My angle was it was "Car of the Year". Not "Luxury Car of the Year" or "Best in Class", but "Car of the Year".
I just bought a new car last week, but my objectives were different. I drive 65 miles each way to/from work, so wanted something with top gas milage and could comfortably fit 4 people. I ended up with a 2013 VW Jetta TDI (manual transmission) and am very happy with it. I'm averaging just under 50 MPG on my commute and it cost me < $25K, including tax, tag & title.
I'd really love the Model S. Maybe in a couple years, assuming I can save my pennies.
Climate - The average of weather over at least a 30-year period. Note that the climate taken over different periods of time (30 years, 1000 years) may be different. The old saying is climate is what we expect and weather is what we get.
In the 1980's the National Weather Service established the Climate Prediction Center (CPC), known at the time as the Climate Analysis Center (CAC). The CPC is best known for its United States climate forecasts based on El Nino and La Nina conditions in the tropical Pacific.
The CPC most definitely does do climate science. Any round numbers that end in zero are popular. There are sets for every previous 30-year period ending in zero, such as 1971-2000 as you point out. They also do rolling sets, such as the current year + the 29-years prior.
The info talked about in this discussion was part of the most recent 30-year set released by the CPC -- 1981-2010. Thus bringing up 1951 and claiming relevance was incorrect in this context.
Also, the IPCC uses the 30-year mark for definition as well.
The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "climate vs weather" before and that the difference is one long term and one is short.
What probably *hasn't* been pointed out to you is that climate science uses 30-year averages as their basis for "long term" and to differentiate weather vs climate.
Thus "climate" is the average over a 30-year period to get a data point whereas "weather" is 1-year measurements to get data points.
1981-2010 is the latest complete 30-year set. 1951-1980 would be the prior 30-year set, thus is not relevant to what they are reporting on.
Hurricane Sandy will be incorporated into the current 30-year set, which will complete in 2040.
That being said, they also use 30-year rolling averages but that isn't what is being reported here.
I have been receiving no less than 3 calls a week for the last 6 months from "Card Services" with this robocall. The numbers were always different, so blocking didn't help.
Often the calls came in as late as 9:00 p.m., which was seriously annoying.
A couple of years ago I was sitting in an airport on a long layover with a couple of hours before my connecting flight. It was later in the evening and the airport was fairly empty.
Down the hallway came two police officers with a dog (German Shepard). They stopped some way back and one of them approached me. He asked if they could use me as a test, to see if the dog would hit on my luggage. Specifically, he had something that looked like a dog chew toy that he wanted to set just behind my suitcase to see if the dog would catch it as he walked past.
I agreed but asked him if he wanted to up the game a bit. He looked quizzical until I smiled and pulled the bacon cheeseburger out of the bag I had sitting next to me, unwrapped it and put it on top of my suitcase.
He laughed, but said the department couldn't be responsible for the safety and welfare of my dinner.
To my surprise, the dog not only "hit", but successfully pulled the chew toy out from behind my suitcase. The office was quite proud of his dog. But when he praised the dog and said "treat" (or whatever it was), the dog misinterpreted. Instead of nibbling whatever the officer was trying to hand him, the dog lunged and made my bacon cheeseburger disappear in about half-a-second flat.
Dogs will be dogs.
The question remained, though, whether the dog's attention was drawn over to me because of the handler's nudging in my direction, honestly detecting the "chew toy" bait, or the bacon cheeseburger. I'll say this, the dog's eyes were riveted on my sandwich as soon as he saw it.
Having an animal that's just as likely to get excited about smelling my butthole and crotch become an authoritarian figure in any kind of a crime investigation is simply ridiculous.
OSCE isn't a Senate-confirmed treaty, thus not law. The Feds aren't requesting monitoring, the foreign entity with no legal standing is.
A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.
It meshes nicely, since that article says all of it is up to the State Legislatures. All it says is Congress may make laws about it.
They didn't. OSCE isn't a ratified treaty, and thus not a law.
A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.
"May". They didn't. OSCE isn't a ratified treaty, it is a gentlemen's agreement and thus not law.
A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.
I believe the details of elections are up to the States.
However, it is all a moot point as the OSCE isn't a ratified treaty and thus not law.
A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.
I wasn't arguing that treaties are not the domain of the Federal gov't. I was arguing that the Federal gov't is limited to making treaties regarding things they have power over to begin with, and not for things delegated to the States.
All of which is a moot point, since the OSCE agreement isn't a ratified Treaty and thus not law.
A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.
Congress didn't make any law regarding Texas voter regulations.
A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.
IANAL, but the 10th Amendment restricts the Supremacy Clause to only those powers the Federal gov't has to begin with.
Elections are in the purview of the States, not the Feds. Short of things like Civil Rights violations the Feds and treaties have no jurisdiction.
Ware v Hylton doesn't apply because going to War and negotiating Peace -- negotiating ANYTHING with foreign nations -- is the Federal gov'ts domain. Thus the ratified Treaty of Paris trumped Virginia law.
Slashdot Mirror
Those with Apple stocks will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Laughing nervously at best. Apple stock is down 18% in the last 7 weeks. The most recent news is "down on disappointing iPad Mini sales".
Death? Not by a long shot, but crashing back to Earth to compete with the rest of the mortals -- most definitely.
My angle was it was "Car of the Year". Not "Luxury Car of the Year" or "Best in Class", but "Car of the Year".
I just bought a new car last week, but my objectives were different. I drive 65 miles each way to/from work, so wanted something with top gas milage and could comfortably fit 4 people. I ended up with a 2013 VW Jetta TDI (manual transmission) and am very happy with it. I'm averaging just under 50 MPG on my commute and it cost me < $25K, including tax, tag & title.
I'd really love the Model S. Maybe in a couple years, assuming I can save my pennies.
The Model S's range, rated by the EPA at 265 miles with the largest battery, finally fits the American conception of driving.
But at $78,500 before a $7,500 tax rebate that doesn't fit the American concept of pricing.
Make no mistake, I'd really love one of these. But $78,500 is pricy.
Oh, and there is that all important question of how they hold up in a hurricane. Fisker's Karmas seem to have issues with getting wet.
Climate - The average of weather over at least a 30-year period. Note that the climate taken over different periods of time (30 years, 1000 years) may be different. The old saying is climate is what we expect and weather is what we get.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/glossary.shtml#C
In the 1980's the National Weather Service established the Climate Prediction Center (CPC), known at the time as the Climate Analysis Center (CAC). The CPC is best known for its United States climate forecasts based on El Nino and La Nina conditions in the tropical Pacific.
The CPC most definitely does do climate science. Any round numbers that end in zero are popular. There are sets for every previous 30-year period ending in zero, such as 1971-2000 as you point out. They also do rolling sets, such as the current year + the 29-years prior.
The info talked about in this discussion was part of the most recent 30-year set released by the CPC -- 1981-2010. Thus bringing up 1951 and claiming relevance was incorrect in this context.
Also, the IPCC uses the 30-year mark for definition as well.
The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm
In short, I'm right and yes, just about everyone in that professional area of study uses 30-year periods as a basis for defining "climate".
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "climate vs weather" before and that the difference is one long term and one is short.
What probably *hasn't* been pointed out to you is that climate science uses 30-year averages as their basis for "long term" and to differentiate weather vs climate.
Thus "climate" is the average over a 30-year period to get a data point whereas "weather" is 1-year measurements to get data points.
1981-2010 is the latest complete 30-year set. 1951-1980 would be the prior 30-year set, thus is not relevant to what they are reporting on.
Hurricane Sandy will be incorporated into the current 30-year set, which will complete in 2040.
That being said, they also use 30-year rolling averages but that isn't what is being reported here.
You know they are jealous of Best Buy and wanted to call this the Geek Squad.
I have been receiving no less than 3 calls a week for the last 6 months from "Card Services" with this robocall. The numbers were always different, so blocking didn't help.
Often the calls came in as late as 9:00 p.m., which was seriously annoying.
A couple of years ago I was sitting in an airport on a long layover with a couple of hours before my connecting flight. It was later in the evening and the airport was fairly empty.
Down the hallway came two police officers with a dog (German Shepard). They stopped some way back and one of them approached me. He asked if they could use me as a test, to see if the dog would hit on my luggage. Specifically, he had something that looked like a dog chew toy that he wanted to set just behind my suitcase to see if the dog would catch it as he walked past.
I agreed but asked him if he wanted to up the game a bit. He looked quizzical until I smiled and pulled the bacon cheeseburger out of the bag I had sitting next to me, unwrapped it and put it on top of my suitcase.
He laughed, but said the department couldn't be responsible for the safety and welfare of my dinner.
To my surprise, the dog not only "hit", but successfully pulled the chew toy out from behind my suitcase. The office was quite proud of his dog. But when he praised the dog and said "treat" (or whatever it was), the dog misinterpreted. Instead of nibbling whatever the officer was trying to hand him, the dog lunged and made my bacon cheeseburger disappear in about half-a-second flat.
Dogs will be dogs.
The question remained, though, whether the dog's attention was drawn over to me because of the handler's nudging in my direction, honestly detecting the "chew toy" bait, or the bacon cheeseburger. I'll say this, the dog's eyes were riveted on my sandwich as soon as he saw it.
Having an animal that's just as likely to get excited about smelling my butthole and crotch become an authoritarian figure in any kind of a crime investigation is simply ridiculous.
What does the TSA have to do with any of this?
The correct term is "Reptilians". And they're from Alpha Draconis, not Mars.
Pix or it didn't happen.
Cisco, you can get better but you can't pay more.
22 comments in and not one reference to whether or not Netcraft has confirmed the satellites are dying.
Slashdot is definitely slipping.
No, that would be the USPTO looking the other way. Different branch of the gov't entirely.
OSCE isn't a Senate-confirmed treaty, thus not law. The Feds aren't requesting monitoring, the foreign entity with no legal standing is.
A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe#History
It meshes nicely, since that article says all of it is up to the State Legislatures. All it says is Congress may make laws about it.
They didn't. OSCE isn't a ratified treaty, and thus not a law.
A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe#History
"May". They didn't. OSCE isn't a ratified treaty, it is a gentlemen's agreement and thus not law.
A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe#History
I believe the details of elections are up to the States.
However, it is all a moot point as the OSCE isn't a ratified treaty and thus not law.
A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe#History
I wasn't arguing that treaties are not the domain of the Federal gov't. I was arguing that the Federal gov't is limited to making treaties regarding things they have power over to begin with, and not for things delegated to the States.
All of which is a moot point, since the OSCE agreement isn't a ratified Treaty and thus not law.
A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe#History
Congress didn't make any law regarding Texas voter regulations.
A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe#History
No, I think arguing that voter fraud in Texas is so bad it constitutes a non-Republican form of gov't is unsupportable.
Sorry, you'll have to do better than an oblique partisan reference to implementation issues with a 550-page agreement. Be specific.
I guess your basic argument is the 10th Amendment doesn't matter. You're wrong.
ONLY in relation to powers relegated to the Federal Gov't -- NOT with powers solely reserved to the States.
The 10th Amendment limits the scope of the Supremacy Clause.
Elections are run by the States, not the Feds -- except in D.C. and other Federal areas.
IANAL, but the 10th Amendment restricts the Supremacy Clause to only those powers the Federal gov't has to begin with.
Elections are in the purview of the States, not the Feds. Short of things like Civil Rights violations the Feds and treaties have no jurisdiction.
Ware v Hylton doesn't apply because going to War and negotiating Peace -- negotiating ANYTHING with foreign nations -- is the Federal gov'ts domain. Thus the ratified Treaty of Paris trumped Virginia law.
Not in Texas.
The relevant law is here: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/EL/3/33/B/33.031