I'm sure that he regularly slept with a pillow over his head and it was all simply a misunderstanding.
It actually WAS a misunderstanding:
"The ranch owner, John Poindexter, tried to clarify his comments, telling "CBS This Morning" that Scalia "had a pillow over his head, not over his face as some have been saying. The pillow was against the headboard."" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/su...
I don't want a Supreme Court Justice who is one of the "sharpest legal minds". I want one who's level of reading comprehension equals or exceeds that of a five-year-old. And make sure he's read the Constitution.
If you think that any issue that makes it to the Supreme Court is entirely simple and straightforward, then you just don't know very much about the law (including the Constitution).
Reminder: You're a dope if you use Facebook, or any other 'social media' platform. It's like smoking: If you're doing it, you can't in any way claim you didn't know it was a bad idea, but you're doing it anyway. These are not survival traits.
Reminder: the fact that you don't find the costs associated with using a service to be worth the benefits doesn't mean that people who do understand that tradeoff, and find it worthwhile, are "dope[s]."
We can have lengthy debates about what constitutes a subsidy, but the simple fact is that accelerated depreciation does lower the net present value of the taxes you'll pay, which has value to you (since cash now means either greater investment earnings or less interest paid), and costs the federal government money (since it has to borrow more money, and pay more interest, than it otherwise would).
The standard for tax accounting (for all but very small businesses which do cash accounting) is multi-year depreciation for capital assets. You can argue that shouldn't be the case at all, but it is, so varying from it in a way that benefits the taxpayer is, well, a benefit to the taxpayer, which reduces the cost of making whatever purchase is involved.
What's it's "giving" you is the time value of money. Assuming a 40% marginal tax rate, if you can deduct 100% of the cost of the computer this year, you're getting a $400 tax deduction now, which is worth more than $80/year over the next five years.
Some reason = decision on Samsung's part that the downsides of offering a removable battery (less efficient space usage, tougher to make waterproof) outweighed the upside (ability to swap batteries for whatever % of customers actually want to do that).
You're off by at least two orders of magnitude. Sprint's wireless backhaul links (that they inherited from Clearwire) are 1Gbps at most - the vast majority are 100Mbps or less.
That's true for a while. However, studies on the long-term efficacy of enforcement have mostly shown that enforcement has an effect for a while, and then wears off once enforcement goes away. So a community must be willing to accept long-term strict enforcement if that's going to work. Otherwise, once the police are gone, people eventually go back to their speeding ways. Speed cameras are effective, but publicity and warning signs are necessary for actually getting people to slow down. I think if a community is really concerned about pedestrian safety, the best way to do that means separating pedestrians from cars, and where they can't be separated, forcing cars to slow down, preferably by physical alterations like speed bumps, traffic circles, and other measures.
The DOT has a summary of various speed research in the page below, with some notes on the efficacy of enforcement : https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publi...
Totally agree with you. Road alterations are best, speed cameras second best.
The 85th percentile works well for most streets, even local streets, and various traffic studies have backed this up, noting no increase in accident rates even with increases in speed. Most people will drive in a reasonably safe and prudent fashion, and won't go faster than they think is safe for them to drive on the road. The biggest problem is when there are road conditions or hazards that won't be immediately apparent to the average driver.
And that happens often in narrow residential streets, where there is less traffic, the traffic is intermittent, or there are other concerns like frequent pedestrian crossings of the road. In those cases, reductions in traffic speed are certainly justified and rational, and uniform lower traffic speeds on residential streets is certainly one way to achieve that. The speed limit on the road I live on is 25 mph, and I certainly don't like it when people speed through it.
But in general, if you have a road, most drivers are going to drive a speed that they think is safe, regardless of what the posted speed limit is. I've read traffic studies of a four lane road near my house. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. In the study, over 50% the cars were going faster than that, and the study justified a speed limit of 40 mph. People drove at speeds they considered to be reasonably safe, and they will continue to do so even if a lower posted speed limit is set. Speed limit enforcement is of limited value in those cases, because it will only be effective during periods of strict enforcement. Once the cops are gone, people go back to their speeding ways.
If you really want to lower the speeds of cars on the road, you have to do other things, like install traffic bumps or other obstacles that slow or interrupt the flow of traffic, not merely set a speed limit.
Again, I'm concerned with pedestrian safety. As for the lowering the speeds aspect, I agree, physical changes help, but they're not entirely necessary. Speed cams, coupled with effective enforcement, work well too. First time somebody goes 35 in a 25 zone, and gets hit with a $200 ticket, they'll start to modify their behavior.
It is very well established in the civil engineering literature how to set the speed limit for vehicle usersafety.
That 85% rule of thumb might work well for an Interstate highway, but it's a terrible metric for a local street, where the priority should be the safety of pedestrians.
You do realize that Netflix is a bundler as well, right? You can't go to Netflix and say "I just want to get Beasts of No Nation, Orange is the New Black, and House of Cards." You have to buy the entire service.
Bottom line, it doesn't matter WHY there's a connection, only THAT there's a connection. If a given driving pattern is correlated to higher claim expenses, then it's entirely reasonable for an insurer to charge people who display that pattern a higher premium, and vice versa.
Quite the contrary. Red Barchetta predicted cars so safe and crash-proof that they could be used as battering rams against older cars. The aggressor vehicles were definitely being driven by people, however.
Why wouldn't a company want to be able to assess the quality of its contractors, and decide if a complaint was valid or not? If you work for an outsourced call center company, and the company gets a call saying "I just spoke to CSR Fermion, and he was unhelpful and swore at me," if I'm the company, I'd want to know if the complaint was legit, rather than just having a policy of "drop anyone who gets a complaint."
Unless they plan on making ownership of a smart phone as a mandatory condition for providing insurance, which I question the legality of, they simply can't make this obligatory..
Why would it be illegal? I suppose it could be regarded as discriminatory against people who can't afford a smartphone, but that's not necessarily a protected class (they already use credit scores in ratings in most states, which have clear correlations with income), and offering to provide the device for free would resolve that issue.
I said no vaccines contain methylmercury compounds. They don't, and didn't. The CDC page you cite doesn't refute that statement, since Thimerosal is an ethylmercury compound, not a methylmercury compound.
I did make one minor error - while the anti-vaxxers panic was enough to get Thimerosal removed from childhood vaccines (which raised their cost for developing markets, where they typically used multi-dose vials), it is still used in some cases for flu vaccines in the US when they're delivered from a multi-dose vial.
Actually, none of them do. Some USED to contain ethylmercury (Thimerosal) until the anti-vaxxers went nuts over it and it was removed, making vaccines much more expensive for developing countries.
The only _legal_ way for a polling organisation to make contact with a mobile phone owner is to have the mobile initiate the contact or explicitly invite the call.
You misunderstand the law. It's legal to make unsolicited calls to cellphones, but you have to do it manually. The prohibition is only on automated dialers. So, it costs quite a bit more, but you can still do it, and the quality pollsters do. See the discussion below, about halfway through the piece. The biggest challenge that cellphones bring is higher cost.
That said, Trump is not a career politician and can run his own campaign financially.
Although he doesn't.
"Mr. Trump continues to assert that he is paying for his campaign. In an interview on CNN on Wednesday, he suggested that his financial independence allows him to speak his mind, unlike typical politicians who rely on campaign donors.
But Mr. Trump has become one of those politicians.
Early in his presidential bid, Mr. Trump did supply most of his campaign’s money, providing it with about $1.8 million in loans.
But in the quarter that ended Sept. 30, Mr. Trump raised about $3.7 million in individual contributions, according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission. His own contributions in that period totaled about $101,000.
In a news release, his campaign said it had received nearly 74,000 “unsolicited donations” during the quarter with an average contribution of about $50.
At a rally in Florida in October, Mr. Trump recalled how a woman sent him $7.50 along with a four-page letter.
“How do you send the seven dollars and fifty cents back?” Mr. Trump said. “You can’t. You can’t. There’s no letter you can write. It’s true. There’s no letter that you can write to that woman to say, ‘We don’t want your money.’ ”
Mr. Trump has noted that unlike his rivals, he has no wealthy-donor "super PACs" supporting him, which he says frees him from the influence of special interests. But as for his own campaign operation, as of Sept. 30, donations from people other than Mr. Trump had accounted for about two-thirds of the total funding for his presidential bid."
Slashdot Mirror
I had the exact same problem. Had to connect it to my laptop usb and transfer the firmware that way.
I'm sure that he regularly slept with a pillow over his head and it was all simply a misunderstanding.
It actually WAS a misunderstanding:
"The ranch owner, John Poindexter, tried to clarify his comments, telling "CBS This Morning" that Scalia "had a pillow over his head, not over his face as some have been saying. The pillow was against the headboard.""
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/su...
I don't want a Supreme Court Justice who is one of the "sharpest legal minds". I want one who's level of reading comprehension equals or exceeds that of a five-year-old. And make sure he's read the Constitution.
If you think that any issue that makes it to the Supreme Court is entirely simple and straightforward, then you just don't know very much about the law (including the Constitution).
Of course, Facebook tracks everything
Reminder: You're a dope if you use Facebook, or any other 'social media' platform. It's like smoking: If you're doing it, you can't in any way claim you didn't know it was a bad idea, but you're doing it anyway. These are not survival traits.
Reminder: the fact that you don't find the costs associated with using a service to be worth the benefits doesn't mean that people who do understand that tradeoff, and find it worthwhile, are "dope[s]."
We can have lengthy debates about what constitutes a subsidy, but the simple fact is that accelerated depreciation does lower the net present value of the taxes you'll pay, which has value to you (since cash now means either greater investment earnings or less interest paid), and costs the federal government money (since it has to borrow more money, and pay more interest, than it otherwise would).
The standard for tax accounting (for all but very small businesses which do cash accounting) is multi-year depreciation for capital assets. You can argue that shouldn't be the case at all, but it is, so varying from it in a way that benefits the taxpayer is, well, a benefit to the taxpayer, which reduces the cost of making whatever purchase is involved.
What's it's "giving" you is the time value of money. Assuming a 40% marginal tax rate, if you can deduct 100% of the cost of the computer this year, you're getting a $400 tax deduction now, which is worth more than $80/year over the next five years.
Not really. As a senator, he had one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate. As President, he's been solidly left (along the US spectrum).
Me too. My usual breakfast place had to add a second terminal (still just one checkout) because the credit card cycle time slowed down so much.
Some reason = decision on Samsung's part that the downsides of offering a removable battery (less efficient space usage, tougher to make waterproof) outweighed the upside (ability to swap batteries for whatever % of customers actually want to do that).
You're off by at least two orders of magnitude. Sprint's wireless backhaul links (that they inherited from Clearwire) are 1Gbps at most - the vast majority are 100Mbps or less.
Who's using 100Gbps wireless links for cellular backhaul?
That's true for a while. However, studies on the long-term efficacy of enforcement have mostly shown that enforcement has an effect for a while, and then wears off once enforcement goes away. So a community must be willing to accept long-term strict enforcement if that's going to work. Otherwise, once the police are gone, people eventually go back to their speeding ways. Speed cameras are effective, but publicity and warning signs are necessary for actually getting people to slow down. I think if a community is really concerned about pedestrian safety, the best way to do that means separating pedestrians from cars, and where they can't be separated, forcing cars to slow down, preferably by physical alterations like speed bumps, traffic circles, and other measures.
The DOT has a summary of various speed research in the page below, with some notes on the efficacy of enforcement :
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publi...
Totally agree with you. Road alterations are best, speed cameras second best.
The 85th percentile works well for most streets, even local streets, and various traffic studies have backed this up, noting no increase in accident rates even with increases in speed. Most people will drive in a reasonably safe and prudent fashion, and won't go faster than they think is safe for them to drive on the road. The biggest problem is when there are road conditions or hazards that won't be immediately apparent to the average driver.
And that happens often in narrow residential streets, where there is less traffic, the traffic is intermittent, or there are other concerns like frequent pedestrian crossings of the road. In those cases, reductions in traffic speed are certainly justified and rational, and uniform lower traffic speeds on residential streets is certainly one way to achieve that. The speed limit on the road I live on is 25 mph, and I certainly don't like it when people speed through it.
But in general, if you have a road, most drivers are going to drive a speed that they think is safe, regardless of what the posted speed limit is. I've read traffic studies of a four lane road near my house. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. In the study, over 50% the cars were going faster than that, and the study justified a speed limit of 40 mph. People drove at speeds they considered to be reasonably safe, and they will continue to do so even if a lower posted speed limit is set. Speed limit enforcement is of limited value in those cases, because it will only be effective during periods of strict enforcement. Once the cops are gone, people go back to their speeding ways.
If you really want to lower the speeds of cars on the road, you have to do other things, like install traffic bumps or other obstacles that slow or interrupt the flow of traffic, not merely set a speed limit.
Again, I'm concerned with pedestrian safety. As for the lowering the speeds aspect, I agree, physical changes help, but they're not entirely necessary. Speed cams, coupled with effective enforcement, work well too. First time somebody goes 35 in a 25 zone, and gets hit with a $200 ticket, they'll start to modify their behavior.
It is very well established in the civil engineering literature how to set the speed limit for vehicle usersafety.
That 85% rule of thumb might work well for an Interstate highway, but it's a terrible metric for a local street, where the priority should be the safety of pedestrians.
You do realize that Netflix is a bundler as well, right? You can't go to Netflix and say "I just want to get Beasts of No Nation, Orange is the New Black, and House of Cards." You have to buy the entire service.
Bottom line, it doesn't matter WHY there's a connection, only THAT there's a connection. If a given driving pattern is correlated to higher claim expenses, then it's entirely reasonable for an insurer to charge people who display that pattern a higher premium, and vice versa.
Quite the contrary. Red Barchetta predicted cars so safe and crash-proof that they could be used as battering rams against older cars. The aggressor vehicles were definitely being driven by people, however.
Song's based on "A Nice Morning Drive."
http://www.mgexp.com/article/n...
It's less that hard acceleration per se is an issue (or hard braking), but rather a pattern that combines a lot of the two.
Why wouldn't a company want to be able to assess the quality of its contractors, and decide if a complaint was valid or not? If you work for an outsourced call center company, and the company gets a call saying "I just spoke to CSR Fermion, and he was unhelpful and swore at me," if I'm the company, I'd want to know if the complaint was legit, rather than just having a policy of "drop anyone who gets a complaint."
The customer is not always right (or sane).
I said no vaccines contain methylmercury compounds. They don't, and didn't. The CDC page you cite doesn't refute that statement, since Thimerosal is an ethylmercury compound, not a methylmercury compound.
I did make one minor error - while the anti-vaxxers panic was enough to get Thimerosal removed from childhood vaccines (which raised their cost for developing markets, where they typically used multi-dose vials), it is still used in some cases for flu vaccines in the US when they're delivered from a multi-dose vial.
Most vaccines contain methylmercury compounds.
Actually, none of them do. Some USED to contain ethylmercury (Thimerosal) until the anti-vaxxers went nuts over it and it was removed, making vaccines much more expensive for developing countries.
I'm completely unaffected by advertising
Ad agencies love people who think this.
; 2. Polls take non-landline owners into account. Typically, around 1/3 of respondents for most polls are on cellphones.
Citiation please.
Example: phone poll, 350 of 1000 respondents are on cellphones:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MS...
The only _legal_ way for a polling organisation to make contact with a mobile phone owner is to have the mobile initiate the contact or explicitly invite the call.
You misunderstand the law. It's legal to make unsolicited calls to cellphones, but you have to do it manually. The prohibition is only on automated dialers. So, it costs quite a bit more, but you can still do it, and the quality pollsters do. See the discussion below, about halfway through the piece. The biggest challenge that cellphones bring is higher cost.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06...
That said, Trump is not a career politician and can run his own campaign financially.
Although he doesn't.
"Mr. Trump continues to assert that he is paying for his campaign. In an interview on CNN on Wednesday, he suggested that his financial independence allows him to speak his mind, unlike typical politicians who rely on campaign donors.
But Mr. Trump has become one of those politicians.
Early in his presidential bid, Mr. Trump did supply most of his campaign’s money, providing it with about $1.8 million in loans.
But in the quarter that ended Sept. 30, Mr. Trump raised about $3.7 million in individual contributions, according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission. His own contributions in that period totaled about $101,000.
In a news release, his campaign said it had received nearly 74,000 “unsolicited donations” during the quarter with an average contribution of about $50.
At a rally in Florida in October, Mr. Trump recalled how a woman sent him $7.50 along with a four-page letter.
“How do you send the seven dollars and fifty cents back?” Mr. Trump said. “You can’t. You can’t. There’s no letter you can write. It’s true. There’s no letter that you can write to that woman to say, ‘We don’t want your money.’ ”
Mr. Trump has noted that unlike his rivals, he has no wealthy-donor "super PACs" supporting him, which he says frees him from the influence of special interests. But as for his own campaign operation, as of Sept. 30, donations from people other than Mr. Trump had accounted for about two-thirds of the total funding for his presidential bid."
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...