Her intent was that an uncle was going to take it with him and give it to the cousin. Now all the publicity has pretty much guaranteed that said uncle will have every possession itemized on departure and if they return without items which fall under the embargo list said uncle will be prosecuted.
Sometimes publicity is a bad idea, particularly when you plan to violate US law and then complain that someone else didn't want to help you do it and become an accomplice. This stupid girl has guaranteed that ICE is going to give them the highest scrutiny possible for all travel outside the US. Her parents should be absolutely furious with her.
The wheels on the tracks spark. It's not common, and it's not normally dangerous. But in the west in tinderbox conditions the grass is usually up to and around the rails these days. This is in part because the grass out here is extremely virulent to harsh soil conditions (the blast furnace slag that makes up the rail road bed) and in part because the railroads no longer try to manage vegetation in the road bed.
Thus a track spark these days has a very small probability of causing a fire. But at several hundred trains a day with more than a mile of cars per train thats a lot of chances so you get several rail caused fires a year in normal conditions and more during tinderbox conditions like now.
If you wanna be technical about it, an act of war doesn't start a war. It can, but it doesn't have to, and in fact is totally on the country the act of war was committed against and how they respond to the act of war. See if you want to get technical, an Act of War is just an action that justifies war, it neither starts nor commits a nation to war. Iran won't respond to this act of war by declaring war because they know the US will hand their asses to them in rather short order and may possibly overthrow the regime and that's all the regime cares about, maintaining power.
The UK sponsored and the US assisted with the Shah overthrowing the elected government. The UK was the prime player in this because they were the former colonial power. As a result, all the brainwashing done on every Iranian citizen about how evil the west is focuses on the UK and US. When something bad happens the natural response is to tap into all that brainwashing and blame the US and UK along with Israel (whom every leader in the mideast blamed for every problem for decades). So it doesn't matter what's happened, if someone is being blamed for something it's ALWAYS the US, UK and Israel. Doesn't matter what it is or even if it's related or not.
And from my point of view I see a female prosecutor that's made a career out of prosecuting men for "rape" (Swedish definition) who saw a case dropped that fit her typical profile on a high profile target that would not only bring attention but full on front page press stories about the issue. She then reopened the case with the hope of prosecuting said famous person with the hope that all the attention this would bring would raise the issue in the minds of Swedish public and bring not only political but public attention to an issue she finds highly important.
Personally I don't think the CIA is either that smart or effective and I think the Swedes are far less likely to hand Assange over than the UK ever was and they didn't even ask for him. I also don't think (regardless of all the table banging by US politico's) that the US government even wants to try to do anything to Assange because they don't believe they could ever convict him of anything given US press freedom laws.
Did you know that bottled water is 95% of the time bottled tap water? (there are very few brands that are genuine untreated spring water, most that claim spring water are less than 10% spring water or the spring being counted is feeding the tap water) Often from the scummiest and oldest drinking system in the city that serves the industrial area where the water was bottled is the water in your bottled water. The most popular and cheapest brands are bottled tap water processed at your local coca cola or Pepsi bottling facility. Oh sure they might run it through a sediment filter and they might ozoneate the water before bottling but it's a crap shoot on that and generally none of what they do takes the residual chlorine out or any of the impurities present in the tap water (all the arsenic, iron, lead and other contaminants are still there).
I can understand buying bottled water for convenience, and I can even understand buying it occasionally for taste (typically all they do is add mineral content that's lacking in some non-ground water based tap water systems). But anyone that buys this shit because they think it's better than the stuff in their tap needs to stick to smoking rock rather than thinking. Bottled water is the biggest fucking scam in the world, they are taking your tap water, putting it in the bottle and selling to back to you at a higher price than gasoline and milk, and in fact usually higher than what the soda costs bottled in the same facility with the same water and bottles.
It's kinda funny actually how the soda industry turned around and convinced the public to buy the same bottled drinks from them without the CO2, sugar and flavorings at a higher price and it's nothing more than bottled tap water.
Years ago the US had the best water in the world. During the 50's we built and put in operation state of the art water treatment that made most US tap water the envy of the world for cleanliness of water and dramatically reduced natural soluble containments. The EPA standards for common contaminants is so low in many instances that tap water is cleaner than any water source in the state. Slowly this quality of water is being degraded, not by contamination or such, but because the populace has been unwilling to maintain and upgrade the treatment systems. They'd rather pay 40000% the price and have coca cola bottle up the same tap water rather than pay less than a penny a gallon to have the water system improved. Personally I blame the Baby Boomers and their incredibly selfish outlook on life. Most cities could bond out with a price increase in the penny per gallon range and build state of the art treatment plants and at the same time upgrade the piping infrastructure but these small water rate increases are invariably shot down by the public because they can't afford to pay $5 extra month when they are spending $100 a month on buying bottled tap water.
It's the Fed's (and most prosecutors) standard operating procedure to seize all monies that can be used for defense if the law can interpreted to allow the seizure. They do it ALL the time.
Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) is only passed down from the mother, meaning it's not sexually mixed. This DNA is also ONLY used in the mitochondria, the DNA doesn't affect a damn thing in your body outside the Mitochondria. So even if there are 4 women who originate an entire ethnic groups Mitochondria it says NOTHING about the sexual mixing of regular DNA that has occurred over those generations. So not only can you say nothing about intelligence based on mDNA but mDNA is worthless for anything other than paternity and descendence studies.
I won't even get into genetics versus environment and the studies that have shown intelligence, ambition and knowledge are as dependent on environment (upbringing) as they are on natural advantages.
Based on Apples previous usage of Design patents for rectangular with round corners I think it's perfectly appropriate to panic.
They will sue others, even if they look completely different as the Galaxy tab was not even the same size or shape and was sued. I'd expect that there will be a few dozen suits against Intel's new ultrabook standard in short order.
So you trust every single science paper you read? You do realize that to build consensus there has to be a whole lot of papers proven wrong, in fact probably more than a proven right in the long run. It's called consensus and to reach it takes a lot of time and a LOT of wrong answers.
Anyone that takes a single brand new publishing and holds it up as prima facia evidence is either a moron or has omipotent knowledge. Just cause your political ideology goes with what a paper says doesn't mean it is either right or that your position is.
In all the cases you listed the larger well armed force gave up not because they were "having their ass handed to them" but because they lost the will to fight. The British attitude was "why are we paying to defend those stupid Americans if they are this ungrateful" (yes the British were subsidizing the defense of the colonists) Most of the Battles with the British during the Revolution were nothing more than insignificant skirmishes to the British. They had much bigger fish to fry with the rest of their empire and the cost/benefit ratio of retaining the colonies was so far out of the realm of sanity they just threw in the towel. Having grown up in America history brainwashing 101 you may not be aware that at the time of the tea party the British were trying to find a way for the colonists to pay for the troops stationed in the colonies for their defense. From the British point of view they were throwing a lot of money down a hole for almost no benefit by leaving a standing army in the colonies for their defense. As an American I understand the talking points at the American side of the war so you don't need to go through the talking points on that side, just keep in mind that the British had a very different view of the American Revolution than the Americans did and the "war" wasn't that important or significant of an event to them. The British could have spent millions of pounds and tens of thousands of lives retaining the colonies (and probably would have succeeded in a drawn out conflict) but the colonies provided almost no benefit and the costs of a standing army in conflict were staggering so they simply walked away. Contrary to American History taught in our schools they never had their asses handed to them other than losing a few insignificant battles in a backwater by reserve forces trained to defend the colonists from Indians.
The US choose to leave Vietnam, not because we weren't winning every battle but because the natives were willing to keep fighting till the end of time and the American public lost the will to sustain the fight along with a Military that was refusing to fight.
And the French revolution is a terrible example, that's a civil war, where undoubtedly large chunks of the standing army fall to the opposing side as has happened millions of times.
I believed him when he said the same thing about the DOD bill that gave him the legal ability to detain a US citizen indefinitely and without right to petition the court. He signed that one too.
I'm a resident of Utah. The DEA has been talking about stuff like this literally since the technology came about. I'm not surprised they are trying to get the Legislature to authorize it, they just had to get a county to buy in on it. But I am surprised it took them this long to find a county willing. Frankly the counties do a LOT of seizures and probably make a tidy profit on it but these cameras are going to make the DEA more interested in letting people pass so they can track them later so that's probably why it took this long to get a county to buy in on the plan.
I-15 through Utah carries something like 60% of the drugs coming out of LA destined for the rest of the country. You might not be familiar with the geography but unless you are willing to drive on 300+ miles of dirt roads I-15 and I-10 are the only reasonable transit corridors out of LA to the rest of the country (unless you wanna drive from LA to Sacramento and come out on I-80). There just aren't that many roads across the Sierra's and as a result I-15 before it reaches I-70 becomes an ideal candidate for scanning and data collection. All you'd need is another camera in Arizona before it reaches Phoenix and you could cover almost 100% of the drug traffic out of southern California.
As I said, there's been articles every few months in the local papers talking about it for the last couple decades with a big focus on tracking repeat users of the highway the last few years. As soon as I saw the report it wasn't hard to put it together.
The thing you aren't seeing and that isn't explained in the article is why. They want to cross-reference vehicles that come through the area multiple times and don't live in the area. They will then use this in a probable cause warrant.
Monopolies are NOT illegal. I swear to god this is one of the most misunderstood facets of US law. The Sherman Anti-Trust law establishes one illegal act. This is for a Trust (a business with a monopoly on a sector of the economy) to use that Trust to gain another Trust in a second business. In other words, it's illegal for Microsoft who has a monopoly in Operating Systems to use that Monopoly to gain a Monopoly in Internet Browsers.
The Sherman Anti-Trust act came about because the large Trusts of the early 20th century used their Trust to gain control of other businesses. Carnegie used his Trust in Railroads to gain a trust in Steel and Coal. Rockefeller used is Trust in Oil to manipulate early Automobiles, plastics and the petrochemical industry. JP Morgan used is Banking Trust to basically screw everyone.
It's not illegal to have a Trust or to gain a Trust unless you already have a Trust that you are using to gain a second one. The Sherman Anti-Trust act has as a penalty for abuse of a Trust in that it allows the government to forcibly break up the business into smaller pieces (or leavy a fine and restrict the business), but if you never abuse the Trust you can't be punished under the Act. Admittedly it's hard for a Trust NOT to abuse the Trust to further their business but it's not illegal to have a Trust.
You're way off into hyperbole. The OP is right, the vast majority of the NRA's funding comes from members. Those members are people that own and use guns. Just because you don't know any NRA members doesn't mean they aren't all around you. The NRA is actually one of the largest member organizations in the US, dwarfed only by the AARP. I personally know half a dozen members, and let me tell you they are all rabid anti gun control.
I don't support the NRA (or some of their positions) but I agree with them that in general gun control is a bad thing. And as a person that lives in the western US I can tell you very affirmatively that outside most major metro areas the people that are members of the NRA are more common than those that aren't. This is particularly true the more rural the area is. It doesn't help that the NRA appeals to those that believe the yuppies in the cities are trying to tell them how to live their lives.
But if people don't subscribe because they are downloading it HBO WILL cancel the series. This is pay TV people, if you don't pay for it the pay TV station has no incentive to keep producing the show. A series like Game of Thrones is VERY expensive to produce and I guarantee if HBO isn't seeing the subscription revenue on it they will kill the series before they finish the books.
So if you love the show and will be pissed if it's canceled but don't subscribe remember to blame yourself when it's canceled.
Oh and one other thing, Time Warner and HBO are the most likely content players to go the RIAA route and start suing downloaders. I wouldn't be surprised if they are collecting evidence right now.
Yes, you should tailor your investments to your willingness to risk the money. But if you invest in something you have an emotional attachment to you are going to lose money when you should have dropped the stock because the fundamentals indicated you should. You can't be emotional when you invest, you have to be rational and focused on facts. Investing in something you are passionate about can ONLY be successful if you can detach your passion from your investment strategy.
In all honesty I read your post that you are clearly emotionally involved in the investment. You will inevitably downplay bad news or indicators and emphasize insignificant good indicators or news. In the end you'll probably double down in a decline when you should be selling and you'll end up losing your shirt. I speak from experience here. Don't ever invest in something you can't be 100% rational about.
The moment they change things in a way to monetize the system is the day users leave in droves to an alternative. They put those ad's front and center, or make you start watching video's to access your wall or any other of a million things that could make them more money and they are going to drive people away.
Maybe they will develop some new neat AI that can figure out when people are about to be in the market for a product and sell advertising to companies that sell that product but I wouldn't bet $1 on that. I'd wager significant money that they have maximized their revenue generation at this point and any attempt to increase it is only going to drive users to alternative platforms.
There is value in the number of people on the platform but it's not difficult to create these communities, the sheer number of them that we've been through at this point is evidence of that. FB has been remarkably deft at advancing features enough to stay at the top but the minute they start annoying users with advertising is the minute people create google plus accounts and start using them. All the evidence indicates FB ads are far less effective than other souces, and that's not a good sign for the future of this company.
Passenger vehicles necessitate about a 4 inch thickness on Portland Cement Concrete Pavement. Big trucks have brought interstate pavement thickness up to 14 inches or so. The original poster is a bit off because it's not just loading but friction wear as well, but without heavy trucking the interstates would be far cheaper to build and maintain and would last far longer. The gas and diesel tax are about the same, but the tax essentially forces a per mile tax rather than a per damage tax. Though the states try to compensate for this by charging high load fees at the port of entry, but this only effects interstate trucking and not in state trucking.
In general the OP exaggerated a bit with his 99% figure, but the real figure is probably about 90%. Pavement design is dictated by truck loads, passenger loads though included in the calculation barely affect pavement thicknesses.
They TRIED to create a private bankruptcy. Without government intervention in the form of government back loans GM would have gone chapter 7 instead of chapter 11 with all their assets sold (probably to the Chinese who happily buy up the factories and ship them to china).
People like you don't get it, there was no money because the banks were in danger of collapse as well, they weren't going to put together 30 billion that GM needed, nor did they when GM tried that route. You aren't going to get a private equity partner at those kind of dollar values. If you need a couple hundred million the VC and private equity marketsharks are happy to help, but you start talking in the billions and there simply aren't players with that kind of money on the table. GM alone with all their suppliers included accounts for about 5 million jobs. Chrysler is another million or two and Automobiles are actually one of Americas few remaining factory exports. The damage a collapse of the industry and transfer of the factories and jobs to China would have devastated the US.
The Reason the US doesn't attack North Korea is twofold. The first being NK presents no tangible threat to the US. They've been trying to build that threat so we will take their threats seriously (and give them what they want) but they continue to fail at ICBM's. Second reason is that NK has about 50,000 ordinary artillery pieces within range of Seoul, a city of more than 10 million. Within 5 minutes NK could kill several million people with conventional artillery barrages. There is no doubt in anyones mind that if it came to war SK could at this time decimate NK, but the cost to SK would be VERY high (millions of casualties and decimate their industrial might). This is partly the reason the US troops stationed in SK are now several hundred miles from DMZ with the SK army taking the lead point of defense.
Now on to the History. China didn't give two wits about NK and certainly didn't invade and defend NK for the silly reason of a united Korea with US backing (Sino-US relations had always been reasonable up to that point, even under the Communists and the US acting like babies about Commies). China invaded for several reasons but two are the most important. The first is that after Patton launched the amphibious landing behind NK lines and decimated the NK Army he started talking about not stopping at Pyongyang and continuing on to Beijing. (Yes, he did talk publicly about invading China). This brings up the second reason, because of Patton's statements the Chinese issued an ultimatum to the US that if UN forces approached within 300 miles of the Chinese border that China would be forced to retaliate. Patton and the US ignored the warning and proceeded on to within IIRC about 50 miles of the border (and ran right into the 300,000 troops China had snuck into NK). Patton was fired after this, partly for his failure to take the Chinese threat seriously and partly because he started publicly talking about Nuking Beijing as retaliation. The rest is history but to sum up, the reason China invaded was because they believed that they were under threat from invasion if for no other reason than the top general of the UN forces was talking publicly about doing it. The Chinese believed they were defending mainland China from invasion by US forces.
It is possible to teach the dogs not to fight rather than relegating them to eternal separation. You should look into it, if you care about them you spend the time and money it takes to teach them to not be afraid of each other.
My lab was attacked, for as best I can guess not being submissive enough to another dog, and has been suspicious of other dogs to the point of growling and getting ready to fight when they are around. I don't tolerate that behavior and I get very loud and simulate major angry when she does this and I've been very encouraging and supporting when she's scared but not being aggressive. After about a year I got her to relax around a strange dog and she almost started playing with them. I think I've still got aways to go (before she forgets being attacked) but I just want to emphasize that you can train this aggression out of them, though it will be harder given the breed (pit bulls have defensive tendencies). The first thing you need to do is follow the first rule of dog training which is don't tolerate growling at all, it's a sign of aggression. If you're the alpha in the pack you can make them learn to get along, you might need professional trainers to help you learn how to do it though.
Slashdot Mirror
Her intent was that an uncle was going to take it with him and give it to the cousin. Now all the publicity has pretty much guaranteed that said uncle will have every possession itemized on departure and if they return without items which fall under the embargo list said uncle will be prosecuted.
Sometimes publicity is a bad idea, particularly when you plan to violate US law and then complain that someone else didn't want to help you do it and become an accomplice. This stupid girl has guaranteed that ICE is going to give them the highest scrutiny possible for all travel outside the US. Her parents should be absolutely furious with her.
The wheels on the tracks spark. It's not common, and it's not normally dangerous. But in the west in tinderbox conditions the grass is usually up to and around the rails these days. This is in part because the grass out here is extremely virulent to harsh soil conditions (the blast furnace slag that makes up the rail road bed) and in part because the railroads no longer try to manage vegetation in the road bed.
Thus a track spark these days has a very small probability of causing a fire. But at several hundred trains a day with more than a mile of cars per train thats a lot of chances so you get several rail caused fires a year in normal conditions and more during tinderbox conditions like now.
Just moved to Utah eh? As a long time resident I can tell you with certainty that you don't have a CLUE who does and doesn't own a firearm.
If you wanna be technical about it, an act of war doesn't start a war. It can, but it doesn't have to, and in fact is totally on the country the act of war was committed against and how they respond to the act of war. See if you want to get technical, an Act of War is just an action that justifies war, it neither starts nor commits a nation to war. Iran won't respond to this act of war by declaring war because they know the US will hand their asses to them in rather short order and may possibly overthrow the regime and that's all the regime cares about, maintaining power.
The UK sponsored and the US assisted with the Shah overthrowing the elected government. The UK was the prime player in this because they were the former colonial power. As a result, all the brainwashing done on every Iranian citizen about how evil the west is focuses on the UK and US. When something bad happens the natural response is to tap into all that brainwashing and blame the US and UK along with Israel (whom every leader in the mideast blamed for every problem for decades). So it doesn't matter what's happened, if someone is being blamed for something it's ALWAYS the US, UK and Israel. Doesn't matter what it is or even if it's related or not.
And from my point of view I see a female prosecutor that's made a career out of prosecuting men for "rape" (Swedish definition) who saw a case dropped that fit her typical profile on a high profile target that would not only bring attention but full on front page press stories about the issue. She then reopened the case with the hope of prosecuting said famous person with the hope that all the attention this would bring would raise the issue in the minds of Swedish public and bring not only political but public attention to an issue she finds highly important.
Personally I don't think the CIA is either that smart or effective and I think the Swedes are far less likely to hand Assange over than the UK ever was and they didn't even ask for him. I also don't think (regardless of all the table banging by US politico's) that the US government even wants to try to do anything to Assange because they don't believe they could ever convict him of anything given US press freedom laws.
You listed a lot of benefits of bottled water.
Did you know that bottled water is 95% of the time bottled tap water? (there are very few brands that are genuine untreated spring water, most that claim spring water are less than 10% spring water or the spring being counted is feeding the tap water) Often from the scummiest and oldest drinking system in the city that serves the industrial area where the water was bottled is the water in your bottled water. The most popular and cheapest brands are bottled tap water processed at your local coca cola or Pepsi bottling facility. Oh sure they might run it through a sediment filter and they might ozoneate the water before bottling but it's a crap shoot on that and generally none of what they do takes the residual chlorine out or any of the impurities present in the tap water (all the arsenic, iron, lead and other contaminants are still there).
I can understand buying bottled water for convenience, and I can even understand buying it occasionally for taste (typically all they do is add mineral content that's lacking in some non-ground water based tap water systems). But anyone that buys this shit because they think it's better than the stuff in their tap needs to stick to smoking rock rather than thinking. Bottled water is the biggest fucking scam in the world, they are taking your tap water, putting it in the bottle and selling to back to you at a higher price than gasoline and milk, and in fact usually higher than what the soda costs bottled in the same facility with the same water and bottles.
It's kinda funny actually how the soda industry turned around and convinced the public to buy the same bottled drinks from them without the CO2, sugar and flavorings at a higher price and it's nothing more than bottled tap water.
Years ago the US had the best water in the world. During the 50's we built and put in operation state of the art water treatment that made most US tap water the envy of the world for cleanliness of water and dramatically reduced natural soluble containments. The EPA standards for common contaminants is so low in many instances that tap water is cleaner than any water source in the state. Slowly this quality of water is being degraded, not by contamination or such, but because the populace has been unwilling to maintain and upgrade the treatment systems. They'd rather pay 40000% the price and have coca cola bottle up the same tap water rather than pay less than a penny a gallon to have the water system improved. Personally I blame the Baby Boomers and their incredibly selfish outlook on life. Most cities could bond out with a price increase in the penny per gallon range and build state of the art treatment plants and at the same time upgrade the piping infrastructure but these small water rate increases are invariably shot down by the public because they can't afford to pay $5 extra month when they are spending $100 a month on buying bottled tap water.
It's the Fed's (and most prosecutors) standard operating procedure to seize all monies that can be used for defense if the law can interpreted to allow the seizure. They do it ALL the time.
Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) is only passed down from the mother, meaning it's not sexually mixed. This DNA is also ONLY used in the mitochondria, the DNA doesn't affect a damn thing in your body outside the Mitochondria. So even if there are 4 women who originate an entire ethnic groups Mitochondria it says NOTHING about the sexual mixing of regular DNA that has occurred over those generations. So not only can you say nothing about intelligence based on mDNA but mDNA is worthless for anything other than paternity and descendence studies.
I won't even get into genetics versus environment and the studies that have shown intelligence, ambition and knowledge are as dependent on environment (upbringing) as they are on natural advantages.
Based on Apples previous usage of Design patents for rectangular with round corners I think it's perfectly appropriate to panic.
They will sue others, even if they look completely different as the Galaxy tab was not even the same size or shape and was sued. I'd expect that there will be a few dozen suits against Intel's new ultrabook standard in short order.
So you trust every single science paper you read? You do realize that to build consensus there has to be a whole lot of papers proven wrong, in fact probably more than a proven right in the long run. It's called consensus and to reach it takes a lot of time and a LOT of wrong answers.
Anyone that takes a single brand new publishing and holds it up as prima facia evidence is either a moron or has omipotent knowledge. Just cause your political ideology goes with what a paper says doesn't mean it is either right or that your position is.
In all the cases you listed the larger well armed force gave up not because they were "having their ass handed to them" but because they lost the will to fight. The British attitude was "why are we paying to defend those stupid Americans if they are this ungrateful" (yes the British were subsidizing the defense of the colonists) Most of the Battles with the British during the Revolution were nothing more than insignificant skirmishes to the British. They had much bigger fish to fry with the rest of their empire and the cost/benefit ratio of retaining the colonies was so far out of the realm of sanity they just threw in the towel. Having grown up in America history brainwashing 101 you may not be aware that at the time of the tea party the British were trying to find a way for the colonists to pay for the troops stationed in the colonies for their defense. From the British point of view they were throwing a lot of money down a hole for almost no benefit by leaving a standing army in the colonies for their defense. As an American I understand the talking points at the American side of the war so you don't need to go through the talking points on that side, just keep in mind that the British had a very different view of the American Revolution than the Americans did and the "war" wasn't that important or significant of an event to them. The British could have spent millions of pounds and tens of thousands of lives retaining the colonies (and probably would have succeeded in a drawn out conflict) but the colonies provided almost no benefit and the costs of a standing army in conflict were staggering so they simply walked away. Contrary to American History taught in our schools they never had their asses handed to them other than losing a few insignificant battles in a backwater by reserve forces trained to defend the colonists from Indians.
The US choose to leave Vietnam, not because we weren't winning every battle but because the natives were willing to keep fighting till the end of time and the American public lost the will to sustain the fight along with a Military that was refusing to fight.
And the French revolution is a terrible example, that's a civil war, where undoubtedly large chunks of the standing army fall to the opposing side as has happened millions of times.
I believed him when he said the same thing about the DOD bill that gave him the legal ability to detain a US citizen indefinitely and without right to petition the court. He signed that one too.
I'm a resident of Utah. The DEA has been talking about stuff like this literally since the technology came about. I'm not surprised they are trying to get the Legislature to authorize it, they just had to get a county to buy in on it. But I am surprised it took them this long to find a county willing. Frankly the counties do a LOT of seizures and probably make a tidy profit on it but these cameras are going to make the DEA more interested in letting people pass so they can track them later so that's probably why it took this long to get a county to buy in on the plan.
I-15 through Utah carries something like 60% of the drugs coming out of LA destined for the rest of the country. You might not be familiar with the geography but unless you are willing to drive on 300+ miles of dirt roads I-15 and I-10 are the only reasonable transit corridors out of LA to the rest of the country (unless you wanna drive from LA to Sacramento and come out on I-80). There just aren't that many roads across the Sierra's and as a result I-15 before it reaches I-70 becomes an ideal candidate for scanning and data collection. All you'd need is another camera in Arizona before it reaches Phoenix and you could cover almost 100% of the drug traffic out of southern California.
As I said, there's been articles every few months in the local papers talking about it for the last couple decades with a big focus on tracking repeat users of the highway the last few years. As soon as I saw the report it wasn't hard to put it together.
The thing you aren't seeing and that isn't explained in the article is why. They want to cross-reference vehicles that come through the area multiple times and don't live in the area. They will then use this in a probable cause warrant.
Think about that and what it means.
Monopolies are NOT illegal. I swear to god this is one of the most misunderstood facets of US law. The Sherman Anti-Trust law establishes one illegal act. This is for a Trust (a business with a monopoly on a sector of the economy) to use that Trust to gain another Trust in a second business. In other words, it's illegal for Microsoft who has a monopoly in Operating Systems to use that Monopoly to gain a Monopoly in Internet Browsers.
The Sherman Anti-Trust act came about because the large Trusts of the early 20th century used their Trust to gain control of other businesses. Carnegie used his Trust in Railroads to gain a trust in Steel and Coal. Rockefeller used is Trust in Oil to manipulate early Automobiles, plastics and the petrochemical industry. JP Morgan used is Banking Trust to basically screw everyone.
It's not illegal to have a Trust or to gain a Trust unless you already have a Trust that you are using to gain a second one. The Sherman Anti-Trust act has as a penalty for abuse of a Trust in that it allows the government to forcibly break up the business into smaller pieces (or leavy a fine and restrict the business), but if you never abuse the Trust you can't be punished under the Act. Admittedly it's hard for a Trust NOT to abuse the Trust to further their business but it's not illegal to have a Trust.
You're way off into hyperbole. The OP is right, the vast majority of the NRA's funding comes from members. Those members are people that own and use guns. Just because you don't know any NRA members doesn't mean they aren't all around you. The NRA is actually one of the largest member organizations in the US, dwarfed only by the AARP. I personally know half a dozen members, and let me tell you they are all rabid anti gun control.
I don't support the NRA (or some of their positions) but I agree with them that in general gun control is a bad thing. And as a person that lives in the western US I can tell you very affirmatively that outside most major metro areas the people that are members of the NRA are more common than those that aren't. This is particularly true the more rural the area is. It doesn't help that the NRA appeals to those that believe the yuppies in the cities are trying to tell them how to live their lives.
But if people don't subscribe because they are downloading it HBO WILL cancel the series. This is pay TV people, if you don't pay for it the pay TV station has no incentive to keep producing the show. A series like Game of Thrones is VERY expensive to produce and I guarantee if HBO isn't seeing the subscription revenue on it they will kill the series before they finish the books.
So if you love the show and will be pissed if it's canceled but don't subscribe remember to blame yourself when it's canceled.
Oh and one other thing, Time Warner and HBO are the most likely content players to go the RIAA route and start suing downloaders. I wouldn't be surprised if they are collecting evidence right now.
Yes, you should tailor your investments to your willingness to risk the money. But if you invest in something you have an emotional attachment to you are going to lose money when you should have dropped the stock because the fundamentals indicated you should. You can't be emotional when you invest, you have to be rational and focused on facts. Investing in something you are passionate about can ONLY be successful if you can detach your passion from your investment strategy.
In all honesty I read your post that you are clearly emotionally involved in the investment. You will inevitably downplay bad news or indicators and emphasize insignificant good indicators or news. In the end you'll probably double down in a decline when you should be selling and you'll end up losing your shirt. I speak from experience here. Don't ever invest in something you can't be 100% rational about.
The moment they change things in a way to monetize the system is the day users leave in droves to an alternative. They put those ad's front and center, or make you start watching video's to access your wall or any other of a million things that could make them more money and they are going to drive people away.
Maybe they will develop some new neat AI that can figure out when people are about to be in the market for a product and sell advertising to companies that sell that product but I wouldn't bet $1 on that. I'd wager significant money that they have maximized their revenue generation at this point and any attempt to increase it is only going to drive users to alternative platforms.
There is value in the number of people on the platform but it's not difficult to create these communities, the sheer number of them that we've been through at this point is evidence of that. FB has been remarkably deft at advancing features enough to stay at the top but the minute they start annoying users with advertising is the minute people create google plus accounts and start using them. All the evidence indicates FB ads are far less effective than other souces, and that's not a good sign for the future of this company.
Passenger vehicles necessitate about a 4 inch thickness on Portland Cement Concrete Pavement. Big trucks have brought interstate pavement thickness up to 14 inches or so. The original poster is a bit off because it's not just loading but friction wear as well, but without heavy trucking the interstates would be far cheaper to build and maintain and would last far longer. The gas and diesel tax are about the same, but the tax essentially forces a per mile tax rather than a per damage tax. Though the states try to compensate for this by charging high load fees at the port of entry, but this only effects interstate trucking and not in state trucking.
In general the OP exaggerated a bit with his 99% figure, but the real figure is probably about 90%. Pavement design is dictated by truck loads, passenger loads though included in the calculation barely affect pavement thicknesses.
Buttle actually. Where's my refund?
They TRIED to create a private bankruptcy. Without government intervention in the form of government back loans GM would have gone chapter 7 instead of chapter 11 with all their assets sold (probably to the Chinese who happily buy up the factories and ship them to china).
People like you don't get it, there was no money because the banks were in danger of collapse as well, they weren't going to put together 30 billion that GM needed, nor did they when GM tried that route. You aren't going to get a private equity partner at those kind of dollar values. If you need a couple hundred million the VC and private equity marketsharks are happy to help, but you start talking in the billions and there simply aren't players with that kind of money on the table. GM alone with all their suppliers included accounts for about 5 million jobs. Chrysler is another million or two and Automobiles are actually one of Americas few remaining factory exports. The damage a collapse of the industry and transfer of the factories and jobs to China would have devastated the US.
So much Fail.
The Reason the US doesn't attack North Korea is twofold. The first being NK presents no tangible threat to the US. They've been trying to build that threat so we will take their threats seriously (and give them what they want) but they continue to fail at ICBM's. Second reason is that NK has about 50,000 ordinary artillery pieces within range of Seoul, a city of more than 10 million. Within 5 minutes NK could kill several million people with conventional artillery barrages. There is no doubt in anyones mind that if it came to war SK could at this time decimate NK, but the cost to SK would be VERY high (millions of casualties and decimate their industrial might). This is partly the reason the US troops stationed in SK are now several hundred miles from DMZ with the SK army taking the lead point of defense.
Now on to the History. China didn't give two wits about NK and certainly didn't invade and defend NK for the silly reason of a united Korea with US backing (Sino-US relations had always been reasonable up to that point, even under the Communists and the US acting like babies about Commies). China invaded for several reasons but two are the most important. The first is that after Patton launched the amphibious landing behind NK lines and decimated the NK Army he started talking about not stopping at Pyongyang and continuing on to Beijing. (Yes, he did talk publicly about invading China). This brings up the second reason, because of Patton's statements the Chinese issued an ultimatum to the US that if UN forces approached within 300 miles of the Chinese border that China would be forced to retaliate. Patton and the US ignored the warning and proceeded on to within IIRC about 50 miles of the border (and ran right into the 300,000 troops China had snuck into NK). Patton was fired after this, partly for his failure to take the Chinese threat seriously and partly because he started publicly talking about Nuking Beijing as retaliation. The rest is history but to sum up, the reason China invaded was because they believed that they were under threat from invasion if for no other reason than the top general of the UN forces was talking publicly about doing it. The Chinese believed they were defending mainland China from invasion by US forces.
It is possible to teach the dogs not to fight rather than relegating them to eternal separation. You should look into it, if you care about them you spend the time and money it takes to teach them to not be afraid of each other.
My lab was attacked, for as best I can guess not being submissive enough to another dog, and has been suspicious of other dogs to the point of growling and getting ready to fight when they are around. I don't tolerate that behavior and I get very loud and simulate major angry when she does this and I've been very encouraging and supporting when she's scared but not being aggressive. After about a year I got her to relax around a strange dog and she almost started playing with them. I think I've still got aways to go (before she forgets being attacked) but I just want to emphasize that you can train this aggression out of them, though it will be harder given the breed (pit bulls have defensive tendencies). The first thing you need to do is follow the first rule of dog training which is don't tolerate growling at all, it's a sign of aggression. If you're the alpha in the pack you can make them learn to get along, you might need professional trainers to help you learn how to do it though.