In Liberal Maryland, my Tundra required a more expensive registration, but not commercial. It is possible that uber progressive California wanted to push people to not buy trucks anymore.
It looks like my truck fits in the class M (over 3700 lbs), so costs $187/2 year, which isn't much different than the fee for hire of $334/2 years.
My truck could also be class E (3/4 ton or 7000 lbs) at $161.50
Do they intentionally make this stuff complicated to confuse people? It took me 10 minutes just to find that particular link and it doesn't even explain the difference between E and M.
The [SIC] is the accepted way of saying that the mistake is in the original, not the copy. As for the language, your statement did not say what you meant it to say, you said that the predator should feel no remorse, not that people who don't do it should feel no remorse. There is a significant difference in the two.
These issues have been corrected as far as I can tell. VZ was pressuring Netflix, which has been corrected by Netflix buying a VZ connection. This should be corrected by legislation, but it seems no one in the FCC actually has the balls. I am not sure what was wrong with YouTube, but that also has been corrected.
How about if the police officers that tried to stop the attack BEFORE it happened had had a gun? Maybe they would not have fled and called in reinforcements?
I would tend to agree though, even with a gun, you still have to have an indication of the attack, and have time to react, as well as the mindset to be able to defend yourself, but who was saved by the laws outlawing guns in these two situations?
Obviously all the gun control laws of both France and Australia didn't stop these mentally unstable individuals getting their hands on guns. So why should we disarm all the people who haven't hurt someone because some have? How will removing more guns used for legitimate purposes slow down or stop attacks by people who are already willing to break the law? How did it work out to have guns outlawed in France and Australia when these people were still able to get a hold of these weapons?
Not that I disagree with what you are trying to say, I would like to point something out to you about your comment:
No one's talling[SIC] you [SIC]should be ashamed of yourself for harassing women.
I think anyone who harasses people should be ashamed of themselves. What you maybe meant to type would be more like: "No one is telling you that you should be ashamed for being male because some males harass women", which is a bit different from what you did type.
Now, my question is, why do we get inundated with stories about women being harassed by men, but never stories about the many men who are harassed by women? I have heard that both happen about equally, though I cannot say from personal experience, as my only experience occured in high school where a girl accused me of sexual harassment as a means of trying to get me in trouble, even though I had done nothing to actually harass her.
It is point to multipoint. So it will be a connection to your cell phone, or someone's internet access.
Taking the average population density of the US vs other countries is counter intuitive, much of the central US is farmland, mountains or deserts, most of the population is on the coasts, so the density of the cities is much higher than that figure would imply. A better figure would be comparing specific city's population densities, which you would be amazed at with New York, but would find LA or Dallas to be very low.
Thankfully, that person was living in India at the time and my company could afford to wait for the paperwork to finally settle, but imagine if that person had been already living in the US, or if my company had been less patient.
What if the company was less patient? By applying for H1B status for this employee, the company is saying that they cannot find this talent AT ALL in the US, so than they better be patient, because this is a damn special person.
I can tell that you are anti US as your opinions are heavily weighted in that way.
Everyone in the developed world thinks it's common sense to restrict access to firearms. Not the USA - That's Theft of Freedom.
The problem with removal of guns is that our country was built on this freedom. There are many very good reasons for gun ownership, one being wild animals. much of Europe does not have large carnivores (bears, wolves, etc) like the US does.
If people want to change this, there has to be a major change, such as a constitutional amendment. This is not something you can just decide to change. You would have to convince some percentage of states to agree to an amendment (I can't remember my high school civics well enough for the %, but it is easily looked up and I am too lazy at this moment).
These are some of the problems with starting from the point of view of just removing guns, it isn't that easy. Mostly though, the issues with guns in the US are nothing to do with the guns themselves which are tools, but with the situation of mental health in the US. If mental health care was easier to get, and there wasn't this massive stigma of it, there would be less people out there with these untreated issues.
Now, saying we should get rid of the guns in the US, doesn't solve the problems of violence, just removes the average citizen's ability to defend themselves against violence, which causes such things as happened recently in a Sydney cafe, and at a newspaper in Paris. Even the police were ill equipped to deal with a determined terrorist. If the police were armed, or even some of the citizens in these cases, less harm would have been done to these people.
Compared to lower bands, radio waves in this band have high atmospheric attenuation; they are absorbed by the gases in the atmosphere. Therefore they have a short range and can only be used for terrestrial communication over about a kilometer.
and
While this absorption limits potential communications range, it also allows for smaller frequency reuse distances than lower frequencies. The small wavelength allows modest size antennas to have a small beam width, further increasing frequency reuse potential.
It sounds like the absorption will be a feature, not a bug. This will allow many more antennas in a city like situation. It won't be any good in rural areas, but I don't think it is meant for that.
If you have trouble hearing a Tesla at normal surface road speed, you should get your hearing checked. Below 30, you hear the tires, not the engine of many cars.
Speak for yourself, all the cables around my house are underground.
Aerial vs Buried depends on region. In rural, it is often aerial, buried costs 10x and when you need to run it much further per person, it makes sense. It can also be aerial in cities due to the difficulty/cost of running underground cables where there is no exposed dirt. In suburban America, the cables are often buried.
Up north, there is more pressure for buried cables than in the south due to the winter time storms, and in coastal regions, there is pressure due to hurricanes. It is a mixed bag:)
Do you expect intelligence out of people in congress? They do stupid things all the time.
However,/. editors intentionally lying in the title of a submission should be called out every time as it causes confusion on the subject. No one put forward a bill that climate change is a hoax.
If anyone wanted to do what you state, they should put forward their own bill. This is just a symbolic act that has no meaning. People who vote for Keystone XL don't give a damn about the anti science rider put on by the Democrats. Maybe this will allow more Dems to vote for the bill though as they can say they were affirming their belief in climate change.
Maybe in the developing world. In the US I know CO2 emissions have dropped as natural gas has gotten cheaper, more nat gas power plants have been built, and more coal plants have been shut down.
Which would be why, according to the summary, the democrats feel they should legislate the truth of climate change instead of leaving it to the scientists. It helps to read the summary, it says the exact opposite as the title.
Funny thing is that the summary directly contradicts the title. The democrats are attaching riders to the Keystone XL bill that declare climate change caused by man a fact. This is just as bad, but done by the other side of the aisle.
Slashdot Mirror
Your insurance company requires you to drive in black and white? How can you tell the color of the signal lights?
In Liberal Maryland, my Tundra required a more expensive registration, but not commercial. It is possible that uber progressive California wanted to push people to not buy trucks anymore.
http://www.mva.maryland.gov/ve...
It looks like my truck fits in the class M (over 3700 lbs), so costs $187/2 year, which isn't much different than the fee for hire of $334/2 years.
My truck could also be class E (3/4 ton or 7000 lbs) at $161.50
Do they intentionally make this stuff complicated to confuse people? It took me 10 minutes just to find that particular link and it doesn't even explain the difference between E and M.
The [SIC] is the accepted way of saying that the mistake is in the original, not the copy. As for the language, your statement did not say what you meant it to say, you said that the predator should feel no remorse, not that people who don't do it should feel no remorse. There is a significant difference in the two.
These issues have been corrected as far as I can tell. VZ was pressuring Netflix, which has been corrected by Netflix buying a VZ connection. This should be corrected by legislation, but it seems no one in the FCC actually has the balls. I am not sure what was wrong with YouTube, but that also has been corrected.
I would be curious to see the difference. Comcrap isn't available in my area, so I cannot compare.
My plan:
75/75 (all FiOS connections are now symmetric) $89.99
I recently added TV, and the only cost difference was the set top box, which I believe was $13, and the cable card for $3
How about if the police officers that tried to stop the attack BEFORE it happened had had a gun? Maybe they would not have fled and called in reinforcements?
I would tend to agree though, even with a gun, you still have to have an indication of the attack, and have time to react, as well as the mindset to be able to defend yourself, but who was saved by the laws outlawing guns in these two situations?
Obviously all the gun control laws of both France and Australia didn't stop these mentally unstable individuals getting their hands on guns. So why should we disarm all the people who haven't hurt someone because some have? How will removing more guns used for legitimate purposes slow down or stop attacks by people who are already willing to break the law? How did it work out to have guns outlawed in France and Australia when these people were still able to get a hold of these weapons?
But it happened on the Internet!
Not that I disagree with what you are trying to say, I would like to point something out to you about your comment:
No one's talling[SIC] you [SIC]should be ashamed of yourself for harassing women.
I think anyone who harasses people should be ashamed of themselves. What you maybe meant to type would be more like: "No one is telling you that you should be ashamed for being male because some males harass women", which is a bit different from what you did type.
Now, my question is, why do we get inundated with stories about women being harassed by men, but never stories about the many men who are harassed by women? I have heard that both happen about equally, though I cannot say from personal experience, as my only experience occured in high school where a girl accused me of sexual harassment as a means of trying to get me in trouble, even though I had done nothing to actually harass her.
I am reminded of the anti copyright infringement commercial "Would you steal a car?". No, but I would copy a car.
It is point to multipoint. So it will be a connection to your cell phone, or someone's internet access.
Taking the average population density of the US vs other countries is counter intuitive, much of the central US is farmland, mountains or deserts, most of the population is on the coasts, so the density of the cities is much higher than that figure would imply. A better figure would be comparing specific city's population densities, which you would be amazed at with New York, but would find LA or Dallas to be very low.
Thankfully, that person was living in India at the time and my company could afford to wait for the paperwork to finally settle, but imagine if that person had been already living in the US, or if my company had been less patient.
What if the company was less patient? By applying for H1B status for this employee, the company is saying that they cannot find this talent AT ALL in the US, so than they better be patient, because this is a damn special person.
But I like living in the US! (just kidding, the US couldn't be third world by the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...)
I can tell that you are anti US as your opinions are heavily weighted in that way.
Everyone in the developed world thinks it's common sense to restrict access to firearms. Not the USA - That's Theft of Freedom.
The problem with removal of guns is that our country was built on this freedom. There are many very good reasons for gun ownership, one being wild animals. much of Europe does not have large carnivores (bears, wolves, etc) like the US does.
If people want to change this, there has to be a major change, such as a constitutional amendment. This is not something you can just decide to change. You would have to convince some percentage of states to agree to an amendment (I can't remember my high school civics well enough for the %, but it is easily looked up and I am too lazy at this moment).
These are some of the problems with starting from the point of view of just removing guns, it isn't that easy. Mostly though, the issues with guns in the US are nothing to do with the guns themselves which are tools, but with the situation of mental health in the US. If mental health care was easier to get, and there wasn't this massive stigma of it, there would be less people out there with these untreated issues.
Now, saying we should get rid of the guns in the US, doesn't solve the problems of violence, just removes the average citizen's ability to defend themselves against violence, which causes such things as happened recently in a Sydney cafe, and at a newspaper in Paris. Even the police were ill equipped to deal with a determined terrorist. If the police were armed, or even some of the citizens in these cases, less harm would have been done to these people.
From Wikipedia:
Compared to lower bands, radio waves in this band have high atmospheric attenuation; they are absorbed by the gases in the atmosphere. Therefore they have a short range and can only be used for terrestrial communication over about a kilometer.
and
While this absorption limits potential communications range, it also allows for smaller frequency reuse distances than lower frequencies. The small wavelength allows modest size antennas to have a small beam width, further increasing frequency reuse potential.
It sounds like the absorption will be a feature, not a bug. This will allow many more antennas in a city like situation. It won't be any good in rural areas, but I don't think it is meant for that.
Same for the Ecoboost. It purrs at idle, but put your foot in it and you hear the horsepower.
Really?
So you agree with my statement as he was talking about the "small engine" ecoboost model.
If you have trouble hearing a Tesla at normal surface road speed, you should get your hearing checked. Below 30, you hear the tires, not the engine of many cars.
It sounds like you fell for the sound engineering than.
Speak for yourself, all the cables around my house are underground.
Aerial vs Buried depends on region. In rural, it is often aerial, buried costs 10x and when you need to run it much further per person, it makes sense. It can also be aerial in cities due to the difficulty/cost of running underground cables where there is no exposed dirt. In suburban America, the cables are often buried.
Up north, there is more pressure for buried cables than in the south due to the winter time storms, and in coastal regions, there is pressure due to hurricanes. It is a mixed bag :)
Do you expect intelligence out of people in congress? They do stupid things all the time.
However, /. editors intentionally lying in the title of a submission should be called out every time as it causes confusion on the subject. No one put forward a bill that climate change is a hoax.
If anyone wanted to do what you state, they should put forward their own bill. This is just a symbolic act that has no meaning. People who vote for Keystone XL don't give a damn about the anti science rider put on by the Democrats. Maybe this will allow more Dems to vote for the bill though as they can say they were affirming their belief in climate change.
If the debate had to be, why did the Democrats decide this had to be a rider to another bill, which by definition does not get debated?
That is just more wealth redistribution by the Demos to buy votes from the people they give the money to.
Maybe in the developing world. In the US I know CO2 emissions have dropped as natural gas has gotten cheaper, more nat gas power plants have been built, and more coal plants have been shut down.
Which would be why, according to the summary, the democrats feel they should legislate the truth of climate change instead of leaving it to the scientists. It helps to read the summary, it says the exact opposite as the title.
Funny thing is that the summary directly contradicts the title. The democrats are attaching riders to the Keystone XL bill that declare climate change caused by man a fact. This is just as bad, but done by the other side of the aisle.