When the Dems were in control of the Senate they rarely even bothered to pass a budget (one of their primary functions), let alone listen to the executive proposals. When Reid did decide to actually propose a budget (apparently he scheduled "Plan next years budget" for Feb 29th one year so a reminder only popped up every 4) it wasn't based off of Obama's proposals because Obama's budget proposals (when submitted) we so ridiculous they couldn't even garner Democrat support.
Obama can't even get Democrats to take his budget proposals seriously. When Reid did bother with a budget he ignored almost anything proposed fro the White House and went his own way. It was the Republicans that would force Reid to table Obama's budgets for a vote and when they were brought up they generally couldn't get enough support for the yeas to play a game of Solitaire.
2011: 97-0 2012: 99-0 and his most successful, 2016: 98-1
Weight restrictions on take-off and landings has little to do with power requirements, just the load capacity of the suspension and frame of the plane.
Having a lighter plane during take-off is an obvious advantage as the gp stated, but also as the gp even states, the fact li-air batteries gain weight while discharging is a problem.
The top 3 'tax credits' the oil companies get are (in roughly dollar value order but order changes from year to year):
1) The national oil reserve 2) farmers fuel exemption 3) Home heating oil credit
So of those 3 'tax credits', none is actually paid to the oil companies.
#1 is simply money spent to buy oil to have a strategic reserve. #2 is a subsidy to low income homeowners to help NOT DIE during winters #3 is just an exclusion from certain taxes for fuel spent for farm equipment since those taxes are meant for road maintenance and those pieces of equipment are not road going vehicles.
The other 30-40% of tax credits oil companies get are the same as any other company (R&D, amortization, losses) with the exception that some of their expenses are actually capped at a much lower rate than other industries so they can actually claim less than companies like Apple.
While some info may have been retroactively classified most of the reported emails were either born classified (certain topics/sources are classified immediately and require steps to declassify) or were classified immediately by the originating organization. The State department in full cover mode has been attempting, and failing miserably, to get all the originating departments to agree to declassify their materials.
Some of the emails were so highly classified that the investigators themselves were not authorized to read them and had to get people from the originating departments to review the information.
The ONLY people trying to stick to the 'retroactive' lie are Hillary's team and the State department which may also face some major revamping once this is all done with.
According to the law both the sender and receiver should be charged unless the receiver immediately reports the violation to the proper authorities. In Clinton's case she never reported it, in at least one case actually encouraged it, allowed the classified information to be stored off site in a non-secured location (her ISP) and then gave it to another person without security clearance (her lawyer). Even the process where she claimed to have removed her personal emails by having assistants go through ever email probably violated the law several times since some of this information was code word classified and would not be legally viewable by anyone not read in and in a secure room.
All of those are direct violations of several laws.
If done right, a smart gun can be actually more reliable and accurate while simultaneously reducing accidents. For example, it can have a screen that shows me where a bullet will hit...
Amazingly that technology already exists, it's called a scope and unless you did it horribly wrong adding one to your existing gun doesn't make it any less reliable; the same cannot be said for current smart gun tech.
This survey was designed for the sole purpose of getting the exact headline this post uses.
By their own admission the group most likely to answer "yes" to the smart gun question were self identifying liberals and non-gun owners. Gun owners and those with actual gun knowledge were more likely to respond "no". It was basically like surveying mostly cyclist about commuting patterns and acting surprised when they say the solution is more bike lanes.
They also boosted numbers by being very vague on the use of the term "smart gun" and instead used words like "child proof" so people unfamiliar with the current debates would most likely answer the way they wanted.
While he does get a significant number of the rank and file, polls done on his supporters (check out NYT for one) found that the largest group (by percentage) are actually registered Democrat followed by unregistered (of course this should be higher since several states don't count party registration) and then independents and finally registered Republicans.
They also found that a large portion of self identifying Trump supporters are very unlikely to actually vote in the general, let alone a state primary.
He generally does well with the least politically informed or politically active people and I sure hope they stay politically inactive for everyone's sake.
Obama has passed less EO's than most other Presidents because he simply prefers to write Presidential Memorandum instead. Legally speaking they are the same, with the one exception that Memorandum don't have to be published to the Federal Register (they can be but they are not legally required to be except when the current Administration deems it necessary).
As of last year (and he's written several EOs and PMs since then) he had written more EOs and PMs combined than any President since Carter and more PMs than any President in history.
Of course, none of this takes away from the fact that Trump is just a blowhard and if given the chance would probably blow FDR's EO record away.
A, B and C are obvious since you are taking an existing device and adding a new feature on top of it. This isn't a debate about projectile weapons vs lasers where differences in tech can mean all kinds of things in terms of costs and dependability, it's a discussion about the differences between the same product with or without additional options. The underlying gun still has to function like any other gun with or without the smart tech so it's costs are set. On top of that you are then adding at least some level of electronics to create a 'smart' weapon which means additional cost.
A is a given since you are adding a new level of failure. The percentages may vary based on the tech used but nothing operates at 100% success rate so at least some additional level of failure will be introduced.
B is a given since you are adding a new device on top of an existing device (this cost may be eaten by manufacturers but not likely). Any cost savings from new weapon designs a smart weapon designer comes up with could also be used for non-smart weapons (minus the costs of the smart tech) so there is really no way to get around this.
C is a given for the same reason B is; the base product (the gun) still has a set maintenance cost (in money and time) and adding a new feature can only add to that. Depending on the method used, you'll either have to ensure the batteries are charged, the contacts are cleaned or the ring is properly synced, or whatever method for making the weapon smart is in working order. That's all in addition to proper gun maintenance.
Well since the smart tech increases the chance the gun will fail when she attempts to use it to defend herself anyway, and he's within arms length to grab it from her when she fails to fire, if he takes it and can't use it to shoot he'll probably just bludgeon her with it.
People have been killing each other for a long time before guns were around and if the abusive husband is intent on killing his wife the inability to shoot her probably won't stop him.
The only reason anyone from the NRA to the GOP disagree with smart gun technology is that there are States like NJ who already have laws on the books mandating all guns sold in the state must use smart tech once it becomes widely available.
If it was just a matter of having the choice between a 'smart' or regular gun no one would care; your purchase, your choice. But once you mandate that you must choose the 'smart' option if it's available you are going to force a lot of people to try and prevent it from coming to market.
A loaded mag can both be felt (it affects the weight of the gun) as well as clearly seen. Most officers also carry spares so even if for some reason the current mag is empty it would take seconds to change to a new one.
Batteries on the other hand, unless you test them with an outside device, only show you an approximate representation of their charge on a display; the accuracy of which can vary greatly. I know I've had my tablet show 90%+ one second and then under 10% the next because of some glitch. There have even been cases (earlier gen iPhones for example) where the display was programmed to show drainage using an exponential formula instead of a simple straight line so the charge would show full for a long time but once it started moving went to empty pretty quick.
Firearm sales at gunshows require federal background checks the same as at gun stores. This has nothing to do with any gun registries.
The only people who aren't required to do federal background checks are personal sales and you would have to look pretty far to find a personal seller (other than antique dealers) at a gunshow since registration costs would be much more than the few dollars you would get selling your handful of guns before the you would be considered a seller and therefore required to get licensed and do the background checks.
I don't think you have to pay to become a Binge On provider, just allow your stream to be subject to T-Mobiles proprietary video shaping software. If you want your service to only be viewable under your conditions don't join, if you're willing to let T-Mobile alter bitrates and such you can sign up and become part of the service.
It's like their music service where people could even register their own home PCs as a music provider so they could stream unlimited music from their home machine to their phones.
Yet he did set up a copay system for the uninsured to get them their meds at the original cost or even free. The extreme markup was set based on what insurance companies were willing to pay and served as both a money making system for his company and a sign that the system is in major need of reworking.
Apparently for patients without insurance he set up systems to get them their medication for free or effectively the same rate as the original price. The price gouging was purely a way to show how screwed up the system was and was set at the maximum rate that would still be covered by insurance.
And if you want to live by that rule there are lanes on every highway meant for you, just stay out of the passing lanes.
Admittedly, I speed everywhere but I have no issue with people driving the speed limit if they stick to the right most lane(s), even if I can't get into the left lane because I'm unable to get up to speed to merge safely while following the turtle in front of me. It's only people who insist on driving at or below the limit in the left most lane when there is ample space for them to the right that annoys me.
I believe their unpredictability comes from their inability to judge other normal human actions. For example, as mentioned above and in a few other articles I've seen, when driving near sidewalks autonomous vehicles have a hard time determining when a person is merely being an impatient jerk who thinks hanging his toes over the edge of the sidewalk gives him a real head start when the crosswalk light changes or is actually about to step onto the road. In those cases people might slow down (or not) but autonomous vehicles have been known to suddenly stop, even though the light is green.
So yes, the cars reaction is caused by an unpredictable human but not one that's driving and to other humans that impatient pedestrian, while being a annoyance for standing too close to the edge, isn't anything out of the norm.
I don't know which city you live in but I know people in Ottawa with Wind Mobile and while yes, they do have much cheaper rates you really get what you pay for. They can't even use their phones consistently on the bus to work in the morning. In a drive from Gloucester to downtown there are several dead zones where they lose complete connection for extended periods.
A lot of people that buy into the cheap and local sales pitch of the smaller independent cell companies come to find that cheap and local means cheap and extremely local. I might not care about making calls in Sask. but I wouldn't mind being above to make or receive a call when I happen to go downtown from my house in the suburbs of the same city or vice versa; especially when you cut the cord and your cellphone is your only phone.
The entire debate at the town hall was about rezoning agricultural land for manufacturing and it's impact on property values. One moron made a comment about soaking up the sun and then the reporting feeding frenzy started with each 'news' article simply referencing each other and no one bothering to actually check on the original sources to see this wasn't some collection of rubes with no understanding of the physics of solar panels but simply towns people concerned about property values.
Turns out the story is almost a complete fabrication based on one quote from one idiot.
The town actually rejected the solar project based on it's impact on property values and the issues of rezoning agricultural land for manufacturing but once a reporter with an agenda gets the quote they need then it's full speed ahead, all facts be damned.
The lawsuit was severed to him weeks before his awakening to the idea of equal pay. Seattle allows the serving of paper before the actual court filing date.
As CEO he was paying himself 1/3rd of the companies profits as his salary.
Even if his number are to be believed (which no one actually knows because he's not required to actually show them) his salary cut itself would be responsible for at least a 50% increase in the companies profits. That was the cause of the lawsuit in the first place. He was effectively stealing from the companies shareholders to pay himself at a rate unheard of for a company that size.
Slashdot Mirror
When the Dems were in control of the Senate they rarely even bothered to pass a budget (one of their primary functions), let alone listen to the executive proposals. When Reid did decide to actually propose a budget (apparently he scheduled "Plan next years budget" for Feb 29th one year so a reminder only popped up every 4) it wasn't based off of Obama's proposals because Obama's budget proposals (when submitted) we so ridiculous they couldn't even garner Democrat support.
Obama can't even get Democrats to take his budget proposals seriously. When Reid did bother with a budget he ignored almost anything proposed fro the White House and went his own way. It was the Republicans that would force Reid to table Obama's budgets for a vote and when they were brought up they generally couldn't get enough support for the yeas to play a game of Solitaire.
2011: 97-0
2012: 99-0
and his most successful,
2016: 98-1
Weight restrictions on take-off and landings has little to do with power requirements, just the load capacity of the suspension and frame of the plane.
Having a lighter plane during take-off is an obvious advantage as the gp stated, but also as the gp even states, the fact li-air batteries gain weight while discharging is a problem.
The top 3 'tax credits' the oil companies get are (in roughly dollar value order but order changes from year to year):
1) The national oil reserve
2) farmers fuel exemption
3) Home heating oil credit
So of those 3 'tax credits', none is actually paid to the oil companies.
#1 is simply money spent to buy oil to have a strategic reserve.
#2 is a subsidy to low income homeowners to help NOT DIE during winters
#3 is just an exclusion from certain taxes for fuel spent for farm equipment since those taxes are meant for road maintenance and those pieces of equipment are not road going vehicles.
The other 30-40% of tax credits oil companies get are the same as any other company (R&D, amortization, losses) with the exception that some of their expenses are actually capped at a much lower rate than other industries so they can actually claim less than companies like Apple.
While some info may have been retroactively classified most of the reported emails were either born classified (certain topics/sources are classified immediately and require steps to declassify) or were classified immediately by the originating organization. The State department in full cover mode has been attempting, and failing miserably, to get all the originating departments to agree to declassify their materials.
Some of the emails were so highly classified that the investigators themselves were not authorized to read them and had to get people from the originating departments to review the information.
The ONLY people trying to stick to the 'retroactive' lie are Hillary's team and the State department which may also face some major revamping once this is all done with.
According to the law both the sender and receiver should be charged unless the receiver immediately reports the violation to the proper authorities.
In Clinton's case she never reported it, in at least one case actually encouraged it, allowed the classified information to be stored off site in a non-secured location (her ISP) and then gave it to another person without security clearance (her lawyer). Even the process where she claimed to have removed her personal emails by having assistants go through ever email probably violated the law several times since some of this information was code word classified and would not be legally viewable by anyone not read in and in a secure room.
All of those are direct violations of several laws.
If done right, a smart gun can be actually more reliable and accurate while simultaneously reducing accidents. For example, it can have a screen that shows me where a bullet will hit ...
Amazingly that technology already exists, it's called a scope and unless you did it horribly wrong adding one to your existing gun doesn't make it any less reliable; the same cannot be said for current smart gun tech.
This survey was designed for the sole purpose of getting the exact headline this post uses.
By their own admission the group most likely to answer "yes" to the smart gun question were self identifying liberals and non-gun owners. Gun owners and those with actual gun knowledge were more likely to respond "no". It was basically like surveying mostly cyclist about commuting patterns and acting surprised when they say the solution is more bike lanes.
They also boosted numbers by being very vague on the use of the term "smart gun" and instead used words like "child proof" so people unfamiliar with the current debates would most likely answer the way they wanted.
While he does get a significant number of the rank and file, polls done on his supporters (check out NYT for one) found that the largest group (by percentage) are actually registered Democrat followed by unregistered (of course this should be higher since several states don't count party registration) and then independents and finally registered Republicans.
They also found that a large portion of self identifying Trump supporters are very unlikely to actually vote in the general, let alone a state primary.
He generally does well with the least politically informed or politically active people and I sure hope they stay politically inactive for everyone's sake.
Obama has passed less EO's than most other Presidents because he simply prefers to write Presidential Memorandum instead. Legally speaking they are the same, with the one exception that Memorandum don't have to be published to the Federal Register (they can be but they are not legally required to be except when the current Administration deems it necessary).
As of last year (and he's written several EOs and PMs since then) he had written more EOs and PMs combined than any President since Carter and more PMs than any President in history.
Of course, none of this takes away from the fact that Trump is just a blowhard and if given the chance would probably blow FDR's EO record away.
A, B and C are obvious since you are taking an existing device and adding a new feature on top of it. This isn't a debate about projectile weapons vs lasers where differences in tech can mean all kinds of things in terms of costs and dependability, it's a discussion about the differences between the same product with or without additional options. The underlying gun still has to function like any other gun with or without the smart tech so it's costs are set. On top of that you are then adding at least some level of electronics to create a 'smart' weapon which means additional cost.
A is a given since you are adding a new level of failure. The percentages may vary based on the tech used but nothing operates at 100% success rate so at least some additional level of failure will be introduced.
B is a given since you are adding a new device on top of an existing device (this cost may be eaten by manufacturers but not likely). Any cost savings from new weapon designs a smart weapon designer comes up with could also be used for non-smart weapons (minus the costs of the smart tech) so there is really no way to get around this.
C is a given for the same reason B is; the base product (the gun) still has a set maintenance cost (in money and time) and adding a new feature can only add to that. Depending on the method used, you'll either have to ensure the batteries are charged, the contacts are cleaned or the ring is properly synced, or whatever method for making the weapon smart is in working order. That's all in addition to proper gun maintenance.
Well since the smart tech increases the chance the gun will fail when she attempts to use it to defend herself anyway, and he's within arms length to grab it from her when she fails to fire, if he takes it and can't use it to shoot he'll probably just bludgeon her with it.
People have been killing each other for a long time before guns were around and if the abusive husband is intent on killing his wife the inability to shoot her probably won't stop him.
The only reason anyone from the NRA to the GOP disagree with smart gun technology is that there are States like NJ who already have laws on the books mandating all guns sold in the state must use smart tech once it becomes widely available.
If it was just a matter of having the choice between a 'smart' or regular gun no one would care; your purchase, your choice. But once you mandate that you must choose the 'smart' option if it's available you are going to force a lot of people to try and prevent it from coming to market.
A loaded mag can both be felt (it affects the weight of the gun) as well as clearly seen. Most officers also carry spares so even if for some reason the current mag is empty it would take seconds to change to a new one.
Batteries on the other hand, unless you test them with an outside device, only show you an approximate representation of their charge on a display; the accuracy of which can vary greatly. I know I've had my tablet show 90%+ one second and then under 10% the next because of some glitch. There have even been cases (earlier gen iPhones for example) where the display was programmed to show drainage using an exponential formula instead of a simple straight line so the charge would show full for a long time but once it started moving went to empty pretty quick.
Firearm sales at gunshows require federal background checks the same as at gun stores. This has nothing to do with any gun registries.
The only people who aren't required to do federal background checks are personal sales and you would have to look pretty far to find a personal seller (other than antique dealers) at a gunshow since registration costs would be much more than the few dollars you would get selling your handful of guns before the you would be considered a seller and therefore required to get licensed and do the background checks.
I don't think you have to pay to become a Binge On provider, just allow your stream to be subject to T-Mobiles proprietary video shaping software. If you want your service to only be viewable under your conditions don't join, if you're willing to let T-Mobile alter bitrates and such you can sign up and become part of the service.
It's like their music service where people could even register their own home PCs as a music provider so they could stream unlimited music from their home machine to their phones.
Yet he did set up a copay system for the uninsured to get them their meds at the original cost or even free. The extreme markup was set based on what insurance companies were willing to pay and served as both a money making system for his company and a sign that the system is in major need of reworking.
Apparently for patients without insurance he set up systems to get them their medication for free or effectively the same rate as the original price. The price gouging was purely a way to show how screwed up the system was and was set at the maximum rate that would still be covered by insurance.
And if you want to live by that rule there are lanes on every highway meant for you, just stay out of the passing lanes.
Admittedly, I speed everywhere but I have no issue with people driving the speed limit if they stick to the right most lane(s), even if I can't get into the left lane because I'm unable to get up to speed to merge safely while following the turtle in front of me. It's only people who insist on driving at or below the limit in the left most lane when there is ample space for them to the right that annoys me.
I believe their unpredictability comes from their inability to judge other normal human actions. For example, as mentioned above and in a few other articles I've seen, when driving near sidewalks autonomous vehicles have a hard time determining when a person is merely being an impatient jerk who thinks hanging his toes over the edge of the sidewalk gives him a real head start when the crosswalk light changes or is actually about to step onto the road. In those cases people might slow down (or not) but autonomous vehicles have been known to suddenly stop, even though the light is green.
So yes, the cars reaction is caused by an unpredictable human but not one that's driving and to other humans that impatient pedestrian, while being a annoyance for standing too close to the edge, isn't anything out of the norm.
I don't know which city you live in but I know people in Ottawa with Wind Mobile and while yes, they do have much cheaper rates you really get what you pay for. They can't even use their phones consistently on the bus to work in the morning. In a drive from Gloucester to downtown there are several dead zones where they lose complete connection for extended periods.
A lot of people that buy into the cheap and local sales pitch of the smaller independent cell companies come to find that cheap and local means cheap and extremely local. I might not care about making calls in Sask. but I wouldn't mind being above to make or receive a call when I happen to go downtown from my house in the suburbs of the same city or vice versa; especially when you cut the cord and your cellphone is your only phone.
The entire debate at the town hall was about rezoning agricultural land for manufacturing and it's impact on property values. One moron made a comment about soaking up the sun and then the reporting feeding frenzy started with each 'news' article simply referencing each other and no one bothering to actually check on the original sources to see this wasn't some collection of rubes with no understanding of the physics of solar panels but simply towns people concerned about property values.
Turns out the story is almost a complete fabrication based on one quote from one idiot.
The town actually rejected the solar project based on it's impact on property values and the issues of rezoning agricultural land for manufacturing but once a reporter with an agenda gets the quote they need then it's full speed ahead, all facts be damned.
The lawsuit was severed to him weeks before his awakening to the idea of equal pay. Seattle allows the serving of paper before the actual court filing date.
As CEO he was paying himself 1/3rd of the companies profits as his salary.
Even if his number are to be believed (which no one actually knows because he's not required to actually show them) his salary cut itself would be responsible for at least a 50% increase in the companies profits. That was the cause of the lawsuit in the first place. He was effectively stealing from the companies shareholders to pay himself at a rate unheard of for a company that size.