If you prohibit higher gas prices, you guarantee shortages.
Higher prices won't dry out the refineries or clear out the transportation channels any faster.
There has been a natural disaster. There will be short-term shortages, period. The only question is how the remaining stock will be distributed until things are running as normal again. Price controls, rationing and the like ensure a more equitable distribution, rather than letting a few rich actors hoard supplies when peoples' immediate lives and even the clean-up effort itself relies on those supplies.
It's enough of a pain to walk friends/family through the "request Remote Assistance" process through a client that, at least in XP, I know is installed. Trying to hold their hand over a telephone while they download and install a new browser isn't a viable alternative.
If Florida employers are demanding these degrees, they can pay more for holders of those degrees. Instead, this proposal allows employers to justify lower pay for holders of those subsidized degrees.
Yet another "free market" proposal from a Tea Party politician.
Mr. Obama will be weakened by the divisive campaign; the electorate is bitterly split, and he will find Congress harder to work with.
You seem to be forgetting about mid-term elections. Tea Party Republicans that took the House away from Democrats in 2010 have already doubled down on being recalcitrant for the past two years, all in an effort to delegitimize Obama in the eyes of the electorate. An Obama victory, of any amount, will demonstrate an utter failure on the part of the Tea Party to make their case through the 112th Congress.
The only real question is how the GOP will respond to this.
You're oversimplifying a bit. Obama's electoral college is is probably fait accompli at this point, but even Silver's own site demonstrates that the popular election is pretty close (Obama has been consistently ahead, but currently by a mere two percentage points).
Congress is the "first among equals" in the three branches of US government; who is actually sitting in the White House is less important than the Congress the president must work with. US presidential elections are more important as a national political referendum to gauge the American public's opinion of current politics and to decide who does and does not have political legitimacy and political capital to spend.
It's the "soft power" bestowed by the popular vote that's more important rather than the hard numbers of the Electoral College. And so the popular vote should be getting more media attention than electoral math.
Not to mention you have quite a bit of time between the scheduled election day and the actual handover of power.
The schedule was designed for 18th century standards of transportation and communication, which is exactly why the loss of 20th and 21st century utilities and services should not be viewed as an obstacle.
And it also encompasses 3 separate US federal elections.
The UK has a maximum term of 5 years before an election
The US has elected a new Congress every other year since 1788, period.
That said, the war continuing was easier to predict than hurricane Sandy.
"There's a war on" is a far easier statement to make than saying what the state of the war will be, at any place, on a given date. Parent is inferring that British Parliament deferred elections because "someone, somewhere" might get bombed on an election day. In contrast, the United States still voted in 1814, while the White House still smouldered.
There's nothing magical about 4 years vs. 5 years, so "monarchical pussies" doesn't really fit.
It meant that the King's Parliament need not subject itself to the consent of the governed while prosecuting a bloody, costly and potentially unpopular war. Churchill's Conservatives apparently couldn't stomach the possibility of the kind of political backlash Lincoln's Republicans endured in 1862.
In 1940 Winston Churchill became Prime Minister and united the parliament behind a single non-partisan position prosecuting the war against Germany. There was no support for any other position
Then they're a bunch of monarchical pussies. The people of the State of New Jersey participated in the national election of 1862, when Lee's army was just across the river in Pennsylvania.
The system for national elections in the United States was established before there were any railroads, let alone electricity. New Jerseyites have been voting in regular elections over two centuries before anybody gave a damn about cell phone reception.
Use your head. January 20th is over 2 months away.
Use yours and ask yourself why there are weeks-long gaps between the day of the election and the sitting of the electors, between the sitting of the electors and the beginning of the new Congress, and the beginning of the new Congress and the beginning of the presidential term. The system was designed around a complete lack of anything a modern person would call "infrastructure."
No priority can be greater for a republican government than protecting the democratic process and, through it, the state's own legitimacy. Without that, the state can't legitimately act to get anything "up and running" again.
If the USA was a true democracy, it would defer the vote until after the clean-up,
"For the duration of the crisis?" Who gets to decide when it's over, the Senate or Caesar?
Democracy cannot be considered a luxury that one can "put off" when times are bad. Rather, the government needs to double down and make sure polling places and post offices are secure and accessible, no less so than food, water and shelter.
Don't go changing history by an hour; maybe Boeing doesn't use Daylight time? Like Arizona.
I checked before posting, just in case: the US Air Force base in question is in Utah, which observes Daylight Saving Time. Even if Boeing has some weird habit of consciously avoiding it, the people who sign Boeing's checks do not.
Just because they provided the units for their measure, doesn't mean it is wrong. That's like complaining someone used centimeters instead of inches.
Lockheed Martin - "Newtons" + "pounds" = watch your fucking units!
Slashdot Mirror
At least not GA-10. For better or for worse, Paul Broun represents his district.
If you prohibit higher gas prices, you guarantee shortages.
Higher prices won't dry out the refineries or clear out the transportation channels any faster.
There has been a natural disaster. There will be short-term shortages, period. The only question is how the remaining stock will be distributed until things are running as normal again. Price controls, rationing and the like ensure a more equitable distribution, rather than letting a few rich actors hoard supplies when peoples' immediate lives and even the clean-up effort itself relies on those supplies.
It's enough of a pain to walk friends/family through the "request Remote Assistance" process through a client that, at least in XP, I know is installed. Trying to hold their hand over a telephone while they download and install a new browser isn't a viable alternative.
If Florida employers are demanding these degrees, they can pay more for holders of those degrees. Instead, this proposal allows employers to justify lower pay for holders of those subsidized degrees.
Yet another "free market" proposal from a Tea Party politician.
That's pretty much the only reason I still have Messenger installed any more.
Would the payment be in cash or Facebook stock?
Why do you need to listen?
Has there been any election in the US where it has been more than a few percentage points difference between the two main candidates?
Reagan versus Mondale in 1984 and Johnson versus Goldwater in 1964, to name two of the most recent.
Mr. Obama will be weakened by the divisive campaign; the electorate is bitterly split, and he will find Congress harder to work with.
You seem to be forgetting about mid-term elections. Tea Party Republicans that took the House away from Democrats in 2010 have already doubled down on being recalcitrant for the past two years, all in an effort to delegitimize Obama in the eyes of the electorate. An Obama victory, of any amount, will demonstrate an utter failure on the part of the Tea Party to make their case through the 112th Congress.
The only real question is how the GOP will respond to this.
You're oversimplifying a bit. Obama's electoral college is is probably fait accompli at this point, but even Silver's own site demonstrates that the popular election is pretty close (Obama has been consistently ahead, but currently by a mere two percentage points).
Congress is the "first among equals" in the three branches of US government; who is actually sitting in the White House is less important than the Congress the president must work with. US presidential elections are more important as a national political referendum to gauge the American public's opinion of current politics and to decide who does and does not have political legitimacy and political capital to spend.
It's the "soft power" bestowed by the popular vote that's more important rather than the hard numbers of the Electoral College. And so the popular vote should be getting more media attention than electoral math.
I can tell you that's exactly how it's supposed to happen, in every state I've done the paperwork in.
If you doubt, pick up the phone, order pizza delivery, and check out the receipt.
Laws are for people who can't afford legislators!
Not to mention you have quite a bit of time between the scheduled election day and the actual handover of power.
The schedule was designed for 18th century standards of transportation and communication, which is exactly why the loss of 20th and 21st century utilities and services should not be viewed as an obstacle.
The distance between 1940 and 1945 is five years
And it also encompasses 3 separate US federal elections.
The UK has a maximum term of 5 years before an election
The US has elected a new Congress every other year since 1788, period.
That said, the war continuing was easier to predict than hurricane Sandy.
"There's a war on" is a far easier statement to make than saying what the state of the war will be, at any place, on a given date. Parent is inferring that British Parliament deferred elections because "someone, somewhere" might get bombed on an election day. In contrast, the United States still voted in 1814, while the White House still smouldered.
There's nothing magical about 4 years vs. 5 years, so "monarchical pussies" doesn't really fit.
It meant that the King's Parliament need not subject itself to the consent of the governed while prosecuting a bloody, costly and potentially unpopular war. Churchill's Conservatives apparently couldn't stomach the possibility of the kind of political backlash Lincoln's Republicans endured in 1862.
There is no such protection in online voting.
This problem is not unique to online voting; it's also an argument against allowing voting by mail.
In 1940 Winston Churchill became Prime Minister and united the parliament behind a single non-partisan position prosecuting the war against Germany. There was no support for any other position
Then they're a bunch of monarchical pussies. The people of the State of New Jersey participated in the national election of 1862, when Lee's army was just across the river in Pennsylvania.
Who gets to define "displaced," "semi-permanent," and "significantly?" Who does the counting? And who enforces this rule if it isn't observed?
get electricity back up and running
The system for national elections in the United States was established before there were any railroads, let alone electricity. New Jerseyites have been voting in regular elections over two centuries before anybody gave a damn about cell phone reception.
Use your head. January 20th is over 2 months away.
Use yours and ask yourself why there are weeks-long gaps between the day of the election and the sitting of the electors, between the sitting of the electors and the beginning of the new Congress, and the beginning of the new Congress and the beginning of the presidential term. The system was designed around a complete lack of anything a modern person would call "infrastructure."
No priority can be greater for a republican government than protecting the democratic process and, through it, the state's own legitimacy. Without that, the state can't legitimately act to get anything "up and running" again.
If the USA was a true democracy, it would defer the vote until after the clean-up,
"For the duration of the crisis?" Who gets to decide when it's over, the Senate or Caesar?
Democracy cannot be considered a luxury that one can "put off" when times are bad. Rather, the government needs to double down and make sure polling places and post offices are secure and accessible, no less so than food, water and shelter.
why were the generators on upper floors but fuel (and pumps) in the basement? And as soon as I read the answer, it was completely obvious:
Because diesel fuel weighs around 55 lb/ft^3?
Don't go changing history by an hour; maybe Boeing doesn't use Daylight time? Like Arizona.
I checked before posting, just in case: the US Air Force base in question is in Utah, which observes Daylight Saving Time. Even if Boeing has some weird habit of consciously avoiding it, the people who sign Boeing's checks do not.
Just because they provided the units for their measure, doesn't mean it is wrong. That's like complaining someone used centimeters instead of inches.
Lockheed Martin - "Newtons" + "pounds" = watch your fucking units!
On Oct. 16th at 10:32 a.m. MST
Mountain Daylight Time!
until NOC hit sexual maturity.
"Screw learning a foreign language, I wanna meet girls!"
In other words, he's a crackpot who just happened to get lucky
Hey, it worked for Copernicus.
a certain benevolent society
Oh, is that what the "bunga bunga" parties are called these days?