The first run is going to sell out regardless of advertising. There's also a $7500 federal tax credit available, and some states will chip in with their own incentives. In at least some parts of California, buyers can get the entire cost of the charging stations (including installation) refunded. Bringing the price down to the $33K mark makes it much more affordable.
The bailout was intended to get them through the bankruptcy by allowing them to shed obligations that made it impossible to continue doing business as they had. Union contracts were renegotiated, and pension and medical obligations were reduced. It allowed GM to cut the overhead by several thousand dollars per vehicle. The European and Japanese companies building in the US were not hampered by such heavy requirements, and have long been able to undercut GM on costs because of this.
This depends very much on where you buy the car. There are poor-quality BMW dealers, just as there are great-quality Chevrolet dealers. Some hang on by cutting their prices a little below the better dealers, while the better dealers get word-of-mouth advertising. The latter group grows, and the former stagnates or goes out of business. If I'm looking for a car, I'm going to look at the places that have been around for 30 or 40 years first.
That depends very much on where you're talking about. The range of the coyote extends throughout most of North America, and its conservation status is Least Concern. There are areas where wolves have been hunted to extinction, but the wolf is not, overall, in any real danger of global extinction, and is also globally rated Least Concern. In addition, a number of programs are underway to repopulate areas where they have been cleared.
Besides, a little dark humor once in a while doesn't hurt anyone, except apparently you.
I think most 4x4 packages include a few inches of lift. I know my dad's did when he bought his in 1990 (GMC Sierra 3500), as it sits higher than those without the package. Some states may have regulations on bumper heights, but if California does, it's not enforced at all. There are thousands of lifted trucks here, some of whose bumpers sit above the rear deck of my Camaro.
It's about what doesn't drop blame on the powers that be. "We can't be blamed. We were doing everything that we could to stop this, but now we need to do these other things, too." Being able to divert the blame to scanners that didn't pick up the threat is a variant of that.
It was 2002. In that case, a lone gunman tried to shoot up the El Al ticket line, killing two and wounding four more, but was himself shot dead by El Al security.
I recently saw a list of new reactors under consideration. Some were supplemental reactors at existing sites, and some were for entirely new power plants, but what I noticed was that the Westinghouse AP-1000 -- designed to be produced essentially as assembly-line pieces -- was by far the most common design listed. Your wish may be coming true.
Of course not, but your mention of the ISS further strengthens the point: the Zvezda and Zarya modules each mass in at over 19,000kg. They're in LEO, of course, which is a lot easier to do, but still an example of how much Soviet/Russian technology can lift.
Had it said, "US Launches Largest Spy Satellite," I would have wondered if the Soviets/Russians had previously launched a larger spy satellite. It's a reasonable guess -- the Soviets were tossing some pretty big chunks of metal skyward, including the Gorizont series that massed over 2000kg and the early Proton series of satellites, at least one of which massed over 11,000kg. Gorizonts were for communications and the early Proton satellites were for scientific research, but I'm sure Moscow had/has some pretty large spy satellites up there, too.
I did say, "often." I do know a couple of people involved in research, and they do get excited about experiments, but most of them don't involve explosives and there's a lot of data review and paper writing in between.
The willingness to revisit myths is a hallmark of the scientific process, though. They have a hypothesis -- the myth -- and collect initial evidence to determine a certain level of plausibility. They then move to large-scale experiments. In some cases, their experiments disprove the hypothesis. However, upon peer review (using the term loosely), problems with their experiments may be pointed out, and they revise and rerun the experiment. Sometimes the original results are overturned, and they can, to some degree, form a theory.
The Mythbusters are the first to claim that what they do is more entertainment than science. You just don't often hear things like "Jamie wants big boom" coming from real scientists. But normal people learn from their abbreviated process anyway, as you said, and that's what is important right now.
Unfortunately, what most other people mean when they say 'acronym' seems to be incorrect as well, confusing it for 'abbreviation' in many cases. An acronym is a type of abbreviation, but not all abbreviations are acronyms.
Of course, what yup2000 did was even further from accuracy than that.
Every few years, the government pushes something along until the people won't have it anymore. We're not quite there yet, but I think it's getting close, and while threatening to have arrested a TSA officer who is clearly legally empowered to perform the pat-down is a bit much, the principle expressed here is more important, and I'm glad to see it being carried out to such a wide degree.
Actually, yes, it can be. Some prioritization has to happen when bandwidth is limited. I don't want the ISPs recording my voice traffic, but I also don't want my neighbor's torrent traffic causing unnecessary jitter or lag in my phone call. Some analysis can be done without deep packet inspection. We do it all the time where I work. Our application proxy firewalls observe enough of the traffic to know what it is and how to handle it before streaming the rest through. It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it. It's possible to look at traffic just deep enough to know how to qualify it without getting at the entire payload.
Boston to San Francisco? Even Los Angeles to San Francisco is, at best, an 11-hour journey by train. I can get there twice as fast by car. I seem to remember that I once found a trip from Los Angeles to New York by train would take six days.
That said, to have a reasonable debate, calling them ineffective because they don't show every possible thing that could be concealed isn't really accurate. They show almost everything that could be concealed under the clothing, and there are limits to what can be hidden in the various orifices. They are not as effective as, say, an X-ray, but they do make it harder to do something like tape a ceramic knife to the inside of the leg.
But the realities, as others have pointed out, have changed. They're not getting into the cockpit anymore. They cannot take enough people hostage without being armed and making up a quarter of the passenger manifest, and that's too large a group to go unnoticed. The biggest risk is sneaking a bomb on-board hidden in an orifice, and these won't catch that. (There's also the risk of sneaking a bomb on-board a carry-on disguised as, say, deodorant or some other permitted item, but that's a separate question involving another scanner.) I would gladly go back to the simple metal-detector/X-ray combination that was in place prior to 9/11, because the overall loss of security is negligible.
There are modesty requirements for several religions, including forms of Islam (well-publicized) and Judaism (not as well-known). Any sort of display of the flesh other than face or hands (and sometimes limits on those) is a violation of the religion, with narrow exceptions for family and doctors.
Last week, I was going into Terminal 7 at LAX (United), and they were funneling people through a scanner. Eventually, the line got backed up (only one scanner for two lines) and they had to switch back to the metal detector about four people before I got to it. However, the requirements for the scanner got a little irritating beyond privacy issues. The TSA staff (who were actually being pleasant and helpful for once) said that everything had to be removed from the pockets: no wallets, cash, coins, jewelry, receipts, or whatever. I had a jacket with me, so I was able to tuck all of this into the jacket pockets ahead of time so that it could go through the X-ray, but if I didn't, I would have been annoyed that my wallet would have been sitting in the open in a tray, especially if for some reason the tray got to the other side before I did.
On the very minor plus side, they no longer require showing the boarding pass when going through the detector, so there's slightly less to juggle around when putting things in trays. This is, I'm sure, a byproduct of mobile boarding passes, which I'm very happy to be able to use.
California's initiative process is plurality only when you compare the number of voters on the winning side to all eligible voters. It is still generally a majority rule. Most initiatives require 50%+1 to be passed; taxes (and as of last night some fees) require a two-thirds majority.
Further, the voters have had as many as 28 initiatives on a single ballot. Some of them are placed there by the Legislature, some by powerful groups, and some by grass-roots campaigners. Initiatives that do not come from the Legislature require 8% of the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election to qualify if they are constitutional amendments, or 5% for statute initiatives. This will mean that after yesterday's election, the requirements will be somewhere around 650,000 signatures for the former and 400,000 signatures for the latter, depending on what the final vote count will be.
The contents of the initiatives are up to whomever writes them. This can be the Legislature or an outside party. In the latter case, the summaries are subject to scrutiny for accuracy by the attorney general's office, and the AG also inspects Legislative initiatives to ensure that they stick to the single-subject rule here. The Legislative Analyst researches both for overall effects, publishing both summaries and detailed reports (some of these can be fairly lengthy).
As for scheduling, we usually vote on them when primary elections and general elections are held every two years, and also during special elections. Since 2000, there have been 16 elections in which initiatives were presented to the voters, including special elections in 2003, 2005, and 2008. It's not a continuous process, but neither is it as widely-spaced as you suggest.
Windows hasn't had to have config files or manual registry changes for any but the most obscure things for a long time. In fact, config files in Windows are very nearly deprecated. Whatever software you were installing (and which never gets named in posts like these for some reason), I doubt it was anything remotely mainstream, because the installers have been solid for years now. Even the transition to 64-bit Windows hosts has gone much more easily than planned.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not justifying it. I'm just pointing out what's there, and that it's more likely to make it available to the middle class.
The first run is going to sell out regardless of advertising. There's also a $7500 federal tax credit available, and some states will chip in with their own incentives. In at least some parts of California, buyers can get the entire cost of the charging stations (including installation) refunded. Bringing the price down to the $33K mark makes it much more affordable.
The bailout was intended to get them through the bankruptcy by allowing them to shed obligations that made it impossible to continue doing business as they had. Union contracts were renegotiated, and pension and medical obligations were reduced. It allowed GM to cut the overhead by several thousand dollars per vehicle. The European and Japanese companies building in the US were not hampered by such heavy requirements, and have long been able to undercut GM on costs because of this.
This depends very much on where you buy the car. There are poor-quality BMW dealers, just as there are great-quality Chevrolet dealers. Some hang on by cutting their prices a little below the better dealers, while the better dealers get word-of-mouth advertising. The latter group grows, and the former stagnates or goes out of business. If I'm looking for a car, I'm going to look at the places that have been around for 30 or 40 years first.
Zardoz is LSD. I watched that, and felt utterly entranced by the surrealism. My head didn't feel normal for hours.
Imagine watching 2001 and then Zardoz back-to-back. :\
That depends very much on where you're talking about. The range of the coyote extends throughout most of North America, and its conservation status is Least Concern. There are areas where wolves have been hunted to extinction, but the wolf is not, overall, in any real danger of global extinction, and is also globally rated Least Concern. In addition, a number of programs are underway to repopulate areas where they have been cleared.
Besides, a little dark humor once in a while doesn't hurt anyone, except apparently you.
I think most 4x4 packages include a few inches of lift. I know my dad's did when he bought his in 1990 (GMC Sierra 3500), as it sits higher than those without the package. Some states may have regulations on bumper heights, but if California does, it's not enforced at all. There are thousands of lifted trucks here, some of whose bumpers sit above the rear deck of my Camaro.
It's about what doesn't drop blame on the powers that be. "We can't be blamed. We were doing everything that we could to stop this, but now we need to do these other things, too." Being able to divert the blame to scanners that didn't pick up the threat is a variant of that.
It was 2002. In that case, a lone gunman tried to shoot up the El Al ticket line, killing two and wounding four more, but was himself shot dead by El Al security.
I recently saw a list of new reactors under consideration. Some were supplemental reactors at existing sites, and some were for entirely new power plants, but what I noticed was that the Westinghouse AP-1000 -- designed to be produced essentially as assembly-line pieces -- was by far the most common design listed. Your wish may be coming true.
That was really bad phrasing on my part.
They're paid by the amount of cargo moved (which is usually a full load, hence why I said trip before), not by efficiency.
They're paid by the trip, not the mile. The more cargo they move, the more money they get, and it more than makes up for the additional fuel costs.
Of course not, but your mention of the ISS further strengthens the point: the Zvezda and Zarya modules each mass in at over 19,000kg. They're in LEO, of course, which is a lot easier to do, but still an example of how much Soviet/Russian technology can lift.
Had it said, "US Launches Largest Spy Satellite," I would have wondered if the Soviets/Russians had previously launched a larger spy satellite. It's a reasonable guess -- the Soviets were tossing some pretty big chunks of metal skyward, including the Gorizont series that massed over 2000kg and the early Proton series of satellites, at least one of which massed over 11,000kg. Gorizonts were for communications and the early Proton satellites were for scientific research, but I'm sure Moscow had/has some pretty large spy satellites up there, too.
I did say, "often." I do know a couple of people involved in research, and they do get excited about experiments, but most of them don't involve explosives and there's a lot of data review and paper writing in between.
Once in a while, though...
The willingness to revisit myths is a hallmark of the scientific process, though. They have a hypothesis -- the myth -- and collect initial evidence to determine a certain level of plausibility. They then move to large-scale experiments. In some cases, their experiments disprove the hypothesis. However, upon peer review (using the term loosely), problems with their experiments may be pointed out, and they revise and rerun the experiment. Sometimes the original results are overturned, and they can, to some degree, form a theory.
The Mythbusters are the first to claim that what they do is more entertainment than science. You just don't often hear things like "Jamie wants big boom" coming from real scientists. But normal people learn from their abbreviated process anyway, as you said, and that's what is important right now.
Unfortunately, what most other people mean when they say 'acronym' seems to be incorrect as well, confusing it for 'abbreviation' in many cases. An acronym is a type of abbreviation, but not all abbreviations are acronyms.
Of course, what yup2000 did was even further from accuracy than that.
Every few years, the government pushes something along until the people won't have it anymore. We're not quite there yet, but I think it's getting close, and while threatening to have arrested a TSA officer who is clearly legally empowered to perform the pat-down is a bit much, the principle expressed here is more important, and I'm glad to see it being carried out to such a wide degree.
Actually, yes, it can be. Some prioritization has to happen when bandwidth is limited. I don't want the ISPs recording my voice traffic, but I also don't want my neighbor's torrent traffic causing unnecessary jitter or lag in my phone call. Some analysis can be done without deep packet inspection. We do it all the time where I work. Our application proxy firewalls observe enough of the traffic to know what it is and how to handle it before streaming the rest through. It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it. It's possible to look at traffic just deep enough to know how to qualify it without getting at the entire payload.
Boston to San Francisco? Even Los Angeles to San Francisco is, at best, an 11-hour journey by train. I can get there twice as fast by car. I seem to remember that I once found a trip from Los Angeles to New York by train would take six days.
That said, to have a reasonable debate, calling them ineffective because they don't show every possible thing that could be concealed isn't really accurate. They show almost everything that could be concealed under the clothing, and there are limits to what can be hidden in the various orifices. They are not as effective as, say, an X-ray, but they do make it harder to do something like tape a ceramic knife to the inside of the leg.
But the realities, as others have pointed out, have changed. They're not getting into the cockpit anymore. They cannot take enough people hostage without being armed and making up a quarter of the passenger manifest, and that's too large a group to go unnoticed. The biggest risk is sneaking a bomb on-board hidden in an orifice, and these won't catch that. (There's also the risk of sneaking a bomb on-board a carry-on disguised as, say, deodorant or some other permitted item, but that's a separate question involving another scanner.) I would gladly go back to the simple metal-detector/X-ray combination that was in place prior to 9/11, because the overall loss of security is negligible.
There are modesty requirements for several religions, including forms of Islam (well-publicized) and Judaism (not as well-known). Any sort of display of the flesh other than face or hands (and sometimes limits on those) is a violation of the religion, with narrow exceptions for family and doctors.
Last week, I was going into Terminal 7 at LAX (United), and they were funneling people through a scanner. Eventually, the line got backed up (only one scanner for two lines) and they had to switch back to the metal detector about four people before I got to it. However, the requirements for the scanner got a little irritating beyond privacy issues. The TSA staff (who were actually being pleasant and helpful for once) said that everything had to be removed from the pockets: no wallets, cash, coins, jewelry, receipts, or whatever. I had a jacket with me, so I was able to tuck all of this into the jacket pockets ahead of time so that it could go through the X-ray, but if I didn't, I would have been annoyed that my wallet would have been sitting in the open in a tray, especially if for some reason the tray got to the other side before I did.
On the very minor plus side, they no longer require showing the boarding pass when going through the detector, so there's slightly less to juggle around when putting things in trays. This is, I'm sure, a byproduct of mobile boarding passes, which I'm very happy to be able to use.
On tour.
California's initiative process is plurality only when you compare the number of voters on the winning side to all eligible voters. It is still generally a majority rule. Most initiatives require 50%+1 to be passed; taxes (and as of last night some fees) require a two-thirds majority.
Further, the voters have had as many as 28 initiatives on a single ballot. Some of them are placed there by the Legislature, some by powerful groups, and some by grass-roots campaigners. Initiatives that do not come from the Legislature require 8% of the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election to qualify if they are constitutional amendments, or 5% for statute initiatives. This will mean that after yesterday's election, the requirements will be somewhere around 650,000 signatures for the former and 400,000 signatures for the latter, depending on what the final vote count will be.
The contents of the initiatives are up to whomever writes them. This can be the Legislature or an outside party. In the latter case, the summaries are subject to scrutiny for accuracy by the attorney general's office, and the AG also inspects Legislative initiatives to ensure that they stick to the single-subject rule here. The Legislative Analyst researches both for overall effects, publishing both summaries and detailed reports (some of these can be fairly lengthy).
As for scheduling, we usually vote on them when primary elections and general elections are held every two years, and also during special elections. Since 2000, there have been 16 elections in which initiatives were presented to the voters, including special elections in 2003, 2005, and 2008. It's not a continuous process, but neither is it as widely-spaced as you suggest.
Windows hasn't had to have config files or manual registry changes for any but the most obscure things for a long time. In fact, config files in Windows are very nearly deprecated. Whatever software you were installing (and which never gets named in posts like these for some reason), I doubt it was anything remotely mainstream, because the installers have been solid for years now. Even the transition to 64-bit Windows hosts has gone much more easily than planned.