Fair enough, except that marriage involves a lot more than a joint bank account. Health insurance, hospital visits, pensions, government benefits -- none of those things are subject to a simple "incorporation" contract drawn up between a couple. All California is doing is preventing (for instance) insurance companies from denying benefits to a gay partner where they would provide them for a straight partner.
The state's best performing stock belongs to SCO Group Inc., the Lindon-based software developer locked in legal disputes with IBM Corp. and Red Hat Inc. over allegations that parts of the Linux operating system are identical to SCO Group's Unix program.
SCO Group's shares are up 854 percent so far this year.
"We have become much more aggressive this year in protecting our intellectual property," SCO Group spokesman Blake Stowell said.
In addition, SCO Group reported its first-ever profits during the past two quarters and expects to report another profit next quarter. "We've also announced some big licensing deals," Stowell said.
There's also a dryer, less rah-rah note on the filing for extension here.
I believe that has to do with agreements between states, which circumvent the Commerce Clause since they're mutual voluntary agreements rather than imposed interstate tariffs.
So just put coded info on the receipt. Instead of printing out "Senator Knuckles" it could use the timestamp and voting machine number to generate an encrypted string.
Okay, you win. Neither weather.com nor the local news -- even the ones that advertise "AccuWeather Forecasts" -- give those kinds of numbers. They all round off.
It wasn't an "opinion," it was a hypothesis, and there was only one of them, albeit repeated.
Very educational. Thanks for taking the time to put together those links.
For the sake of being contentious, I'll say that it's silly to approach this particular problem with estimates, since the actual answer is readily available. It's like estimating how many bodies you could fit in your basement, when you have all their wallets right there in front of you.
The "some guy" was a meteorologist giving a lecture at the Museum of Natural History. I don't remember his name.
I wasn't disputing your 6%, just saying that we never get anything that precise here. Which is what leads me to believe that different methods may be used for different areas.
He wasn't my friend, he was some guy we met on a science class field trip.
Anecdotally, I have never ever seen anything like "6% chance of thunderstorms" here in New York. Probabilities are rounded to tenths, or twentieths at finest. And if thunderstorms are expected, the chance of rain is always 80-100%. It is possible that it's figured differently for different regions -- thunderstorms, for example, don't really "pop up" here, they develop someplace to the west or south and then roll on through. If it hasn't rained in New Jersey it won't be raining here.
Instead of making wild order-of-magnitude guesses based on the number of windows, you could have just looked it up. jetBlue flew its five millionth customer less than a month after the second anniversary of its inaugural flight, and its ten millionth this past January, before its third birthday.
Given the assumptions you were working with, the fact that your number happened to be right was purely accidental.
Could be, but it sounds like it's the NWS that's bullshitting. (My source was also a working meteorologist, btw.) They haven't been keeping detailed historical data long enough to make any meaningful assessment of past instances of "exactly these conditions." Also note the response to Cecil's version regarding the Pacific Northwest. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Ever been on an airplane? There's more than one window per row. Elsewhere on jetBlue's site we see that "JetBlue's A320 aircraft have a single-class configuration of 162 seats..." A four hundred seat aircraft is the 747.
"Chance of rain" in a weather forecast actually means "probability that you personally will get rained on," not "probability that it will rain somewhere in the area in question." Watch a time-lapse radar animation -- if those blobs travel across x% of the area, that's considered an x% chance of rain, even though the actual probability that rain will occur is 100%.
(And of course weather patterns are vastly more complicated than simple celestial mechanics.)
That would be a good point, except Apple Records isn't exactly in the music business itself anymore. The last new album was released in 1976, and the name has only been used on a few recent Beatles anthologies since then released by Capitol. I guess it still has some back-catalog rights, but Apple Records does not actually put out any of the music itself anymore.
You conflate "immoral" with "illegal," which is a grievous mistake.
But it's nice to know you wouldn't stoop to associate with such riff-raff as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, both of whom were famous for "break[ing] the law in the name of justice."
Except that counting doesn't involve memorizing every card played. You assign scores to ranges of cards (e.g. anything under an 8 is -1, 8 and over is +1) and keep track of the running tally. There's no shortage of ways to add complications, but the basic idea is the same in all counting schemes. None involve memorizing everything that comes out of the shoe (and none allow for that stupid scene in TV shows where the guy calls the next card down to the suit.)
More like if I get my foot in the door with X, it's only a little further to Y, and from there a short hop to Z, whereas skipping X and Y to go directly to Z would be impossible. For instance, the recent affirmative action ruling opens the way for future cases that may be broader in scope.
Escalades have them, and I see more Navigators with than without. All of them, including the Benz and BMW, are commonplace around here. But the reason I specifically mentioned SUVs was that their headlights are at eye level for other drivers, exacerbating the problem. Your SUV-backlash whining is misplaced.
Actually the sodium orange lighting is much less disruptive to night vision than the blue-white. In several New York City areas, including along the borders of Central park, they've installed these awful bright lights, apparently with the reasoning that more candlepower is better. The result is pools of bright broken up by impenetrably dark shadows, since one's eyes can't adjust fast enough. You get the same effect with xenon headlights on luxury SUVs -- they make everything a little brighter for their drivers, but blind everyone else on the road. Which is not to say that sodium orange is exactly aesthetically pleasing; gimme some nice 3200 tungsten any day.
(There should be a degree sign after 3200. Thanks for stripping special characters, Slashcode.)
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough, except that marriage involves a lot more than a joint bank account. Health insurance, hospital visits, pensions, government benefits -- none of those things are subject to a simple "incorporation" contract drawn up between a couple. All California is doing is preventing (for instance) insurance companies from denying benefits to a gay partner where they would provide them for a straight partner.
There's also a dryer, less rah-rah note on the filing for extension here.
I believe that has to do with agreements between states, which circumvent the Commerce Clause since they're mutual voluntary agreements rather than imposed interstate tariffs.
Molds aren't plants, they're fungi.
So just put coded info on the receipt. Instead of printing out "Senator Knuckles" it could use the timestamp and voting machine number to generate an encrypted string.
It wasn't an "opinion," it was a hypothesis, and there was only one of them, albeit repeated.
For the sake of being contentious, I'll say that it's silly to approach this particular problem with estimates, since the actual answer is readily available. It's like estimating how many bodies you could fit in your basement, when you have all their wallets right there in front of you.
I wasn't disputing your 6%, just saying that we never get anything that precise here. Which is what leads me to believe that different methods may be used for different areas.
Anecdotally, I have never ever seen anything like "6% chance of thunderstorms" here in New York. Probabilities are rounded to tenths, or twentieths at finest. And if thunderstorms are expected, the chance of rain is always 80-100%. It is possible that it's figured differently for different regions -- thunderstorms, for example, don't really "pop up" here, they develop someplace to the west or south and then roll on through. If it hasn't rained in New Jersey it won't be raining here.
Given the assumptions you were working with, the fact that your number happened to be right was purely accidental.
Could be, but it sounds like it's the NWS that's bullshitting. (My source was also a working meteorologist, btw.) They haven't been keeping detailed historical data long enough to make any meaningful assessment of past instances of "exactly these conditions." Also note the response to Cecil's version regarding the Pacific Northwest. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Ever been on an airplane? There's more than one window per row. Elsewhere on jetBlue's site we see that "JetBlue's A320 aircraft have a single-class configuration of 162 seats..." A four hundred seat aircraft is the 747.
"Chance of rain" in a weather forecast actually means "probability that you personally will get rained on," not "probability that it will rain somewhere in the area in question." Watch a time-lapse radar animation -- if those blobs travel across x% of the area, that's considered an x% chance of rain, even though the actual probability that rain will occur is 100%. (And of course weather patterns are vastly more complicated than simple celestial mechanics.)
This would be the same Blair who doggedly supported Bush in making the case for a war on Iraq? Some rabid leftist.
How did they get the car out of Canada? An American cop with a towtruck in Toronto has all the legal authority of a teenage carjacker.
Just wait till PGP is proclaimed to be a terrorist weapon.
That would be a good point, except Apple Records isn't exactly in the music business itself anymore. The last new album was released in 1976, and the name has only been used on a few recent Beatles anthologies since then released by Capitol. I guess it still has some back-catalog rights, but Apple Records does not actually put out any of the music itself anymore.
But it's nice to know you wouldn't stoop to associate with such riff-raff as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, both of whom were famous for "break[ing] the law in the name of justice."
Here's an example. (Work-safe, I promise.)
Except that counting doesn't involve memorizing every card played. You assign scores to ranges of cards (e.g. anything under an 8 is -1, 8 and over is +1) and keep track of the running tally. There's no shortage of ways to add complications, but the basic idea is the same in all counting schemes. None involve memorizing everything that comes out of the shoe (and none allow for that stupid scene in TV shows where the guy calls the next card down to the suit.)
More like if I get my foot in the door with X, it's only a little further to Y, and from there a short hop to Z, whereas skipping X and Y to go directly to Z would be impossible. For instance, the recent affirmative action ruling opens the way for future cases that may be broader in scope.
Thanks, you are correct. Still no reason to strip the HTML though.
Escalades have them, and I see more Navigators with than without. All of them, including the Benz and BMW, are commonplace around here. But the reason I specifically mentioned SUVs was that their headlights are at eye level for other drivers, exacerbating the problem. Your SUV-backlash whining is misplaced.
(There should be a degree sign after 3200. Thanks for stripping special characters, Slashcode.)
Hey, I read that web page too! And I even remembered how to spell "fallacies!"
Rhetorical fallacy sometimes, but in the world of jurisprudence not at all, since courts lend plenty of weight to precedent in making their decisions.