Failure to register a foreign birth with the State Department risks the citizenship not being recognized if it's not done before the child's 18th birthday. Depending on the citizenship laws of the nation of birth and the parents, this places a risk of the child becoming stateless upon his or her 18th birthday.
It doesn't really matter. I'd do that with any job.
But for the current job, it means when I'm on vacation, out at dinner, or just don't want to be bothered by work, I can silence or turn off the work phone and not be bothered by customers, who have fallback contacts if I'm not available. At previous jobs, MDM was required for any phone connecting to the corporate network, and there is no way that I'm giving control of my phone over to someone at corporate, especially since I had no trust that I would have a job from day to day. (Not concerning my performance, but random cuts happened for little apparent reason because the company couldn't hit its stated profit goals, targeting some very good people.) I really didn't want my personal phone wiped either intentionally or accidentally by corporate, not to mention the possibility of reading it.
I do not, nor have I ever, used my personal cell phone for work purposes. Key work people may have the number for emergency purposes, but it's made clear that me providing that number is a serious point of trust, and that it should never be used except for the most dire circumstances. My work cell not answering doesn't count. Clients are to *never* get that number.
About a year ago, I took a job where they don't provide a phone. I chose instead to purchase a separate line that is used entirely for business. Only a few personal contacts have the number (parents and wife, basically). If I ever leave the company, the line gets disabled (phone was purchased off contract) so I don't have to field calls from clients. Even if I choose to use the phone with a new employer, it will get a different number. The cost of the phone and extra line comes off taxes each year.
When traveling internationally, the phone gets backed up, wiped, and reinitialized with a separate ID that has no links to the old except for necessary work contacts. Something similar happens to the notebook. After returning home, what little new data is present is backed up, then the pre-trip backups are restored.
All devices are fully encrypted, so reinitialization gets a fully clean start.
Desktop browsers don't capitalize by default. Some of us still use them. (Some of us also know where the Shift keys are and learned to type somewhere along the way, even if it was only using Mavis Beacon.)
That said, I've roundfiled plenty of resumes where the person clearly didn't bother to do any spell- or grammar-checking.
That's the textbook goal of a tariff. Countries have used tariffs to effectively shut off imports.
Tariffs also only work if the imposing country has a significant advantage. It's possible to vastly overdo them, as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act did (trade dropped by half in both directions). In a global trade era, the effect of tariffs against a given country can be quickly countered by that country offering more advantageous trade opportunities to other nations. China could offer more generous status to the EU, for example, which would probably be quick to accept lower cost imports as a potential boost to its own lackluster economy.
Trade wars benefit few, and rarely end up with the imposing country getting its entire way. As time goes on and trade becomes even more globalized, I suspect that the imposing country will more often be forced to offer significant concessions to get out of the trade war. Eventually, free trade zones the world over will be the rule. Whether that's good in general or not, I don't know.
It reminds me of the Hobbit movies, in particular of the battle on the river. I was taken out of the movie by the splashes. They looked fake, but I knew that this was more because the movie was shot at 48FPS and so captured the motion better.
So does it look fake because it is fake, or does it look fake because it's different from what we expect to see?
Employee withholding taxes are a better indication of employment, cover most of the population every 2 weeks, and unlike estimates from the BLS, aren't distorted by adding fudge factors to get the numbers you want.
The problem with using withholding taxes is that the numbers could end up being far more skewed than you believe the BLS numbers to be. A large portion of the population works more than one job. By counting the number of people getting paychecks, even if you get the amount that they're getting paid, you risk strongly over-counting the number of people employed to one degree or another. Someone working a full-time job and a part-time job could be counted as two people employed, while someone working three part-time jobs could count as three people employed.
The BLS numbers aren't perfect, but they're the best information that we have. The tax-based numbers wouldn't go back more than a few years if we tried to start using them, so a new program to keep that information (and the highly individualized data associated with it) would have to start, run probably at least a decade, and might then be able to start producing useful numbers that could be published.
It would still be missing critical data, though: why people are unemployed. It only captures who isn't working. It doesn't include anything about those who went to school, stayed at home to be a parent, stay at home or cut back hours to care for an ailing family member, retire, or go on disability. It also misses people who own their own business with no employees, paying their taxes quarterly instead of monthly or biweekly, and one has to make estimates of how many of those are still in operation in between, and even with those numbers, many of them have separate jobs.
The end result is less, and probably muddier, data than we have now.
Withholding taxes are down, even as the "official" unemployment rate drops and more people enter the workforce. What that means is that people are making less money, good full-time jobs are being replaced by crap full-time, part-time, or no jobs.
That doesn't seem to be the case. According to the Treasury's monthly report (the latest available is for May 2016), individual income tax revenue for the current fiscal year is up over the same period in 2015, with $1.038 trillion this fiscal year compared to $1.015 trillion last fiscal year, an increase of about 2.3%.
I searched for the withholding tax revenue and didn't see it, so I checked the report for January 2016, before most people have started paying whatever back taxes they owe, and the revenue was even stronger: a 3.2% increase over the same period the year prior. Maybe you have the actual withholding numbers, which I'd love to see if that were the case. The available evidence, though, contradicts your assertion.
Most people are bad at judging the effects of things in their food. Tell someone that their coffee is strongly or weakly caffeinated, and they become more or less alert than normal.
Maybe you're an exception, but probably not. Most people follow this pattern. People do tend to react differently when they get something they don't usually have, and children are even more susceptible to this. Your recollections of your youth are probably not as accurate as you think (this is also the case with most people). It's possible that you don't remember being told that they had sugar. Adults may have acted differently around you after you got the Twinkies. You probably also knew that they were sweets in the same category (roughly speaking) as cookies and candy.
The point is that there is a lot of psychology that goes into how people react to various foods, most of it completely invisible to the people consuming the food unless they're explicitly told about it. It's a big part of why telling kids that something tastes good tends to be more effective than telling them that it's good for them. Shots are also good for them, but they don't like them. Therefore, "good for you" can carry a negative connotation.
Labor force participation rate The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
Civilian noninstitutional population (Current Population Survey) Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states and the District of Columbia who do not live in institutions (for example, correctional facilities, long-term care hospitals, and nursing homes) and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.
It includes everyone who has retired and who lives on their own, and yes, the baby boomers have had a large effect on it. Ben Casselman at FiveThirtyEight discussed this a couple of years ago, noting that the LFPR began declining in the early 2000s. Short version: about half, maybe a little less, of the decline can be attributed to Baby Boomer retirement. Other factors, including more people in school and some people not returning to the workforce, account for the rest.
They've done studies on this, too, and yes, children told they were being given sugary treats were more energetic than those being told they were given sugar-free treats.
Similar effects have been seen in people who were told they were consuming stronger drinks than they were served. They tended to act more drunk, and the effect has been seen in both experienced and novice drinkers.
Depending on where he is, it's not hard to draw 10kW. My electric company lets me see my power usage on as fine a grain as every 15 minutes. During the summer in north Texas with a home that's only 10 years old and with the AC set to 78F throughout the house, I can easily use 4.5kWh over the course of an hour (so an average draw of 4.5kW). When it's very warm, I have drawn an average of over 8kW over an hour. This isn't factoring in additional people soon to live in the house. On that basis, a 10kW system isn't overkill. It's just meeting what are now occasional needs and what will be common in the future.
I haven't yet put panels on my house, but when I do, I'm probably looking at something in the 10kW to 15kW range. It's expensive, but I expect it to pay off over time, and Texas doesn't allow real estate taxes on the value of residential solar panels, so if I ever sell my house, it pays back well, presuming I'm not on a lease for it (and I don't plan to be).
Panels do better than asphalt roofs because they're tested to higher levels. Asphalt shingles get various ratings based on tests using various size balls of ice to see how they take it. Solar panels are generally tested using one-inch steel balls impacting perpendicular to the panel, usually at or near terminal velocity. The ice used in asphalt testing can break, absorbing some of the energy, but the steel ball gets no such benefit.
Extreme hail can still damage a solar installation, and hail might be able to damage non-panel components, but if your panels are suffering damage from hail, you stand a good chance of finding holes punched in the asphalt and wood the rest of the roof is made of.
You're ignoring efficiency issues. Coca-Cola is going to continue using trucks for delivery because it's more energy efficient and lower maintenance than using drones. Even if the cost of a drone comes down to $200 for one that can carry a case (about 10 pounds for a 12-pack), the ability to carry even 10,000 pounds involves an astronomical cost of $200,000 for a thousand drones, plus the time of operation for one pilot per drone ($7,250 per hour at federal minimum wage), plus maintenance and replacement costs, and that would cover only a small region.
There will be a point where drones can be used for delivery, but it will require far higher battery power density than we have now, and is probably decades in the future.
They did set it for 100 MPH, and use that in their press release. (For those of us who fly most manned aircraft, it throws things off a bit for us as the cap is 87 knots, which is a very non-round number.)
While I also believe that many of these agencies need to be scaled back, yours is an extremely simplistic view that ignores most of what these agencies actually do. DHS includes the Border Patrol, Customs, and Immigration. Scrapping those would do immense damage to the government's ability to perform what is arguably its most basic job: protecting the country from foreign aggressors. There are similar problems with your other demands. Just because you can't think of something good that the agencies do doesn't mean they're useless.
As for the electoral college, I'd like to see something along the lines of what Maine and Nebraska do. The overall statewide winner gets two votes corresponding to senators, and each congressional district gets one electoral college vote. Suddenly, formerly banked states like Texas, California, and New Jersey get a lot more important because they have a few swing districts that could be grabbed.
Or will we have to rely on the free market who will chose the most economical way to generate electricity: coal plants?
You really should get caught up on new plant construction. According to Sourcewatch, only four coal-fired plants are even in the planning phase right now representing less than 2GW of capacity. The same page shows more than three dozen canceled plants over the last 13 years or so. Compare this to hundreds of plants either retired or converted (or planned for retirement or conversion). Only 34 plants were built from 2000-2009. The main reason for this is that coal is not the most economical, having years ago ceded that position to natural gas.
Meanwhile, a recently released report by Bloomberg has the cost of solar and wind dipping below coal and gas by about 2027, and forecasts that 60% of 2040's installed capacity will be zero-emission of some sort.
The rich have always had access to newer technology. They had cars while poor people had horses or had to walk. They had planes while poor people had to take trains or just not travel. Even in cars, they had airbags, fuel injection, rear-view cameras, and other things we now consider essentially standard long before the riff-raff. With GM rolling out the Bolt and most other car manufacturers working on their own electric cars, the costs will come down dramatically, enough that middle class and even poor people will eventually get relatively easy access to them.
It's more than drive train costs. Brakes are also a massive cost in big rigs, as are the pollution controls that may have to be upgraded several times over the life of the truck. The new challenge is going to be getting repairs for the gas turbine and the electrical systems, but those skills will pop up fast in the repair shops. If these can be delivered as promised and are at least as reliable as existing trucks, they're going to remake the market.
Apparently, the batteries can be "topped off" through a recharging port, but even using a 240V/60A connection (which is probably not what they mean by "topping off"), refilling 256kWh (figuring 80% of battery capacity is actively used to prevent over- and under-charging) is still going to take nearly 18 hours with perfect efficiency, and no trucker wants to be idle that long unless they're doing a reset.
So yeah, even with that, the turbine isn't really a range extender, but the actual power generator except for certain minor exceptions.
Experiment with wearing the tracker higher on your wrist during exercise. Because blood flow in your arm increases the farther up you go, moving the tracker up a couple inches can improve the heart rate signal. Also, many exercises such as spinning cause you to bend your wrist frequently, which is more likely to interfere with the heart rate signal if the tracker is lower on your wrist.
The higher up your arm, the higher the accuracy. The diagram in the same documentation shows the Charge HR being worn higher than the ulnar protuberance. Wearing it on the protuberance is more likely to worsen accuracy.
Consumer Reports took a second look at their FitBit review, using a different (and apparently better) heart monitor harness than the claimed study. They did find a few discrepancies, but far smaller, landing within 3 beats per minute in almost all cases. They also noted that when the FitBit is worn a couple of inches above the wrist instead of on the wrist, as FitBit suggests but which many people seem to not know, the results are more accurate. CR is monitoring the case, but they have elected to not change their recommendation at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
No one knows how much it would destroy because nothing like that has ever been detonated.
In any case, the yield information is from Sputnik, which is less reliable than the Weekly World News.
The Mormons maintain a separate project at familysearch.org.
Failure to register a foreign birth with the State Department risks the citizenship not being recognized if it's not done before the child's 18th birthday. Depending on the citizenship laws of the nation of birth and the parents, this places a risk of the child becoming stateless upon his or her 18th birthday.
It doesn't really matter. I'd do that with any job.
But for the current job, it means when I'm on vacation, out at dinner, or just don't want to be bothered by work, I can silence or turn off the work phone and not be bothered by customers, who have fallback contacts if I'm not available. At previous jobs, MDM was required for any phone connecting to the corporate network, and there is no way that I'm giving control of my phone over to someone at corporate, especially since I had no trust that I would have a job from day to day. (Not concerning my performance, but random cuts happened for little apparent reason because the company couldn't hit its stated profit goals, targeting some very good people.) I really didn't want my personal phone wiped either intentionally or accidentally by corporate, not to mention the possibility of reading it.
I do not, nor have I ever, used my personal cell phone for work purposes. Key work people may have the number for emergency purposes, but it's made clear that me providing that number is a serious point of trust, and that it should never be used except for the most dire circumstances. My work cell not answering doesn't count. Clients are to *never* get that number.
About a year ago, I took a job where they don't provide a phone. I chose instead to purchase a separate line that is used entirely for business. Only a few personal contacts have the number (parents and wife, basically). If I ever leave the company, the line gets disabled (phone was purchased off contract) so I don't have to field calls from clients. Even if I choose to use the phone with a new employer, it will get a different number. The cost of the phone and extra line comes off taxes each year.
When traveling internationally, the phone gets backed up, wiped, and reinitialized with a separate ID that has no links to the old except for necessary work contacts. Something similar happens to the notebook. After returning home, what little new data is present is backed up, then the pre-trip backups are restored.
All devices are fully encrypted, so reinitialization gets a fully clean start.
I'm only talking about the water on the river. That was all real, filmed at 48fps. It looked bad because it was unexpectedly too detailed.
Desktop browsers don't capitalize by default. Some of us still use them. (Some of us also know where the Shift keys are and learned to type somewhere along the way, even if it was only using Mavis Beacon.)
That said, I've roundfiled plenty of resumes where the person clearly didn't bother to do any spell- or grammar-checking.
You're expecting wages to rise at ~7% annual rates over the next decade? What info do you have that the rest of us don't?
That's the textbook goal of a tariff. Countries have used tariffs to effectively shut off imports.
Tariffs also only work if the imposing country has a significant advantage. It's possible to vastly overdo them, as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act did (trade dropped by half in both directions). In a global trade era, the effect of tariffs against a given country can be quickly countered by that country offering more advantageous trade opportunities to other nations. China could offer more generous status to the EU, for example, which would probably be quick to accept lower cost imports as a potential boost to its own lackluster economy.
Trade wars benefit few, and rarely end up with the imposing country getting its entire way. As time goes on and trade becomes even more globalized, I suspect that the imposing country will more often be forced to offer significant concessions to get out of the trade war. Eventually, free trade zones the world over will be the rule. Whether that's good in general or not, I don't know.
If you have these numbers, please do provide a link. I'm interested in seeing them.
It reminds me of the Hobbit movies, in particular of the battle on the river. I was taken out of the movie by the splashes. They looked fake, but I knew that this was more because the movie was shot at 48FPS and so captured the motion better.
So does it look fake because it is fake, or does it look fake because it's different from what we expect to see?
The problem with using withholding taxes is that the numbers could end up being far more skewed than you believe the BLS numbers to be. A large portion of the population works more than one job. By counting the number of people getting paychecks, even if you get the amount that they're getting paid, you risk strongly over-counting the number of people employed to one degree or another. Someone working a full-time job and a part-time job could be counted as two people employed, while someone working three part-time jobs could count as three people employed.
The BLS numbers aren't perfect, but they're the best information that we have. The tax-based numbers wouldn't go back more than a few years if we tried to start using them, so a new program to keep that information (and the highly individualized data associated with it) would have to start, run probably at least a decade, and might then be able to start producing useful numbers that could be published.
It would still be missing critical data, though: why people are unemployed. It only captures who isn't working. It doesn't include anything about those who went to school, stayed at home to be a parent, stay at home or cut back hours to care for an ailing family member, retire, or go on disability. It also misses people who own their own business with no employees, paying their taxes quarterly instead of monthly or biweekly, and one has to make estimates of how many of those are still in operation in between, and even with those numbers, many of them have separate jobs.
The end result is less, and probably muddier, data than we have now.
That doesn't seem to be the case. According to the Treasury's monthly report (the latest available is for May 2016), individual income tax revenue for the current fiscal year is up over the same period in 2015, with $1.038 trillion this fiscal year compared to $1.015 trillion last fiscal year, an increase of about 2.3%.
I searched for the withholding tax revenue and didn't see it, so I checked the report for January 2016, before most people have started paying whatever back taxes they owe, and the revenue was even stronger: a 3.2% increase over the same period the year prior. Maybe you have the actual withholding numbers, which I'd love to see if that were the case. The available evidence, though, contradicts your assertion.
Most people are bad at judging the effects of things in their food. Tell someone that their coffee is strongly or weakly caffeinated, and they become more or less alert than normal.
Maybe you're an exception, but probably not. Most people follow this pattern. People do tend to react differently when they get something they don't usually have, and children are even more susceptible to this. Your recollections of your youth are probably not as accurate as you think (this is also the case with most people). It's possible that you don't remember being told that they had sugar. Adults may have acted differently around you after you got the Twinkies. You probably also knew that they were sweets in the same category (roughly speaking) as cookies and candy.
The point is that there is a lot of psychology that goes into how people react to various foods, most of it completely invisible to the people consuming the food unless they're explicitly told about it. It's a big part of why telling kids that something tastes good tends to be more effective than telling them that it's good for them. Shots are also good for them, but they don't like them. Therefore, "good for you" can carry a negative connotation.
It's 66% of the population age 16 and above, with some minor exceptions.
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics glossary:
Labor force participation rate
The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
Civilian noninstitutional population (Current Population Survey)
Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states and the District of Columbia who do not live in institutions (for example, correctional facilities, long-term care hospitals, and nursing homes) and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.
It includes everyone who has retired and who lives on their own, and yes, the baby boomers have had a large effect on it. Ben Casselman at FiveThirtyEight discussed this a couple of years ago, noting that the LFPR began declining in the early 2000s. Short version: about half, maybe a little less, of the decline can be attributed to Baby Boomer retirement. Other factors, including more people in school and some people not returning to the workforce, account for the rest.
They've done studies on this, too, and yes, children told they were being given sugary treats were more energetic than those being told they were given sugar-free treats.
Similar effects have been seen in people who were told they were consuming stronger drinks than they were served. They tended to act more drunk, and the effect has been seen in both experienced and novice drinkers.
Depending on where he is, it's not hard to draw 10kW. My electric company lets me see my power usage on as fine a grain as every 15 minutes. During the summer in north Texas with a home that's only 10 years old and with the AC set to 78F throughout the house, I can easily use 4.5kWh over the course of an hour (so an average draw of 4.5kW). When it's very warm, I have drawn an average of over 8kW over an hour. This isn't factoring in additional people soon to live in the house. On that basis, a 10kW system isn't overkill. It's just meeting what are now occasional needs and what will be common in the future.
I haven't yet put panels on my house, but when I do, I'm probably looking at something in the 10kW to 15kW range. It's expensive, but I expect it to pay off over time, and Texas doesn't allow real estate taxes on the value of residential solar panels, so if I ever sell my house, it pays back well, presuming I'm not on a lease for it (and I don't plan to be).
Panels do better than asphalt roofs because they're tested to higher levels. Asphalt shingles get various ratings based on tests using various size balls of ice to see how they take it. Solar panels are generally tested using one-inch steel balls impacting perpendicular to the panel, usually at or near terminal velocity. The ice used in asphalt testing can break, absorbing some of the energy, but the steel ball gets no such benefit.
Extreme hail can still damage a solar installation, and hail might be able to damage non-panel components, but if your panels are suffering damage from hail, you stand a good chance of finding holes punched in the asphalt and wood the rest of the roof is made of.
You're ignoring efficiency issues. Coca-Cola is going to continue using trucks for delivery because it's more energy efficient and lower maintenance than using drones. Even if the cost of a drone comes down to $200 for one that can carry a case (about 10 pounds for a 12-pack), the ability to carry even 10,000 pounds involves an astronomical cost of $200,000 for a thousand drones, plus the time of operation for one pilot per drone ($7,250 per hour at federal minimum wage), plus maintenance and replacement costs, and that would cover only a small region.
There will be a point where drones can be used for delivery, but it will require far higher battery power density than we have now, and is probably decades in the future.
They did set it for 100 MPH, and use that in their press release. (For those of us who fly most manned aircraft, it throws things off a bit for us as the cap is 87 knots, which is a very non-round number.)
While I also believe that many of these agencies need to be scaled back, yours is an extremely simplistic view that ignores most of what these agencies actually do. DHS includes the Border Patrol, Customs, and Immigration. Scrapping those would do immense damage to the government's ability to perform what is arguably its most basic job: protecting the country from foreign aggressors. There are similar problems with your other demands. Just because you can't think of something good that the agencies do doesn't mean they're useless.
As for the electoral college, I'd like to see something along the lines of what Maine and Nebraska do. The overall statewide winner gets two votes corresponding to senators, and each congressional district gets one electoral college vote. Suddenly, formerly banked states like Texas, California, and New Jersey get a lot more important because they have a few swing districts that could be grabbed.
Or will we have to rely on the free market who will chose the most economical way to generate electricity: coal plants?
You really should get caught up on new plant construction. According to Sourcewatch, only four coal-fired plants are even in the planning phase right now representing less than 2GW of capacity. The same page shows more than three dozen canceled plants over the last 13 years or so. Compare this to hundreds of plants either retired or converted (or planned for retirement or conversion). Only 34 plants were built from 2000-2009. The main reason for this is that coal is not the most economical, having years ago ceded that position to natural gas.
Meanwhile, a recently released report by Bloomberg has the cost of solar and wind dipping below coal and gas by about 2027, and forecasts that 60% of 2040's installed capacity will be zero-emission of some sort.
The rich have always had access to newer technology. They had cars while poor people had horses or had to walk. They had planes while poor people had to take trains or just not travel. Even in cars, they had airbags, fuel injection, rear-view cameras, and other things we now consider essentially standard long before the riff-raff. With GM rolling out the Bolt and most other car manufacturers working on their own electric cars, the costs will come down dramatically, enough that middle class and even poor people will eventually get relatively easy access to them.
It's more than drive train costs. Brakes are also a massive cost in big rigs, as are the pollution controls that may have to be upgraded several times over the life of the truck. The new challenge is going to be getting repairs for the gas turbine and the electrical systems, but those skills will pop up fast in the repair shops. If these can be delivered as promised and are at least as reliable as existing trucks, they're going to remake the market.
Apparently, the batteries can be "topped off" through a recharging port, but even using a 240V/60A connection (which is probably not what they mean by "topping off"), refilling 256kWh (figuring 80% of battery capacity is actively used to prevent over- and under-charging) is still going to take nearly 18 hours with perfect efficiency, and no trucker wants to be idle that long unless they're doing a reset.
So yeah, even with that, the turbine isn't really a range extender, but the actual power generator except for certain minor exceptions.
FitBit's documentation says to place it higher than the protuberance.
The higher up your arm, the higher the accuracy. The diagram in the same documentation shows the Charge HR being worn higher than the ulnar protuberance. Wearing it on the protuberance is more likely to worsen accuracy.
Consumer Reports took a second look at their FitBit review, using a different (and apparently better) heart monitor harness than the claimed study. They did find a few discrepancies, but far smaller, landing within 3 beats per minute in almost all cases. They also noted that when the FitBit is worn a couple of inches above the wrist instead of on the wrist, as FitBit suggests but which many people seem to not know, the results are more accurate. CR is monitoring the case, but they have elected to not change their recommendation at this point.