That's cherry picking the region, since NOAA says Antarctica is gaining ice mass overall. You're looking at a tiny area of the continent, and worrying about it. Furthermore, Western Antarctica is also the site of a lot of geothermal activity which could very well be why it is losing ice. But the continent, as a whole, is gaining.
I believe before we start figuring out how to "dig deeper" we should try doing what we said we'd do in the first place. If the police had done what the existing laws said - it probably would have stopped this latest shooting. More laws and regulations do nothing if they're followed about as well as existing laws and regulations are followed...
Apparently, the latest shooter had a brush with law enforcement about 10 weeks ago, over brandishing firearms and threatening to shoot people. But the police in Broward County decided to let him off the hook because he had a tough life. Imagine if they actually had done what the law required (at least arrest, and conduct an investigation about ownership of the firearms), there might be 17 more children alive today.
But hey, let's not worry about warning signs like threatening to shoot people, let's focus on an inanimate object instead.
Yes, if you want to break the law, you can do it! How do you stop people breaking the law? It's already illegal to take any firearm onto school property, and it's definitely illegal to commit murder...
So, just how easy is it in the US to get military-grade automatic weapons? You realize it's incredibly difficult, highly regulated by the Federal Government, and if you CAN find one and get the tax paperwork ironed out, it's going to cost you tens of thousands of dollars to just buy the weapon in the first place.
No, it can't. Nothing in there even hints at the need for a standing militia. Nothing. It does say you need a militia (NOT standing - that is non-existent) to guarantee a free state, and that the rights to own arms shall not (not should not) be infringed. If you want to tie the two phrases together, the ownership of arms is a necessity for a militia. And a militia is the only way to guarantee a free society. Nothing about standing, nothing about required.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
You cannot have a free state without a militia, and to guarantee that,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
You block the rights of people to keep and bear arms, you defeat the ability to have a militia and thus guarantee a free state. In other words - remove arms, you necessarily eliminate freedom. You do not need the militia to be standing, but to be able to organize it, you must first have armed citizens. Why do you hate freedom, why do you hate the Constitution?
Here's the last ~12 years of profit for Amazon on a quarterly basis. It appears, to me, that Amazon has been profitable 42 of the last 49 quarters. That seems to be a bit different than the meme you're trying to push - a company that is almost always profitable (6 out of 7 quarters), versus one that has never turned a profit - and is a LONG way from doing so, too.
So with revenues of $6.5 billion, to have a loss of $4.5 billion means they spent at least $11 billion (they would have to spend all their revenue to reach $0 income, and spend another $4.5 billion to lose that much). They are spending nearly twice their revenue right now; assuming spending is held flat, they will need to nearly double revenue just to break even.
What decent schematics capture/PCB layout package is on Linux? Altium is nearly an industry standard, and it runs on Windows only. OrCAD schematic capture is Windows only. As far as I know, PADS is also Windows only.
My facts and data are 100% correct; you don't like it, so you shifted the discussion. The Federal Government, per capita and adjusted for inflation, collects over twice the revenue now than it did in the 60s. Prove I'm wrong. Prove that statement is wrong. Go ahead - I'll wait.
OK, who pays corporate taxes? HINT: corporations COLLECT all taxes from their consumers... The bottom line is that my statement was 100% correct, and you want to twist it. The Federal Government, today, makes twice per person, per capita (adjusted for inflation) than it did back in the 60s - and we are running much bigger deficits as well.
Congrats! You posted data that doesn't relate to my claim! In 1960, the Federal Government had $93 billion in tax receipts; in inflation adjusted dollars, that would be about $770 billion. Population in 1960 was 180 million, it's about 330 million today. Meaning that, if the Federal Government had the same per-capita tax, adjusted for inflation, it would take in about $1.4 trillion. Of course, it took in $3.3 trillion in 2016, so more than double what would have been, adjusting for inflation and population. And our deficits have skyrocketed too, even though the Federal Government is taking in over twice per person what it was back in the 1960s.
By the way, the top marginal tax rates throughout the 60s was 70% to 91% - about double what you claim...
The polyurethane ring on the bottom of most other speakers don't have that issue. Most grades of silicone will consistently leach a small amount of oil, as compared to urethanes or other polymers. Sounds like a poor choice of materials...
It's also worth noting that, per capita and adjusted for inflation, a typical taxpayer in the 60s paid about half what a typical taxpayer pays now. So not only has the effective tax rate increased (Government is collecting two dollars per person, rather than 1 dollar per person - again, adjusted for inflation), but our deficits have skyrocketed. It really is the spending that is the issue - not revenue.
Budget surplus, yes. Actual surplus? Nope. Look at the national debt - it's increased every year since 1957. But when you can push some spending "off budget", it gets easier to claim a budget surplus.
The papers cited at my link are in peer reviewed journals. And TFA was about an increasing acceleration of sea level, not a decreasing acceleration as you now admit is happening. Your attitude is about as anti-science as can be. But that's pretty common around here for ACs, isn't it?
I believe Zimbabwe sets the gold standard by having inflation increase form 48% in 1998 to 79 BILLION percent (yes, 79,000,000,000%) just 10 years later. I believe it was worse than the old Wiemar Republic inflation, and economic collapse.
What is a bit funny is that there were more than 248 forecasters at the NWS. How many are needed to forecast the weather, given the technology available today? I would have thought a few dozen would be sufficient, and that would also provide redundancy for vacations, sick leave, etc.
Perhaps because there is precious little money to be made in fiber to the home? I would wager that 95% of Internet users want fast download, and essentially zero for upload speed. Something that cable and DSL are great for doing - 100-200 Mbps down, and 5-10 Mbps up. Do that - and you've taken care of the vast majority of people, and the few who want more - well, you can get it, it's just not cheap...
Record of Federal debt, to the penny. About $10.625 trillion to $19.947 trillion when he left office. That's about $9.32 trillion over 8 years - a bit more than $1.16 trillion a year, for 8 years.
Slashdot Mirror
GRACE data would be affected by a magma plume. Like what is documented to be happening under West Antarctica.
That's cherry picking the region, since NOAA says Antarctica is gaining ice mass overall. You're looking at a tiny area of the continent, and worrying about it. Furthermore, Western Antarctica is also the site of a lot of geothermal activity which could very well be why it is losing ice. But the continent, as a whole, is gaining.
I believe before we start figuring out how to "dig deeper" we should try doing what we said we'd do in the first place. If the police had done what the existing laws said - it probably would have stopped this latest shooting. More laws and regulations do nothing if they're followed about as well as existing laws and regulations are followed...
You mean to like how it was back before mid-2015? And has been ever since?
Apparently, the latest shooter had a brush with law enforcement about 10 weeks ago, over brandishing firearms and threatening to shoot people. But the police in Broward County decided to let him off the hook because he had a tough life. Imagine if they actually had done what the law required (at least arrest, and conduct an investigation about ownership of the firearms), there might be 17 more children alive today.
But hey, let's not worry about warning signs like threatening to shoot people, let's focus on an inanimate object instead.
Yes, if you want to break the law, you can do it! How do you stop people breaking the law? It's already illegal to take any firearm onto school property, and it's definitely illegal to commit murder...
So, just how easy is it in the US to get military-grade automatic weapons? You realize it's incredibly difficult, highly regulated by the Federal Government, and if you CAN find one and get the tax paperwork ironed out, it's going to cost you tens of thousands of dollars to just buy the weapon in the first place.
No, it can't. Nothing in there even hints at the need for a standing militia. Nothing. It does say you need a militia (NOT standing - that is non-existent) to guarantee a free state, and that the rights to own arms shall not (not should not) be infringed. If you want to tie the two phrases together, the ownership of arms is a necessity for a militia. And a militia is the only way to guarantee a free society. Nothing about standing, nothing about required.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
You cannot have a free state without a militia, and to guarantee that,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
You block the rights of people to keep and bear arms, you defeat the ability to have a militia and thus guarantee a free state. In other words - remove arms, you necessarily eliminate freedom. You do not need the militia to be standing, but to be able to organize it, you must first have armed citizens. Why do you hate freedom, why do you hate the Constitution?
At one time they considered segregation and slavery legal. The SCOTUS was wrong. They are also wrong on several other things, too...
Here's the last ~12 years of profit for Amazon on a quarterly basis. It appears, to me, that Amazon has been profitable 42 of the last 49 quarters. That seems to be a bit different than the meme you're trying to push - a company that is almost always profitable (6 out of 7 quarters), versus one that has never turned a profit - and is a LONG way from doing so, too.
So with revenues of $6.5 billion, to have a loss of $4.5 billion means they spent at least $11 billion (they would have to spend all their revenue to reach $0 income, and spend another $4.5 billion to lose that much). They are spending nearly twice their revenue right now; assuming spending is held flat, they will need to nearly double revenue just to break even.
What decent schematics capture/PCB layout package is on Linux? Altium is nearly an industry standard, and it runs on Windows only. OrCAD schematic capture is Windows only. As far as I know, PADS is also Windows only.
My facts and data are 100% correct; you don't like it, so you shifted the discussion. The Federal Government, per capita and adjusted for inflation, collects over twice the revenue now than it did in the 60s. Prove I'm wrong. Prove that statement is wrong. Go ahead - I'll wait.
OK, who pays corporate taxes? HINT: corporations COLLECT all taxes from their consumers... The bottom line is that my statement was 100% correct, and you want to twist it. The Federal Government, today, makes twice per person, per capita (adjusted for inflation) than it did back in the 60s - and we are running much bigger deficits as well.
Congrats! You posted data that doesn't relate to my claim! In 1960, the Federal Government had $93 billion in tax receipts; in inflation adjusted dollars, that would be about $770 billion. Population in 1960 was 180 million, it's about 330 million today. Meaning that, if the Federal Government had the same per-capita tax, adjusted for inflation, it would take in about $1.4 trillion. Of course, it took in $3.3 trillion in 2016, so more than double what would have been, adjusting for inflation and population. And our deficits have skyrocketed too, even though the Federal Government is taking in over twice per person what it was back in the 1960s.
By the way, the top marginal tax rates throughout the 60s was 70% to 91% - about double what you claim...
The polyurethane ring on the bottom of most other speakers don't have that issue. Most grades of silicone will consistently leach a small amount of oil, as compared to urethanes or other polymers. Sounds like a poor choice of materials...
It's also worth noting that, per capita and adjusted for inflation, a typical taxpayer in the 60s paid about half what a typical taxpayer pays now. So not only has the effective tax rate increased (Government is collecting two dollars per person, rather than 1 dollar per person - again, adjusted for inflation), but our deficits have skyrocketed. It really is the spending that is the issue - not revenue.
Budget surplus, yes. Actual surplus? Nope. Look at the national debt - it's increased every year since 1957. But when you can push some spending "off budget", it gets easier to claim a budget surplus.
The papers cited at my link are in peer reviewed journals. And TFA was about an increasing acceleration of sea level, not a decreasing acceleration as you now admit is happening. Your attitude is about as anti-science as can be. But that's pretty common around here for ACs, isn't it?
I believe Zimbabwe sets the gold standard by having inflation increase form 48% in 1998 to 79 BILLION percent (yes, 79,000,000,000%) just 10 years later. I believe it was worse than the old Wiemar Republic inflation, and economic collapse.
What is a bit funny is that there were more than 248 forecasters at the NWS. How many are needed to forecast the weather, given the technology available today? I would have thought a few dozen would be sufficient, and that would also provide redundancy for vacations, sick leave, etc.
Here is an interesting take and it puts the budget into constant dollars. Might be a bit instructive...
Perhaps because there is precious little money to be made in fiber to the home? I would wager that 95% of Internet users want fast download, and essentially zero for upload speed. Something that cable and DSL are great for doing - 100-200 Mbps down, and 5-10 Mbps up. Do that - and you've taken care of the vast majority of people, and the few who want more - well, you can get it, it's just not cheap...
Record of Federal debt, to the penny. About $10.625 trillion to $19.947 trillion when he left office. That's about $9.32 trillion over 8 years - a bit more than $1.16 trillion a year, for 8 years.