There are plenty of hydrophobic fabrics which will breathe air for pressure equalization, but will hold out water up to 3 meters depth (well past IP67 rating). If it is because its sealed, then it's just bad design flat out.
How does that relate to media bias? Seriously - are you trying to deny that giving debate questions ahead of the debate to only one candidate is somehow NOT an example of bias?
That Russian dossier, right? That was straight-up correct! Or how about Dan Rather's fake memos, which he even admitted were fake, and cost him his job? And having "the most respected name in news" - CNN - give questions ahead of the debate to one side? The only people who would say that those are NOT moves of bias - are biased themselves. Don't care what side you're on, giving the answers to one side and not the other is outright fraudulent and biased.
I would rather we simply enforce the immigration laws on the books, rather than illegally ignore them and castigate those who uphold the law. And for the record - my wife is an actual immigrant, we went through all the visas, then temp green card, then permanent green card, and now she takes her oath in January to become a US citizen. But hey, let's just ignore anyone who didn't do any of that, right?
Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. I just find it peculiar how many here - and most of the media - was silent when "their guy" was in the big chair. And now that President Trump is there, and completely LEGALLY rescinding President Obama's executive orders, it is somehow "unconstitutional".
No, I think you are missing the point. The media is already largely consolidated (90% owned by 6 corporations) and is overwhelmingly biased against Trump and the political right. How is it going to get much worse if it continues to consolidate?
Unfortunately the US doesn't get that same freedom. Even though we're 25% of the world's GDP, and only 17% of CO2 emissions, we're castigated because we emit relatively high amounts per person. Funny how that works...
So, much like a country that signs the Paris Accord (but admits that it cannot meet its own pledge) and then loudly trumpets that it signs that accord and denigrates those that choose to pull out - and are exceeding their original pledge. Basically style over substance.
They haven't yet released one full-screen phone. Unless you are cool calling a full screen one that has a big rectangular chunk pulled out of the top...
It is quite simple. First, make a phone that does not work below a certain temperature. Thus you force everyone into a smaller geographic region, say +/- 35 degrees off the equator. Next, make the display take on green lines, and you force people to avoid wilderness areas (since they may lose their now-green phone, because it is effectively camouflaged) so they all end up in urban areas. Once Apple has you constrained to those areas - control is greatly simplified!
And it also exceeds the technology of 99% of all homes in the US today, meaning he was a realist as well as a technologist. Someone who showed how to use technology in realistic manners that could be done within 20 to 40 years.
The DOE was created in 1977 - we did pretty well without it up until that time. Interesting to note, too, that the only nuclear power plant emergency we've had - Three Mile Island - happened after the creation of the DOE. Perhaps creating a big, overreaching, overarching Federal Department allows local/regional control to relax because "the Feds got it covered"...
Because the agreement does not include binding emission targets, or binding financial commitments beyond those contained in the UNFCCC, and can be implemented on the basis of existing law, President Obama chose to approve it by executive action.
So nothing binding on the US, thus there should be zero problem with the US changing its targets and its financial commitments. There was nothing there to begin with. Just a big show. Per the FAQ you posted.
DC v Heller says we can own a firearm in ready and operating condition for self defense. McDonald v Chicago found that that right was incorporated to the individual and that no level of Government may infringe on that right. No need to show up for militia training, that is an unconstitutional infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Per the US Supreme Court.
Maybe... it is around $500 million to send a person into space, and about $30,000 per pound of supplies they need. So whilst it may be a few dozen at the ISS, the cost per person is easily in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year per person.
Interesting article from National Geographic in the 1970s about the potential for a coming ice age. And how the law that kicked of the US Federal Government research into climate change was specifically about global warming - not climate change (meaning - the conclusion is foregone, how do we research it).
NASA wants to set max CO2 levels in the ISS at ~13X what it is on Earth right now. I think they have a bit of an interest in keeping astronauts clear-and-level headed, and apparently levels around 5000ppm are acceptable. Given most navies allow up to 8000ppm long-term in their submarines, it's probably a safe level for critical thinking,
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of hydrophobic fabrics which will breathe air for pressure equalization, but will hold out water up to 3 meters depth (well past IP67 rating). If it is because its sealed, then it's just bad design flat out.
There may be consequences because of that..
Only in Australia...
How does that relate to media bias? Seriously - are you trying to deny that giving debate questions ahead of the debate to only one candidate is somehow NOT an example of bias?
So that's why CNN didn't give the debate questions to Trump, but shared with Clinton - it was to help Trump, right?
That Russian dossier, right? That was straight-up correct! Or how about Dan Rather's fake memos, which he even admitted were fake, and cost him his job? And having "the most respected name in news" - CNN - give questions ahead of the debate to one side? The only people who would say that those are NOT moves of bias - are biased themselves. Don't care what side you're on, giving the answers to one side and not the other is outright fraudulent and biased.
I would rather we simply enforce the immigration laws on the books, rather than illegally ignore them and castigate those who uphold the law. And for the record - my wife is an actual immigrant, we went through all the visas, then temp green card, then permanent green card, and now she takes her oath in January to become a US citizen. But hey, let's just ignore anyone who didn't do any of that, right?
Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. I just find it peculiar how many here - and most of the media - was silent when "their guy" was in the big chair. And now that President Trump is there, and completely LEGALLY rescinding President Obama's executive orders, it is somehow "unconstitutional".
No, I think you are missing the point. The media is already largely consolidated (90% owned by 6 corporations) and is overwhelmingly biased against Trump and the political right. How is it going to get much worse if it continues to consolidate?
Because CNN handing questions to one party's candidate is certainly NOT an indication of propaganda and outright, blatant partisanship, amirite?
Yes, the first 90% of consolidation is so much better than the last 10%...
As opposed to President Obama's unconstitutional executive order that the Supreme Court decided to let a lower court's restriction stand?
Unfortunately the US doesn't get that same freedom. Even though we're 25% of the world's GDP, and only 17% of CO2 emissions, we're castigated because we emit relatively high amounts per person. Funny how that works...
So, much like a country that signs the Paris Accord (but admits that it cannot meet its own pledge) and then loudly trumpets that it signs that accord and denigrates those that choose to pull out - and are exceeding their original pledge. Basically style over substance.
They signed the Paris Accord, after all... Doesn't matter what actually happens, it's just the pledge that matters!
They haven't yet released one full-screen phone. Unless you are cool calling a full screen one that has a big rectangular chunk pulled out of the top...
It is quite simple. First, make a phone that does not work below a certain temperature. Thus you force everyone into a smaller geographic region, say +/- 35 degrees off the equator. Next, make the display take on green lines, and you force people to avoid wilderness areas (since they may lose their now-green phone, because it is effectively camouflaged) so they all end up in urban areas. Once Apple has you constrained to those areas - control is greatly simplified!
And it also exceeds the technology of 99% of all homes in the US today, meaning he was a realist as well as a technologist. Someone who showed how to use technology in realistic manners that could be done within 20 to 40 years.
The DOE was created in 1977 - we did pretty well without it up until that time. Interesting to note, too, that the only nuclear power plant emergency we've had - Three Mile Island - happened after the creation of the DOE. Perhaps creating a big, overreaching, overarching Federal Department allows local/regional control to relax because "the Feds got it covered"...
From your link:
Because the agreement does not include binding emission targets, or binding financial commitments beyond those contained in the UNFCCC, and can be implemented on the basis of existing law, President Obama chose to approve it by executive action.
So nothing binding on the US, thus there should be zero problem with the US changing its targets and its financial commitments. There was nothing there to begin with. Just a big show. Per the FAQ you posted.
DC v Heller says we can own a firearm in ready and operating condition for self defense. McDonald v Chicago found that that right was incorporated to the individual and that no level of Government may infringe on that right. No need to show up for militia training, that is an unconstitutional infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Per the US Supreme Court.
Source? The NatGeo article was certainly built on science and papers that were generated and submitted over more than 1 month time...
Maybe... it is around $500 million to send a person into space, and about $30,000 per pound of supplies they need. So whilst it may be a few dozen at the ISS, the cost per person is easily in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year per person.
We live in homes about twice the size of yours.
Interesting article from National Geographic in the 1970s about the potential for a coming ice age. And how the law that kicked of the US Federal Government research into climate change was specifically about global warming - not climate change (meaning - the conclusion is foregone, how do we research it).
NASA wants to set max CO2 levels in the ISS at ~13X what it is on Earth right now. I think they have a bit of an interest in keeping astronauts clear-and-level headed, and apparently levels around 5000ppm are acceptable. Given most navies allow up to 8000ppm long-term in their submarines, it's probably a safe level for critical thinking,