It's $9.8M potential revenue, $1.2M to the city after state and county takes their cuts(and an unknown percentage of unpaid or successfully disputed fines), $200k to the general budget after paying camera specific expenses for the camera company, officers to process the tickets, etc...
Now consider that $200k up against the charging of the city's own citizens $9.8M. That's a 'efficiency ratio' of only 2%. Consider that taxes like property, sales, and income will have 'efficiency' levels of 90% or more, it's lousy. It's probably lousy compared to writing speeding tickets. That's $9.8M worth of pissing off your electorate vs $200k of income. I'll note that red light camera companies, when advertising to citizens, have 'safety' being something like 10% of the words. In presentations to city officials though, 'revenue' is present 5x as often as safety.
Traditionally speaking, fines have been okay because 'most' people don't get them, or felt they 'deserved' the ticket, etc... Perhaps people fixated upon blaming the officer*, not the city/county/state. Perhaps red light cameras, with their delayed notification and impersonal delivery changes perception. For whatever reason, people seem to be irked more by the cameras. As such, lawsuits and campaigns over them HAVE happened, often costing the operating city far more than what any profit that could be produced in a decade. Especially if they were stupid enough to sign a contract with severance penalties.
*I'm talking emotional reactions here, not logical.
Wrote this up on the idea of a 'significant' portion of people mitigating their fines -
Well, I actually doubt that; most areas have made red light cameras a 'civil' offense, not a criminal or even statutory one. So no day in court unless they actually sue the city. On the other hand, this limits what the city can do to non-payers - in some cases they can't even report the unpaid debt to the credit monitoring companies, prevent you from renewing your driver's license or car registration, etc...
Thus they aren't going to collect every time. Consider these various scenarios(not any particular order of likelihood): 1. Stolen vehicles - I figure the criminal isn't going to care he's running a monitored red 2. Financial deadbeats - because it's not an officer issuing a ticket; as I understand it the worst they can do is ruin your credit. If it's already so bad you can't get a loan, who cares? 2. Drunk Drivers and such who don't have a license anyways(sort of like #2), but if said fines can actually prevent license renewal. 3. Mis-identified vehicles - My dad works for a company with a number of work vehicles. He's gotten tickets mailed to him for violations in a city over 300 miles away. For a car, not a company truck/van. BTW, they're tracked by gps and don't normally go past around 50 miles. 4. Right on red - Dad has also gotten a few of these - where the ticket was mailed for the clearly turning company vehicle 5. Wrong target - The company vehicle is stopped or turning right(legally), with a DIFFERENT vehicle clearing running the red. 6. Illegal Alien - a sort of mix between 'drunk drive' IE no license, and financial deadbeat. 7. Stolen tags 8. Moved away from the address on the registration; never updated(so didn't get the notification) 9. Moved between committing the offense and getting the ticket; sometimes out of state/country 10. Didn't understand the ticket, didn't have the money immediately*, forgot about the bill by the time the money could be scrapped together, something else happened, etc...
Roughly speaking, going by what Dad's said I wouldn't be surprised if the payment rate is under 50%.
*For a significant period of my life asking me to come up with nearly $500 out of the blue would require waiting a month for a couple paychecks while I frantically lived off of cheap food and scrambled to borrow money.
Consider that a Bendtec runs $400. We'll assume that the 'blend anything' is a 'once' event. They have to use a new blender each time.
Most of the things he blends are fairly cheap, but there are items like the iPhone. Let's say that it's another $400 on average, and he's not actually blending a virtually worthless broken iPhone.
That's a total of $800 and his time; the average production cost of a 30 second commercial is around $350k.
It probably costs more for the production, cutting the filming down to the youtube videos, than the items destroyed in the process, and it's still dirt cheap for a commercial.
If you assume he mostly uses useless or already(if not visibly) broken stuff and that the blender can normally be fixed if damaged, and even if it's damaged it simply becomes research/durability testing material, you're looking at more like 'only' $100-200 worth of damage per commercial. Oh, and $400 is retail for the blender - factory cost is probably closer to $100.
As to the Thorium, I spotted this in an web article, but could not find much out more about it and was not entirely satisfied that the information was 100 percent good. But here goes anyways. Coal contains Thorium and other radioactive materials that are released into the air when it is burnt. They do not purify coal before the burn it. Coal is a mixture of all sorts of stuff, most of flammable, but some of it other stuff. The scaremonger writing the piece claimed that coal plants spewed more radiactivity into the environment than a nuclear plant. Who knows for sure. I could not google enough up.
Factiods I remember: 1. A coal plant releases more radioactive material than a nuclear plant produces 2. There's more potential energy in the radioactive materials in coal than you can get from burning the coal itself
Okay, here goes: Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. Uranium and Thorium content of coal. CO2 production of a coal plant, 500MW = 3 million tons of CO2/year. The carbon is 27% of that, and coal is 'almost' pure carbon. Call it 1.7M tons of coal consumed per year for a 1GW plant. Of course, this site says 2M tons of coal. At 1 part per million Uranium and 2 parts per million Thorium, that's ~5-6 tons of radioactive material released per year, 1% of it up the flue(EPA limit). It says that you need about 162 tons of Uranium to fuel a conventional reactor a year. However, conventional reactors are only about 1% efficient at their fuel burn - if you go to breeder reactors, that could, theoretically at least, drop to 1.62 tons of nuclear material needed per year per GW. Outside of accidents, the nuclear waste isn't released.
Realistically speaking, you could get more electricity out of the coal via nuclear power if you were using breeders. Thorium reactors would be required, but at least they are naturally breeder-type.
So I'd tend to say that my 'coal plants release more radioactive materials than nuclear plants produce' is true - only limited amounts, less than 1%, are actually being converted into more highly radioactive material. It's producing 2 tons of radioactive material*, vs 'release' of 5-6. Your 'emits more than a nuclear plant' is also very much true. My last statement - 'more energy in the heavy metal traces' depends on using highly efficient processes and somehow having an energy-cheap way to collect the relatively diffuse uranium and thorium.
*I'm ignoring waste that isn't annual, like the reactor vessel, at the moment, though it's probably only a ton or so more.
I hear about the Chinese Economic Miracle. But when I see the youtube videos of the 'Fog' in Bejing, the price they paid was too high. You could be the richest man in Bejing, but your quality of life, as a living creature, is horrible. This is not some abstract human rights issue. This is breathing filth into your lungs with every breath.
I figure that if you give them another 10 years or so, they're going to start taking their own environmental rules much more seriously, precisely because of this.
A lot of them actually ARE. However, as part of being on the board that creates and defines RFCs, members have to disclose their patents that cover the proposed solution and agree to reasonable fees if so. If not, then a different implementation that doesn't violate the patent is found.
Sounds like an ideal target for some jurisdictional agreements.
Canada provides evidence x,y,z to US authorities to prosecute US spammers, the US provides evidence w,x,y to Canada to do the same(evidence list slightly different due to differing legal systems).
Where your analogy breaks down is that weight matters for a plane. Plutonium doesn't make for a superior mousepad, but lithium ion has the advantage of a wider operating temperature range(specifically colder), high efficiency, power capacity, and energy density.
IE a lithium ion battery is going to generally be at least half the weight of any other chemistry for the necessary power/energy demands of the application, and you don't need to worry as much about heating them. For a plane, this makes you really want to use them.
Sure, you might only be saving 100 pounds for the battery pack, less than the added weight an extra obese passenger, but a couple hundred pounds for the batteries, a few hundred from the landing gear, engines, galley, cockpit, seats, wings, flaps, electrical systems, pumps, etc... Next thing you know, your plane is 10-20% lighter and that translates into extra speed, lower fuel cost, etc...
Why do they need 500W for a 1U chassis that accommodates only two low voltage (60W for 6 core, 70W for 8 core) Xeons, 4 2.5" drives and 8 DIMM's?
That's only ~250W of peak load.
TFA says 750 watts? Then again, going by the second site listed, it's redundant, and the exact configuration is probably configurable.
It was probably cheaper to over-spec - IE a 250W PS would cost more than the 500W, plus the 500W is probably more efficient/requires less cooling.
If it's 750 watts total, that's 325 per redundant PSU, which is a 'comfortable' but not excessive margin for the peak load you quote. It'd also be about the peak efficiency curve.
Well, rather than a 'tiny phone thing with 4g', I'm more thinking you have a huge tablet thing with the 4g and a 'tiny phone thing' that hooks up to it via bluetooth.
Bigger antenna = more sensitivity and needing less power(on average) to connect to the cell network; plus the bigger battery gives you the life you want.
Then have the port so that you slot your tiny phone into it for charging and so you don't lose it.
Alaska sounds like a real possibility, or Canada. Personally, I'm in Alaska, -41 when I woke up this morning.
Turning the thermostat up a degree would certainly feel nice; but it'd be expensive. Of course, heating oil is still a lot cheaper than electricity for heat, so I still use energy saving appliances - not to mention that said energy saving appliances keeps me from looking at installing an air conditioner at all.
Pretty much. Some utilities will kick a residential customer into a higher bracket if they 'use too much', but most actually drop the price for volume customers. Still, the bill consists of a utility charge per kwh, a fuel charge per kwh, and a connection/administration fee that's static.
Most Commercial customers pay a lower kwh charge, but also pay the connection fee, and a feeder charge that's set to their max draw - IE if they need 200A max, that's what they have to pay, even if they only need it for 1 hour a month. Lastly, they can get hit with a power factor charge - Bad PF factors like cheap fluorescent ballasts can raise their cost per kwh.
Warrants aren't the be all and end all of information requests. For example, in a civil suit you can't get a warrant for information, you file subpoenas for it. Some of the 'others' might just be for research purposes. Or the CIA asking for information.
That Google rejects nearly half of the requests, at least initially, I like because it indicates that Google isn't 'rolling over'. Police officers and other agencies don't actually need a warrant to simply ask - they need one to force.
For example, I could run a store and allow anybody with a badge to view my security camera footage without a warrant if I wanted. But I wouldn't be protecting my customer's privacy very well if I allowed that. I'd be being an obstructionist to the police though if I required a warrant for everything. Personally, if the police can provide sufficient justification to me, a private citizen, then I might let them see the footage even without a warrant - provided that their request is sufficiently narrow(We need to see Tuesday's footage between 1600 and 1615 of your outside lot - we think XYZ may have tried to escape through there during that time).
Proportions still matter. Google is still expanding, people's use of google is still expanding, and government awareness of google is still expanding. I'd expect more responses. Whether or not 70% is in line with the above growth, I don't know. The drop in granted was only 10%, not 20%.
Still, I can't help but think that as much as we might detest it, sometimes these requests for data is to prosecute valid, serious crime. Various forms of fraud and theft, for example. Cracking, perhaps.
Please note that murder (and all its variants) are State-level crimes (unless performed on a Federal agent/employee).
It would be more correct to say 'unless performed on Federal [i]land or property[/i]'. As a federal employee, if I was murdered in my home, the suspect would be tried in a state court, under state law. If a random civilian was killed on base though, it would go through a federal court.
There are added complexities with jurisdiction - if there's any question as to under who's aegis the act was committed, it's pretty much up to the court/prosecutors as to who will actually press the charges.
An example would be a drunk driver caught driving intoxicated onto base. If civilian, it'll typically be processed by the state - city or county level. If military, generally the military wants a piece of him, and will claim jurisdiction. In some cases, even if it happens downtown. Due to the UCMJ, a military member is ALWAYS under it's jurisdiction.
So most of you voted for this. And are hypocrites now. Because you choose to ignore it, to get your man elected. Granted, the other man was worse, but had other sponsors.
1. You're assuming, in the complex web of truth and lies before the campaign, that people knew this 2. As you mention, the other guy was worse, or at least presented the appearance he'd be worse.
I'm a pro-gun pro-choice libertarian. Both candidates scored well under 50% as far as I'm concerned. It was very much a vote for the 'lesser evil'.
I figure this is what's going to happen very shortly for Yossawarit Chuklom; it's practically traditional for the King to pardon those convicted of insulting him.
Helps cement the people's love of him, but it's still a huge pain and expense for those convicted, so it's still seen as useful by the ruling party who doesn't care if they're seen as somewhat evil.
You can also search the Internet for "gun suicide" and come up with stories. The problem is that for every one of these stories of people defending themselves with a household gun, there are 37 stories of people using a household gun to commit suicide
You're assuming there wouldn't be substitution. Japan, for example, manages to have a suicide rate nearly double our suicide + murder rate, all without guns.
And there's plenty of people who kill a 'family member or friend' with their bare hands or other weapons.
We'd be better off ending the war on drugs(treat addiction as a medical issue) and solving poverty.
Statistically speaking, you are more likely to be shot by someone else with your own gun than shoot someone else with it.
Citation? Cops are about the biggest group this happens to. The only study I remember that comes close was that 'gun at home' study would count things like the husband shooting his wife with their 'dual owned' weapon, criminals entering the home with their own weapon and shooting the occupants, illegal possession, etc...
Dude, #4 bird short has little stopping power (it has kill power, but little stopping power),
I'll echo this: It takes more penetration to cause damage sufficient to stop a human in a short period of time than it does to penetrate 2 sheets of drywall. Ergo, any weapon/round sufficient to be a reliable self defense caliber is going to completely blow through 2 sheets of drywall, and anything below that is fairly likely to only piss off the one you shoot, at least in the short term.
Solutions: 1. AIM. 2. Use glaser or.223, the first holds together just long enough to penetrate deep enough when it hits a person; it'll go through 2 sheets of drywall, but be non-lethal a rooms distance past that..223 destabilizes through drywall, again, it'll be dangerous the next room over, but after that it'll quickly be stopped.
While 5.56 is typically loaded a touch hotter than.223, it's not guaranteed. 2nd, 99% 'civilian rifles' like the AR-15 are produced with some variant of the 'wyld chamber' that can take both calibers, and have chambers and barrels that are more than strong enough to take the hottest loads.
Even the oldest of.223 AR-15s are going to have more failures to feed/clogging; their safety margin is more than enough for the pressure increase.
Stuff produced in the last 10 years or so? Rated for both. The only exemption would probably be bolt actions* and such, rifles with actions not descended from military rifles, but even then they should have plenty of overhead.
In the end, for a specific rifle I'd consult the manufacturer.
*Even then bolt actions tend to have high amounts of safety overhead.
On a well supervised range, isn't the proper procedure to put the gun down, swiftly but without jarring, pointed downrange, step back, and raise your hand (while jumping up and down and yelling "ow" for the case of the brass)?
In a gun safety course, they'd be covering things like that you're supposed to do that, emphasizing that that's what you're supposed to do(minus the hand raising plus unloading) when a cease fire is called, etc... My quick list(off the top of my head, no particular order) 1. Firearms are to be uncased at the firing line 2. Barrels are to point down range at all times 3. Cease fire immediately upon the call of 'cease fire'. Immediately unload the weapon and place, facing down range, with the magazine out and bolt/slide/action open and facing up(if possible). 4. Follow range master instructions 5. You only go past the firing line during a cease fire. 6. If you see somebody go past the firing line, yell 'cease fire' as loudly as possible.
Range safety should take no more than 15 minutes to teach. Firearm safety in general should take no more than 30. Hunter safety is a 4 hours class - and that includes things like how to use a tree stand without getting killed.
Seriously, a four hour class in basic safety before someone can purchase their first gun would do a whole lot of good.
I'd have the class in high school, along with driver's ed and such.
There's been a huge debate over banning.50 caliber BMG rifles that are similar to military sniper rifles. Yet not once in the history of FBI statistics has one ever, and I do mean ever, been used in a gun related crime of any sort.
I agree with the general sentiment, but this is no longer true. It is still true that no.50 BMG rifle has been used to cause injury or death on a human, but remember the guy who turned his dozer into a tank? He used one to shoot at a number of propane tanks during his rampage - but caused no explosions or injuries from that.
Personally, I figure it's due to the targets. 70-80% of those murdered have criminal backgrounds. 70-80% of those who commit murder have criminal backgrounds. Most murder victims were at least acquainted with their killers. With handguns, if you're not a criminal and don't hang out with criminals, the odds that you'll be murdered, even with a cheap handgun, are very small. Spree killers with 'assault weapons' violate this standard, thus are of more concern to the 'average man'.
The paper says that approximately 90% of murderers have felony records
Indeed, not only that, but in reading that paper I found that it was implied that victims are often criminals as well.
Searching the internet, I found several sites that are estimating a 60-90% figure as well for the victim normally having a felony background as well.
Matter of fact, the biggest variation I saw was 80-60 - 80% of suspects had felony arrest/conviction background, and 60% of victims did. Most had them about even at 70-70. Combined with the low rate of 'stranger murder', If you aren't a criminal and don't associate with criminals, you should be fine.
Slashdot Mirror
It's $9.8M potential revenue, $1.2M to the city after state and county takes their cuts(and an unknown percentage of unpaid or successfully disputed fines), $200k to the general budget after paying camera specific expenses for the camera company, officers to process the tickets, etc...
Now consider that $200k up against the charging of the city's own citizens $9.8M. That's a 'efficiency ratio' of only 2%. Consider that taxes like property, sales, and income will have 'efficiency' levels of 90% or more, it's lousy. It's probably lousy compared to writing speeding tickets. That's $9.8M worth of pissing off your electorate vs $200k of income. I'll note that red light camera companies, when advertising to citizens, have 'safety' being something like 10% of the words. In presentations to city officials though, 'revenue' is present 5x as often as safety.
Traditionally speaking, fines have been okay because 'most' people don't get them, or felt they 'deserved' the ticket, etc... Perhaps people fixated upon blaming the officer*, not the city/county/state. Perhaps red light cameras, with their delayed notification and impersonal delivery changes perception. For whatever reason, people seem to be irked more by the cameras. As such, lawsuits and campaigns over them HAVE happened, often costing the operating city far more than what any profit that could be produced in a decade. Especially if they were stupid enough to sign a contract with severance penalties.
*I'm talking emotional reactions here, not logical.
Wrote this up on the idea of a 'significant' portion of people mitigating their fines -
Well, I actually doubt that; most areas have made red light cameras a 'civil' offense, not a criminal or even statutory one. So no day in court unless they actually sue the city. On the other hand, this limits what the city can do to non-payers - in some cases they can't even report the unpaid debt to the credit monitoring companies, prevent you from renewing your driver's license or car registration, etc...
Thus they aren't going to collect every time. Consider these various scenarios(not any particular order of likelihood):
1. Stolen vehicles - I figure the criminal isn't going to care he's running a monitored red
2. Financial deadbeats - because it's not an officer issuing a ticket; as I understand it the worst they can do is ruin your credit. If it's already so bad you can't get a loan, who cares?
2. Drunk Drivers and such who don't have a license anyways(sort of like #2), but if said fines can actually prevent license renewal.
3. Mis-identified vehicles - My dad works for a company with a number of work vehicles. He's gotten tickets mailed to him for violations in a city over 300 miles away. For a car, not a company truck/van. BTW, they're tracked by gps and don't normally go past around 50 miles.
4. Right on red - Dad has also gotten a few of these - where the ticket was mailed for the clearly turning company vehicle
5. Wrong target - The company vehicle is stopped or turning right(legally), with a DIFFERENT vehicle clearing running the red.
6. Illegal Alien - a sort of mix between 'drunk drive' IE no license, and financial deadbeat.
7. Stolen tags
8. Moved away from the address on the registration; never updated(so didn't get the notification)
9. Moved between committing the offense and getting the ticket; sometimes out of state/country
10. Didn't understand the ticket, didn't have the money immediately*, forgot about the bill by the time the money could be scrapped together, something else happened, etc...
Roughly speaking, going by what Dad's said I wouldn't be surprised if the payment rate is under 50%.
*For a significant period of my life asking me to come up with nearly $500 out of the blue would require waiting a month for a couple paychecks while I frantically lived off of cheap food and scrambled to borrow money.
Consider that a Bendtec runs $400. We'll assume that the 'blend anything' is a 'once' event. They have to use a new blender each time.
Most of the things he blends are fairly cheap, but there are items like the iPhone. Let's say that it's another $400 on average, and he's not actually blending a virtually worthless broken iPhone.
That's a total of $800 and his time; the average production cost of a 30 second commercial is around $350k.
It probably costs more for the production, cutting the filming down to the youtube videos, than the items destroyed in the process, and it's still dirt cheap for a commercial.
If you assume he mostly uses useless or already(if not visibly) broken stuff and that the blender can normally be fixed if damaged, and even if it's damaged it simply becomes research/durability testing material, you're looking at more like 'only' $100-200 worth of damage per commercial. Oh, and $400 is retail for the blender - factory cost is probably closer to $100.
As to the Thorium, I spotted this in an web article, but could not find much out more about it and was not entirely satisfied that the information was 100 percent good. But here goes anyways. Coal contains Thorium and other radioactive materials that are released into the air when it is burnt. They do not purify coal before the burn it. Coal is a mixture of all sorts of stuff, most of flammable, but some of it other stuff. The scaremonger writing the piece claimed that coal plants spewed more radiactivity into the environment than a nuclear plant. Who knows for sure. I could not google enough up.
Factiods I remember:
1. A coal plant releases more radioactive material than a nuclear plant produces
2. There's more potential energy in the radioactive materials in coal than you can get from burning the coal itself
Okay, here goes: Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. Uranium and Thorium content of coal. CO2 production of a coal plant,
500MW = 3 million tons of CO2/year. The carbon is 27% of that, and coal is 'almost' pure carbon. Call it 1.7M tons of coal consumed per year for a 1GW plant. Of course, this site says 2M tons of coal. At 1 part per million Uranium and 2 parts per million Thorium, that's ~5-6 tons of radioactive material released per year, 1% of it up the flue(EPA limit). It says that you need about 162 tons of Uranium to fuel a conventional reactor a year.
However, conventional reactors are only about 1% efficient at their fuel burn - if you go to breeder reactors, that could, theoretically at least, drop to 1.62 tons of nuclear material needed per year per GW. Outside of accidents, the nuclear waste isn't released.
Realistically speaking, you could get more electricity out of the coal via nuclear power if you were using breeders. Thorium reactors would be required, but at least they are naturally breeder-type.
So I'd tend to say that my 'coal plants release more radioactive materials than nuclear plants produce' is true - only limited amounts, less than 1%, are actually being converted into more highly radioactive material. It's producing 2 tons of radioactive material*, vs 'release' of 5-6.
Your 'emits more than a nuclear plant' is also very much true.
My last statement - 'more energy in the heavy metal traces' depends on using highly efficient processes and somehow having an energy-cheap way to collect the relatively diffuse uranium and thorium.
*I'm ignoring waste that isn't annual, like the reactor vessel, at the moment, though it's probably only a ton or so more.
I hear about the Chinese Economic Miracle. But when I see the youtube videos of the 'Fog' in Bejing, the price they paid was too high. You could be the richest man in Bejing, but your quality of life, as a living creature, is horrible. This is not some abstract human rights issue. This is breathing filth into your lungs with every breath.
I figure that if you give them another 10 years or so, they're going to start taking their own environmental rules much more seriously, precisely because of this.
A lot of them actually ARE. However, as part of being on the board that creates and defines RFCs, members have to disclose their patents that cover the proposed solution and agree to reasonable fees if so. If not, then a different implementation that doesn't violate the patent is found.
released their own implementation
Heck, go back to the old way: Require an actual implementation, not just an idea on paper!
Then they simply dissolve the company and form a new one. It's like $50-200 dollars and an hour's time to form a new shell company.
Sounds like an ideal target for some jurisdictional agreements.
Canada provides evidence x,y,z to US authorities to prosecute US spammers, the US provides evidence w,x,y to Canada to do the same(evidence list slightly different due to differing legal systems).
Where your analogy breaks down is that weight matters for a plane. Plutonium doesn't make for a superior mousepad, but lithium ion has the advantage of a wider operating temperature range(specifically colder), high efficiency, power capacity, and energy density.
IE a lithium ion battery is going to generally be at least half the weight of any other chemistry for the necessary power/energy demands of the application, and you don't need to worry as much about heating them. For a plane, this makes you really want to use them.
Sure, you might only be saving 100 pounds for the battery pack, less than the added weight an extra obese passenger, but a couple hundred pounds for the batteries, a few hundred from the landing gear, engines, galley, cockpit, seats, wings, flaps, electrical systems, pumps, etc... Next thing you know, your plane is 10-20% lighter and that translates into extra speed, lower fuel cost, etc...
Why do they need 500W for a 1U chassis that accommodates only two low voltage (60W for 6 core, 70W for 8 core) Xeons, 4 2.5" drives and 8 DIMM's?
That's only ~250W of peak load.
TFA says 750 watts? Then again, going by the second site listed, it's redundant, and the exact configuration is probably configurable.
It was probably cheaper to over-spec - IE a 250W PS would cost more than the 500W, plus the 500W is probably more efficient/requires less cooling.
If it's 750 watts total, that's 325 per redundant PSU, which is a 'comfortable' but not excessive margin for the peak load you quote. It'd also be about the peak efficiency curve.
Well, rather than a 'tiny phone thing with 4g', I'm more thinking you have a huge tablet thing with the 4g and a 'tiny phone thing' that hooks up to it via bluetooth.
Bigger antenna = more sensitivity and needing less power(on average) to connect to the cell network; plus the bigger battery gives you the life you want.
Then have the port so that you slot your tiny phone into it for charging and so you don't lose it.
Alaska sounds like a real possibility, or Canada. Personally, I'm in Alaska, -41 when I woke up this morning.
Turning the thermostat up a degree would certainly feel nice; but it'd be expensive. Of course, heating oil is still a lot cheaper than electricity for heat, so I still use energy saving appliances - not to mention that said energy saving appliances keeps me from looking at installing an air conditioner at all.
Pretty much. Some utilities will kick a residential customer into a higher bracket if they 'use too much', but most actually drop the price for volume customers. Still, the bill consists of a utility charge per kwh, a fuel charge per kwh, and a connection/administration fee that's static.
Most Commercial customers pay a lower kwh charge, but also pay the connection fee, and a feeder charge that's set to their max draw - IE if they need 200A max, that's what they have to pay, even if they only need it for 1 hour a month. Lastly, they can get hit with a power factor charge - Bad PF factors like cheap fluorescent ballasts can raise their cost per kwh.
Warrants aren't the be all and end all of information requests. For example, in a civil suit you can't get a warrant for information, you file subpoenas for it. Some of the 'others' might just be for research purposes. Or the CIA asking for information.
That Google rejects nearly half of the requests, at least initially, I like because it indicates that Google isn't 'rolling over'. Police officers and other agencies don't actually need a warrant to simply ask - they need one to force.
For example, I could run a store and allow anybody with a badge to view my security camera footage without a warrant if I wanted. But I wouldn't be protecting my customer's privacy very well if I allowed that. I'd be being an obstructionist to the police though if I required a warrant for everything. Personally, if the police can provide sufficient justification to me, a private citizen, then I might let them see the footage even without a warrant - provided that their request is sufficiently narrow(We need to see Tuesday's footage between 1600 and 1615 of your outside lot - we think XYZ may have tried to escape through there during that time).
Proportions still matter. Google is still expanding, people's use of google is still expanding, and government awareness of google is still expanding. I'd expect more responses. Whether or not 70% is in line with the above growth, I don't know. The drop in granted was only 10%, not 20%.
Still, I can't help but think that as much as we might detest it, sometimes these requests for data is to prosecute valid, serious crime. Various forms of fraud and theft, for example. Cracking, perhaps.
There are so many laws on the books that damn near anyone of us could probably end up being charged with something if somebody digs deep enough.
I remember reading that the majority of average citizens commit, on average, one potential felony a day.
Please note that murder (and all its variants) are State-level crimes (unless performed on a Federal agent/employee).
It would be more correct to say 'unless performed on Federal [i]land or property[/i]'. As a federal employee, if I was murdered in my home, the suspect would be tried in a state court, under state law. If a random civilian was killed on base though, it would go through a federal court.
There are added complexities with jurisdiction - if there's any question as to under who's aegis the act was committed, it's pretty much up to the court/prosecutors as to who will actually press the charges.
An example would be a drunk driver caught driving intoxicated onto base. If civilian, it'll typically be processed by the state - city or county level. If military, generally the military wants a piece of him, and will claim jurisdiction. In some cases, even if it happens downtown. Due to the UCMJ, a military member is ALWAYS under it's jurisdiction.
So most of you voted for this. And are hypocrites now. Because you choose to ignore it, to get your man elected. Granted, the other man was worse, but had other sponsors.
1. You're assuming, in the complex web of truth and lies before the campaign, that people knew this
2. As you mention, the other guy was worse, or at least presented the appearance he'd be worse.
I'm a pro-gun pro-choice libertarian. Both candidates scored well under 50% as far as I'm concerned. It was very much a vote for the 'lesser evil'.
The King has pardoned many people.
I figure this is what's going to happen very shortly for Yossawarit Chuklom; it's practically traditional for the King to pardon those convicted of insulting him.
Helps cement the people's love of him, but it's still a huge pain and expense for those convicted, so it's still seen as useful by the ruling party who doesn't care if they're seen as somewhat evil.
You can also search the Internet for "gun suicide" and come up with stories. The problem is that for every one of these stories of people defending themselves with a household gun, there are 37 stories of people using a household gun to commit suicide
You're assuming there wouldn't be substitution. Japan, for example, manages to have a suicide rate nearly double our suicide + murder rate, all without guns.
And there's plenty of people who kill a 'family member or friend' with their bare hands or other weapons.
We'd be better off ending the war on drugs(treat addiction as a medical issue) and solving poverty.
Statistically speaking, you are more likely to be shot by someone else with your own gun than shoot someone else with it.
Citation? Cops are about the biggest group this happens to. The only study I remember that comes close was that 'gun at home' study would count things like the husband shooting his wife with their 'dual owned' weapon, criminals entering the home with their own weapon and shooting the occupants, illegal possession, etc...
Dude, #4 bird short has little stopping power (it has kill power, but little stopping power),
I'll echo this: It takes more penetration to cause damage sufficient to stop a human in a short period of time than it does to penetrate 2 sheets of drywall. Ergo, any weapon/round sufficient to be a reliable self defense caliber is going to completely blow through 2 sheets of drywall, and anything below that is fairly likely to only piss off the one you shoot, at least in the short term.
Solutions: 1. AIM. 2. Use glaser or .223, the first holds together just long enough to penetrate deep enough when it hits a person; it'll go through 2 sheets of drywall, but be non-lethal a rooms distance past that. .223 destabilizes through drywall, again, it'll be dangerous the next room over, but after that it'll quickly be stopped.
It's more complicated than that.
While 5.56 is typically loaded a touch hotter than .223, it's not guaranteed. 2nd, 99% 'civilian rifles' like the AR-15 are produced with some variant of the 'wyld chamber' that can take both calibers, and have chambers and barrels that are more than strong enough to take the hottest loads.
Even the oldest of .223 AR-15s are going to have more failures to feed/clogging; their safety margin is more than enough for the pressure increase.
Stuff produced in the last 10 years or so? Rated for both. The only exemption would probably be bolt actions* and such, rifles with actions not descended from military rifles, but even then they should have plenty of overhead.
In the end, for a specific rifle I'd consult the manufacturer.
*Even then bolt actions tend to have high amounts of safety overhead.
On a well supervised range, isn't the proper procedure to put the gun down, swiftly but without jarring, pointed downrange, step back, and raise your hand (while jumping up and down and yelling "ow" for the case of the brass)?
In a gun safety course, they'd be covering things like that you're supposed to do that, emphasizing that that's what you're supposed to do(minus the hand raising plus unloading) when a cease fire is called, etc...
My quick list(off the top of my head, no particular order)
1. Firearms are to be uncased at the firing line
2. Barrels are to point down range at all times
3. Cease fire immediately upon the call of 'cease fire'. Immediately unload the weapon and place, facing down range, with the magazine out and bolt/slide/action open and facing up(if possible).
4. Follow range master instructions
5. You only go past the firing line during a cease fire.
6. If you see somebody go past the firing line, yell 'cease fire' as loudly as possible.
Range safety should take no more than 15 minutes to teach. Firearm safety in general should take no more than 30. Hunter safety is a 4 hours class - and that includes things like how to use a tree stand without getting killed.
Seriously, a four hour class in basic safety before someone can purchase their first gun would do a whole lot of good.
I'd have the class in high school, along with driver's ed and such.
There's been a huge debate over banning .50 caliber BMG rifles that are similar to military sniper rifles. Yet not once in the history of FBI statistics has one ever, and I do mean ever, been used in a gun related crime of any sort.
I agree with the general sentiment, but this is no longer true. It is still true that no .50 BMG rifle has been used to cause injury or death on a human, but remember the guy who turned his dozer into a tank? He used one to shoot at a number of propane tanks during his rampage - but caused no explosions or injuries from that.
Personally, I figure it's due to the targets. 70-80% of those murdered have criminal backgrounds. 70-80% of those who commit murder have criminal backgrounds. Most murder victims were at least acquainted with their killers. With handguns, if you're not a criminal and don't hang out with criminals, the odds that you'll be murdered, even with a cheap handgun, are very small. Spree killers with 'assault weapons' violate this standard, thus are of more concern to the 'average man'.
The paper says that approximately 90% of murderers have felony records
Indeed, not only that, but in reading that paper I found that it was implied that victims are often criminals as well.
Searching the internet, I found several sites that are estimating a 60-90% figure as well for the victim normally having a felony background as well.
Matter of fact, the biggest variation I saw was 80-60 - 80% of suspects had felony arrest/conviction background, and 60% of victims did. Most had them about even at 70-70. Combined with the low rate of 'stranger murder', If you aren't a criminal and don't associate with criminals, you should be fine.