it still is one of the best telescopes but it was designed and launched in a day where ground based technology couldn't match up to it. Ground based technology HAS caught up to it but we're still dealing with the problems of telescopes away from earth.
Most of our space endeavors are limited by launch payload and terrestrial production. There's no effective means out there for large scale space manufacturing and our best effort has been a LEO space station that has been under construction since 1998 and has a total current mass of 300,862 kg (give or take) which is 332 tons. It would take seven Saturn V launches to get the structure of the ISS to the moon. Compare that to the 31 launches it would take to get the TMT's instruments to the moon.
If you want to do anything complex outside of earth's atmosphere there needs to be a huge jump in either payload capacities or space-based manufacturing to enable such projects.
A radio telescope is simple. There's plenty of plans for doing that which do not require manufacturing facilities on the moon. This telescope is not radio which is a completely different beast. The telescope and its direct instruments themselves are 1,430 tons meaning it would take 31 launches of Saturn V rockets just to get all that equipment there. That hasn't touched the facility, power generation, or additional factors necessary to keep the mirrors clean from moon dust. It also doesn't touch the surveying and foundation considerations that are crucial and significant to a observatory that aren't present in other constructions.
Maybe they could scale down the requirements of total mass needed or maybe you could address that mass problem by somehow establishing manufacturing facilities on the moon. After all, one of the best plans for mirror based telescopes is to use about carbon nano tubes and some sort of epoxy combined with moon dust in a tray spun at high speed. Calling an optical telescope on the moon a "solved problem" is a severe understatement.
Slashdot Mirror
The FBI is headed by a Republican who was nominated by Obama partially due to his threatening to resign his position in the Bush administration over wiretapping. The USDOJ is headed by a Democrat. USDOJ is responsible for bringing forth charges. Both report to the President although Comey has the position until 2023.
Here's some possible explanations for why Hillary hasn't been charged. In some of these cases the pardon isn't necessary and in some of these cases the pardon could be off the table once the primary season is over or when Obama leaves office.
1. The FBI hasn't collected enough evidence for the USDOJ to file charges. (No need for a pardon)
2. The USDOJ doesn't believe a crime has been committed. (No need for a pardon)
3. Party politics causing the USDOJ to protect Hillary.
a. The USDOJ is protecting Hillary as she's a frontrunner for the Democrat nominee for POTUS. (Pardon could be off the table if Hillary loses the nomination)
b. The USDOJ is protecting Hillary as she's a high profile Democrat. (Pardon could be off the table if a Republican wins the Presidency)
4 The USDOJ is not charging Hillary to protect Obama. A trial of Hillary could reveal things Obama does not want revealed. (Pardon could be off the table once Obama leaves office)
5 The USDOJ is not charging Hillary because of the noise Comey has recently been making. (Pardon could be off the table once Comey falls in line with the USDOJ).
Given the relatively short period of time it was operating for, the most likely problem was a failure in one of its systems (coolant or propellant) that caused an explosion.
That's not sexy and doesn't fuel speculation or nerd-rage about space debris.
The US Army operates mobile radar stations that are either towed or mounted on a truck. That seems like the perfect candidate for a stealth radar.
When you view the primaries as political class vs everyone else it makes a whole lot more sense. This election is, in my mind, a punitive one by the voters directed at the Republicans and Democrats.
You forgot Croatia and Yugoslavia as signers to the Tripartite Pact however the major and original signatory nations to the Tripartite Pact were Germany, Japan, and Italy and these three nations are the ones traditionally thought of as Axis nations. When you say "both Axis power" that is a phrase that is non-sense unless you define the Axis powers as the original signatories to the Anti-Comintern Pact which would qualify as Germany and Japan.
It is really prudent to differentiate between the Tripartite and Anti-Comintern Pacts as people seemingly love to make the conflict out to be two sides when there was three sides with two expressing cooperation towards defeating the third. If you look at the "major" nations of the conflict you essentially have Germany, Japan, Italy, Soviet Union, France, UK, and United States. The Anti-Comintern Pact was signed by Japan and Germany against the Soviet Union while the Tripartite Pact was signed by Germany, Italy, and Japan as an anti-US measure to keep her from siding with the UK and France. Thus it is best to refer to major factions of WW2 as the Allies (US, UK, France), the Axis (Germany, Japan, Italy), and Comintern (Soviet Union) with minor nations aligned with a particular faction.
Finland was never part of the Tripartite agreement and throughout WW2 it was only ever at war with the Soviet Union and Germany as major belligerents and the UK as a minor belligerent. You may call Finland a participant in the Axis nations because it fought against the Soviet Union and the UK was a minor belligerent (not sure what the UK may have actually done) but since Finland was not at war with the majority of the nations that were "Allies" I would not call it a member of the Axis.
NATO was created in response to Soviet actions following WW2, specifically the Berlin Blockade served as a major catalyst for its formation. The Axis alliance had been dismantled before that.
I think you're on to something but instead of an athlete I think he should go with a female pop star to counteract that Hilary votes for gender. To further sweeten the deal she should be a black female pop-star to court the black vote. That leaves but one apropos running mate.
Trump / Beyoncé 2016
There is a practical reason. Nothing about the situation required that she bring her vehicle to a stop in a lane of traffic let alone the passing lane. She could have brought her vehicle to a stop on the side of the road. She let common sense be overridden by her animal loving sentiment. Her actions, negligent as they were, created the hazardous situation that resulted in the death of the motorcyclist. In the US she could have easily been charged with involuntary manslaughter.
The other examples you cite, except the animal one which the dead animals that are hazards are rare, are all hazardous situations that would not have been of her creation or due to negligent behavior on her part.
It's not like that's a new concept. That was one of the earlier methods the Nazi used but it was inefficient compared to later methods.
Blame the owners of the trucks which throw gators (cheap retreads).
Why would that problem be addressed by driverless vehicles?
If hunting was primarily about controlling the deer population then it would be the other way around - focus on killing the does.
Indiana has bag limits based on the season. It also has bonus deer bagged in reduction areas that is in addition to the bag limit statewide. Each season allows you to take a number of bonus does up to a bag limit on a per county basis. So if you live in a county with a bonus of 8 does and live adjacent to counties with 4, 8, 4, 4, 4, and 8 bonus limits and you could pick 8 does in your county then go to another county and get more does. The only condition is that these additional does require bonus doe license per kill. Presumably, that's to help limit the harvesting on does.
Youth Season - 1 Buck (+Bonus Does)
Reduction Zone Season - 1 Buck + 9 Does or 10 Does [You must kill a doe before you can kill a buck during this season]
Archery Season - 1 Buck + 1 Doe or 2 Does (+Bonus Does)
Firearms Season - 1 Buck (+Bonus Does)
Muzzleloader Season - 1 Buck or 1 Doe (+Bonus Does)
Antlerless Firearms Season - Bonus deer per county but only in county with a bonus of 4 or more
Indiana does appear to be encouraging the hunting of does by having one season explicitly for doe hunting and a second season where you have an earn a buck.
So I expect that, even with a perfect cure for ageing, being still active to take advantage to the earth's rotation averaging out to an integer multiple of turns per orbit, is a "solution" only available to a lucky few.
I'm not sure I would call those people lucky. The psychological toll would be immense.
Unemployed is based on whether you are looking for work or how long it's been since you've looked for work. I believe you qualified as unemployed under U3, the officially reported figure, if you're currently unemployed and actively looking for work. If you're unemployed and not looking for work but have looked for work in the past year you're considered a discouraged worker and not counted in the U3 figure. If you're unemployed and haven't looked for work in over a year you won't be counted in any figures.
The way unemployment data was collected and gathered differed during the Great Depression and current time. Concepts like U3 and U6 did not exist but it estimated that the U3 in the great depression peaked at 25.2% and the U6 peaked at 37.6%. The current U3 is 4.9% and the current U6 is 9.9%. The U3 rate only looks at employed individuals and those currently looking for work. The U6 rate includes those who are unemployed and willing to work but not looking for work and have looked for work in the past twelve months as well as those who are currently employed part-time due to part-time employment not always being able to provide enough income to support the household adequately.
I don't know if there's a figure that includes unemployed that haven't looked for a job in the past twelve months.
The general complaint regarding the U3 is that due to how easy it is for people to fall off from being on that figure while being unemployed. If you've not currently looking for work you're not counted. This can lead to a situation where it's hard to describe the economic burden faced by the workforce in having to support individuals who are not working.
The abstract or conclusions in the paper he wrote do not appear to make such a claim. That appears to be fluff added by the author of the article.
Again, lethality is not a feature in modern warfare. A dead soldier takes one enemy out of the fight, while a non-lethal casualty takes more than one.
The wounding maxim is more a result of humanitarian views on warfare where we should seek to injure instead of kill enemy combatants and capture instead of injure whenever it is reasonable to do so. That is what is proposed by the International Committee of the Red Cross. If the military believed that were a true statement then they would train and teach its soldiers to kill by targeting center of mass. That maxim is also reliant on enemy combatants that have a camaraderie and humanity for each other that they would help each other (good luck with Islamic extremists that would believe dying serving the cause will net them virgins in heaven) and additionally not employ combat medics which have Geneva protections to tend to wounded on the battlefield. This puts you in a position, in modern warfare where wounding a soldier is the worst option of capture, wound, kill as a wounded soldier is only temporarily removed from combat since he can be taken to a field hospital, treated, and can put back into the line of duty later on. With the increase in medical knowledge and equipment it makes this outcome more likely.
This works because you travel faster by eliminating friction by minimizing the surface of the boat in the water.
then mandatory deceleration on the last half unless you don't care about stopping.
Stopping without catastrophic results. Stopping is easy.
Unless he believes Apple has the ability to decrypt the device and plans on socially engineering them.
So why, all of the sudden, are we digging up a bunch of brain-dead movie fodder that we already know won't work?
To provide a justification for nuclear disarmament by appropriating nuclear weapons for asteroid defense.
Income taxes are based on your taxable income with exemptions taken. The tax code, which is 6,500 pages long, describes both what qualifies as taxable income as well as the exemptions that can be taken to reduce how much of the taxable income is taxed. For the purpose of income tax, what qualifies as income can be described in 36 pages. 36 pages describing what all gets lumped together to be taxed at the 15-20% rate that was proposed.
It is a simple system.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pd...
36 pages defining income compared to the tax code that is how long?
Look at the VLT for an example of an array of telescopes. It's an array of four telescopes with 8.2m mirrors. Each telescope has a 0.05 arcsecond resolution while the array of four can get 0.001 arcseconds. For comparison Hubble has a 2.4m mirror with a resolution of 0.1 arcsecond but that's kind of deceptive. The VLT and the TMT are both optical telescopes and will have better resolutions than Hubble. You may ask, wasn't the point of Hubble to get a better telescope without having to deal with interference from the atmosphere? Yep, that's it's purpose and it still is one of the best telescopes but it was designed and launched in a day where ground based technology couldn't match up to it. Ground based technology HAS caught up to it but we're still dealing with the problems of telescopes away from earth.
Most of our space endeavors are limited by launch payload and terrestrial production. There's no effective means out there for large scale space manufacturing and our best effort has been a LEO space station that has been under construction since 1998 and has a total current mass of 300,862 kg (give or take) which is 332 tons. It would take seven Saturn V launches to get the structure of the ISS to the moon. Compare that to the 31 launches it would take to get the TMT's instruments to the moon.
If you want to do anything complex outside of earth's atmosphere there needs to be a huge jump in either payload capacities or space-based manufacturing to enable such projects.
User ID 811,747 calls user ID 128,717 "new".
A radio telescope is simple. There's plenty of plans for doing that which do not require manufacturing facilities on the moon. This telescope is not radio which is a completely different beast. The telescope and its direct instruments themselves are 1,430 tons meaning it would take 31 launches of Saturn V rockets just to get all that equipment there. That hasn't touched the facility, power generation, or additional factors necessary to keep the mirrors clean from moon dust. It also doesn't touch the surveying and foundation considerations that are crucial and significant to a observatory that aren't present in other constructions.
Maybe they could scale down the requirements of total mass needed or maybe you could address that mass problem by somehow establishing manufacturing facilities on the moon. After all, one of the best plans for mirror based telescopes is to use about carbon nano tubes and some sort of epoxy combined with moon dust in a tray spun at high speed. Calling an optical telescope on the moon a "solved problem" is a severe understatement.