It will have a massive effect. You don't seriously expect auto manufacturers to design and engineer new cars, set up plants to produce all the component parts, and totally retool their assembly lines to build these new models overnight, do you?
Unless someone comes along and repeals the CAFE requirements, which is unlikely, given the political bad-will it would cause, Obama and Congress have made a significant step towards reducing total US emissions.
That is precisely why it is claimed that he is so accurate. Election results will change right up until the day of the election. No one can make a prediction months out that isn't just a wild ass guess.
The fact that he changed Florida to leaning left (based on minor poll movements), and it appears that Florida is indeed leaning left, validates his model quite well. If that changes, and he is wrong on Florida, then maybe his model isn't any better than any of the other sites.
They don't care when life begins, or they would be lobbying for changes to the tax code too, allowing you to claim a dependent the moment a child is conceived.
What they really want is control of you and your body when it suits their needs.
Strange, in most of my races, the Republicans are listed first, followed by the Dems, then all the other parties. Maybe it stems from the way your state's ballot information is provided? Who knows.
Steve Huffman, one of the creators of Reddit, talks about this exact solution during his Udacity class, Web Application Engineering. http://www.udacity.com/overview/Course/cs253/CourseRev/apr2012
I think it was during week 4 "Whom to Trust," but I don't have links to the exact video.
So in short, yes, it has been done effectively in the past, though I believe they wrote their own code to do it.
I thought the same thing, but now rereading the original question, it seems like he wants every single line. A lot of the main, important, fiber lines follow railroads or power line easements, and many of those routes aren't even public right-of-way. They are granted privately to the railroad/utility companies by individual landowners. That was the basis of my explanation as well.
Looking back, he actually wants to see public right-of-ways. I don't think that using deeds for this is feasible. A lot of older roads just kind of have assumed right-of-ways, and even where recorded, you'd have a lot of the same problems as with piecing together railroad easements. Not to mention, there are hundreds of times as many roads. I'm sticking with my suggestion to just hi-light all the roads on his map:)
True, I didn't mean to argue your point, just that the whole endeavor is pointless. You'll be making lots of trips to the recorder's office every time you need a new deed that is referenced by the one you are working on. Most places don't have them online, especially the older ones that you'll be looking for.
Plat maps won't help. Nor will most of the info available publicly online. I've worked for a civil engineer for 10 years, and the bottom line is that the information is so spread out, and in some cases nonexistant, that you would never be able to do this.
The first problem is that in many cases the easements are so old, and the deeds so difficult to read, you could spend hours piecing together the right of way over one parcel of land. Many times there are multiple easements as they were added-on over the years. They are also shared by different utilities.
So for example you'd find one document that grants Verizon the use of a railroad's right of way. Then you have to pull all of the deeds for the railroad (hundreds or thousand per county) and try to put them together. Those old railroad deeds will say something like "the east 99 feet of Farmer Smith's property, in so-and-so a section." Then you have to go pull Smith's old deed, which says "40 acres, lying south of the river, and east of Farmer Johnson's land, and north of some other guy's property." And no, those are not exaggerations at all. In short, you'll be putting together the puzzle pieces for weeks, and then you might have a single line along a railroad done for your county.
Add on top of that, many street right-of-ways are just assumed. Sure, maybe there are some old deeds that grant the right-of-way for each road over each parcel of land, but again, you'll be putting together a giant puzzle with pieces that don't fit together well.
In short, good luck. You'd be better off just taking a map and hi-lighting all of the roads, assuming that at least some communication lines follow each road.
I agree, but then 2.anything can't be called a large or small value of 2. Just by referring to it as a large value of 2, there is rounding. Keep the precision, call it 2.8, and everyone is happy. As soon as it becomes 'a value of 2' that precision is gone, and rounding rules have to come into play in order to maintain any sort of correctness.
The point was that it is imprecise to call 2.8 a large value of 2. The proper way to express it would be as a small value of 3. Sure, rounding at the end makes more sense, but if someone wants to round earlier (ie by calling it a large or small value of an integer), then the same rounding or truncating rules must be followed as are used on the end result.
Well, you could read it, but it says "No devices for storing energy either for takeoff or for use in flight shall be permitted." I doubt that many people would consider pre-consumed food to be a 'device'.
No, as he said, we learned to "always salt your passwords," and given a simple example. Then we were told that if we are in a position of authority for an important website, further research and understanding would be required in order to maintain security. You need multiple classes on the topic, not just an hour of instruction. Duh.
Well you have 10^11 cubic meters. And there are a lot of gallons in a cubic meter, so you shouldn't end up with 10^8 gallons. I don't feel like doing the math, but that part is wrong for sure.
Don't forget buying gas, insurance, licensing, repairs, new tires, and all the other incidental costs of ownership. Plus the value of your time to handle those things, and the additional free time you'd have during your commutes.
Sure they won't be for everyone, but for a couple hundred a month, I would seriously consider it, and I enjoy owning a car.
If those drugs are no longer covered and require no doctor visit, the cost will likely come down. Many people wouldn't pay $2,700 a year for some pills (or couldn't afford to). The price will have to come down if they want to keep selling that drug. On the other hand, if they lower the cost, the will be able to sell more, since it no longer requires a prescription.
Also, just because you only have to pay $760 for your drugs, someone has to pay the rest. That money comes from other people paying into the insurance. If insurance no longer has to cover that $2,700 drug, the cost of coverage can decrease for everyone.
So ultimately the cost might increase for people taking drugs that suddenly become uncovered, but it is unlikely that you would be stuck paying the full cost that is being paid (by other people) right now. The net result is better for the average person, even though individual costs would probably increase in extreme cases.
If the temperature is going up, on average, there would be more energy by definition. Heat is energy. If the average temperature weren't going up, it wouldn't be global warming.
That's fine, you guys can celebrate and eat your pie on the 3rd of.....whatever month comes 2 after December. We prefer ours now! Have to keep up the stereotype of the fat Americans:)
This! Exactly this. The auto 'bailouts' saved probably a couple million jobs. If the auto companies fail, you lose suppliers, dealers, etc, etc., not to mention the massive tax impacts to the towns with factories. The loans have been partially repaid, and will be finally repaid whenever the government decides to sell its GM stock holdings (they are waiting for the price to go up). Even if they sold their shares right now, the total cost for the 'bailouts' would be about $14 billion.
What about the bank bailouts? Those cost taxpayers anywhere from $15 billion to $90 billion. (It is pretty tough to find a good estimate, they range wildly all over the place) Have we seen any benefit from those bailouts? Or just a bunch of rich bankers getting richer?
And yet, all we hear complaints about are the auto company loans. Everyone seems to forget about the banks, which likely cost us far more, and with less benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
It will have a massive effect. You don't seriously expect auto manufacturers to design and engineer new cars, set up plants to produce all the component parts, and totally retool their assembly lines to build these new models overnight, do you?
Unless someone comes along and repeals the CAFE requirements, which is unlikely, given the political bad-will it would cause, Obama and Congress have made a significant step towards reducing total US emissions.
That is precisely why it is claimed that he is so accurate. Election results will change right up until the day of the election. No one can make a prediction months out that isn't just a wild ass guess.
The fact that he changed Florida to leaning left (based on minor poll movements), and it appears that Florida is indeed leaning left, validates his model quite well. If that changes, and he is wrong on Florida, then maybe his model isn't any better than any of the other sites.
They don't care when life begins, or they would be lobbying for changes to the tax code too, allowing you to claim a dependent the moment a child is conceived. What they really want is control of you and your body when it suits their needs.
Strange, in most of my races, the Republicans are listed first, followed by the Dems, then all the other parties. Maybe it stems from the way your state's ballot information is provided? Who knows.
porntipsguzzardo!
Steve Huffman, one of the creators of Reddit, talks about this exact solution during his Udacity class, Web Application Engineering. http://www.udacity.com/overview/Course/cs253/CourseRev/apr2012 I think it was during week 4 "Whom to Trust," but I don't have links to the exact video. So in short, yes, it has been done effectively in the past, though I believe they wrote their own code to do it.
I thought the same thing, but now rereading the original question, it seems like he wants every single line. A lot of the main, important, fiber lines follow railroads or power line easements, and many of those routes aren't even public right-of-way. They are granted privately to the railroad/utility companies by individual landowners. That was the basis of my explanation as well.
:)
Looking back, he actually wants to see public right-of-ways. I don't think that using deeds for this is feasible. A lot of older roads just kind of have assumed right-of-ways, and even where recorded, you'd have a lot of the same problems as with piecing together railroad easements. Not to mention, there are hundreds of times as many roads. I'm sticking with my suggestion to just hi-light all the roads on his map
True, I didn't mean to argue your point, just that the whole endeavor is pointless. You'll be making lots of trips to the recorder's office every time you need a new deed that is referenced by the one you are working on. Most places don't have them online, especially the older ones that you'll be looking for.
Plat maps won't help. Nor will most of the info available publicly online. I've worked for a civil engineer for 10 years, and the bottom line is that the information is so spread out, and in some cases nonexistant, that you would never be able to do this.
The first problem is that in many cases the easements are so old, and the deeds so difficult to read, you could spend hours piecing together the right of way over one parcel of land. Many times there are multiple easements as they were added-on over the years. They are also shared by different utilities.
So for example you'd find one document that grants Verizon the use of a railroad's right of way. Then you have to pull all of the deeds for the railroad (hundreds or thousand per county) and try to put them together. Those old railroad deeds will say something like "the east 99 feet of Farmer Smith's property, in so-and-so a section." Then you have to go pull Smith's old deed, which says "40 acres, lying south of the river, and east of Farmer Johnson's land, and north of some other guy's property." And no, those are not exaggerations at all. In short, you'll be putting together the puzzle pieces for weeks, and then you might have a single line along a railroad done for your county.
Add on top of that, many street right-of-ways are just assumed. Sure, maybe there are some old deeds that grant the right-of-way for each road over each parcel of land, but again, you'll be putting together a giant puzzle with pieces that don't fit together well.
In short, good luck. You'd be better off just taking a map and hi-lighting all of the roads, assuming that at least some communication lines follow each road.
Indeed. But Slashdot is known for pointless arguments.
I agree, but then 2.anything can't be called a large or small value of 2. Just by referring to it as a large value of 2, there is rounding. Keep the precision, call it 2.8, and everyone is happy. As soon as it becomes 'a value of 2' that precision is gone, and rounding rules have to come into play in order to maintain any sort of correctness.
The point was that it is imprecise to call 2.8 a large value of 2. The proper way to express it would be as a small value of 3. Sure, rounding at the end makes more sense, but if someone wants to round earlier (ie by calling it a large or small value of an integer), then the same rounding or truncating rules must be followed as are used on the end result.
Plus, is it 31% by weight? volume? part count? cost? We're going to need more labels!
Well, you could read it, but it says "No devices for storing energy either for takeoff or for use in flight shall be permitted." I doubt that many people would consider pre-consumed food to be a 'device'.
No. The rules http://www.vtol.org/awards-and-contests/human-powered-helicopter/hph-rules (Rule 4.1.4) say that you can not use any form of stored energy. They exclude the rotors, of course.
No, as he said, we learned to "always salt your passwords," and given a simple example. Then we were told that if we are in a position of authority for an important website, further research and understanding would be required in order to maintain security. You need multiple classes on the topic, not just an hour of instruction. Duh.
Well you have 10^11 cubic meters. And there are a lot of gallons in a cubic meter, so you shouldn't end up with 10^8 gallons. I don't feel like doing the math, but that part is wrong for sure.
Don't forget buying gas, insurance, licensing, repairs, new tires, and all the other incidental costs of ownership. Plus the value of your time to handle those things, and the additional free time you'd have during your commutes.
Sure they won't be for everyone, but for a couple hundred a month, I would seriously consider it, and I enjoy owning a car.
Possibly, but if they keep the price that high, very few people will be able to afford the drug; they will just find cheaper options.
If those drugs are no longer covered and require no doctor visit, the cost will likely come down. Many people wouldn't pay $2,700 a year for some pills (or couldn't afford to). The price will have to come down if they want to keep selling that drug. On the other hand, if they lower the cost, the will be able to sell more, since it no longer requires a prescription.
Also, just because you only have to pay $760 for your drugs, someone has to pay the rest. That money comes from other people paying into the insurance. If insurance no longer has to cover that $2,700 drug, the cost of coverage can decrease for everyone.
So ultimately the cost might increase for people taking drugs that suddenly become uncovered, but it is unlikely that you would be stuck paying the full cost that is being paid (by other people) right now. The net result is better for the average person, even though individual costs would probably increase in extreme cases.
If the temperature is going up, on average, there would be more energy by definition. Heat is energy. If the average temperature weren't going up, it wouldn't be global warming.
That's fine, you guys can celebrate and eat your pie on the 3rd of.....whatever month comes 2 after December. We prefer ours now! Have to keep up the stereotype of the fat Americans :)
Yup, they have been saying the same thing for years.
This! Exactly this. The auto 'bailouts' saved probably a couple million jobs. If the auto companies fail, you lose suppliers, dealers, etc, etc., not to mention the massive tax impacts to the towns with factories. The loans have been partially repaid, and will be finally repaid whenever the government decides to sell its GM stock holdings (they are waiting for the price to go up). Even if they sold their shares right now, the total cost for the 'bailouts' would be about $14 billion. What about the bank bailouts? Those cost taxpayers anywhere from $15 billion to $90 billion. (It is pretty tough to find a good estimate, they range wildly all over the place) Have we seen any benefit from those bailouts? Or just a bunch of rich bankers getting richer? And yet, all we hear complaints about are the auto company loans. Everyone seems to forget about the banks, which likely cost us far more, and with less benefit.
Does anyone else really dislike the way that font represents numbers, constantly bouncing up and down above and below the rest?