Yes, even more confusing. What, is she hoping to go from 1% of the vote to 1.1% of the vote? She was so far out of contention that even if her vote totals increased 2000% she'd still lose. So why is she doing this, unless it's a back-room deal to assist the 2nd place candidate - Hillary Clinton?
I thought pretty much any salaried position came with paid vacation/PTO? I voluntarily gave that up - because I went the consultant route. I don't get paid for my vacation time, but I more than make up for it with my billing rate during the time I choose to work.
It will end up along the lines of automated manufacturing. Ninety nine percent of the time the automation is fine, you only need a few people to oversee hundreds of machines doing their work. The other 1% of the time something goes wrong and you only need a few people to fix the issue. No factory is completely automated, but once it reaches a certain level (90% or more, typically) it's considered "fully automated". A few people feed and oversee hundreds of machines, which replaces thousands of workers.
I love the interviews with current protestors, where about 75% of them didn't vote, or weren't even registered to vote! In other words, much of the traditional Democrat electorate expects other people will do the voting for them. And it failed, miserably.
Oh, I agree it's hard! But when you simply look at a model that says Democrats will turn out like they did in 2008 and 2012, but the campaign rallies are virtually empty (as compared to the GOP campaign events), your model is wrong. When you sample 15% more Democrats than Republicans nationwide and don't factor that out - your model is wrong. Three models got it right - and those were roundly criticized and dismissed by most of the mainstream media.
No, take a look at the polls: they oversampled Democrats by up to 15%, and did NOT correct accordingly. IF you looked at the internals, and scaled for the registered voter Dem/GOP ratio, you end up with Hillary or Trump up by a point or two, well within the margin of error. Polls putting Hillary up 12 points were simply garbage because of bad inputs (way oversampled Democrats) and improper calculations (no correcting for the oversample). It's why USC/Dornsife, IBD/TIPP, and Rasmussen got it right - they polled based upon voter registrations AND corrected all results based upon that ratio.
Almost all of Hillary's lead in the popular vote is covered by Los Angeles County by itself. Basically, you're arguing that winning one small, compact geographically but dense population area is all you need to become President. Why would anyone campaign outside of NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia? That's 18 million people in those cities. The rest of the US you could just get a wash or slight loss and still win.
Maybe it's because the plan was the skew the polls to suppress the GOP vote by oversampling Democrats? A few national polls (USC/Dornsife, Rasmussen, IBD/TIPP) all had Trump up a point or two for the last few weeks of the campaign. This is really about sour grapes, and should be an object lesson in not letting a desire for a specific result to skew the methodology.
One only needed to look at the enthusiasm and size of events to get a good feel for how motivated a base was to turn out. Trump turned out tens of thousands to his events, Hillary dozens to a few hundreds. Pence had thousands, Kaine had dozens. There was no enthusiasm for the Clinton/Kaine campaign and it showed up at the vote.
Unfortunately, the major polls didn't account for enthusiasm - and that was the deciding factor. Trump got about the same number of votes as McCain and Romney (and had an actual increase in African American and Hispanic votes, by nearly 10% for each). Clinton dropped down by 10 million as compared to Obama in 2008, and 6 million as compared to Obama in 2012. She simply could not excite and turn out her traditional base.
And how does that invalidate what I wrote? Especially the design handbook. Have you ever been involved in Government hardware projects? You get big specs and lots of definitions of processes that must be followed - and you, the contractor, must execute accordingly. You've only proven my point. Thank you!
At least I understand capitalization and apostrophe use, not to mention how to provide actual facts and links. All of which are conspicuously absent from your own post.
The link from the CA Government that I provided is for water under management; not that already in the rivers, just additional waters held in reservoirs and behind dams. And about half of that managed water is used for scenic river enhancement - waters above and beyond normal environmental flows.
I dunno, I see a lot of them launch not far from where I am, up at Vandenberg. If only we had some other Government agency or department who cared about putting things into space. Someone who was a Force in the Air... We could even call them the Air Force...
Companies like Teledyne, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. that have a LOT of engineers (mil-aero guys) who know a lot about hardening systems for space and extreme environments. In fact, most of the US satellites up there were designed by private contractors; yes, JPL does quite a bit too, but that's actually an arm of Caltech that is just nominally "controlled" by NASA. NASA tends to deal with delivery logistics and project management whilst private contractors do the actual work.
Well then, clearly we must grab the pitchforks and torches and storm the White House! How dare the President Elect decide to put responsibilities in the proper departments! Organization is NOT allowed in DC!
Magnets. Ferrite as well as rare earth. China owns the market in terms of production (the only serious non-China magnet manufacturing is Supergauss in Brazil for ferrites, and Mitsubishi in Japan for rare earth), and after the US-based manufacturing closed down around 2000, prices started climbing up.
Then the whole "you cannot buy raw rare earths without high taxes" happened and the price of neos in the late 2000s exploded (10-20X increase). China owned the rare earth market (mining and refining), and placed huge (200%+) export tariffs on raw refined ore - but only a low (20%) tariff on finished rare-earth items like magnets. The result was the price of magnets shot up 5X in a short amount of time, and it took years to settle back down - at about 3X the original price in the mid 2000s.
I work in the audio industry - transducer development - and all of my clients felt these manipulations very hard.
No, that's not about damming the rivers dry - that's about extra releases throughout the year to enhance the appearance of the scenic river sections. From the California Government itself:
- On average, the proportion of water used by each sector is 10 percent cities and communities, 40 percent agriculture, and 50 percent environment.
- This statewide ratio varies widely depending upon whether a year is wet or dry. In wet years, the proportion that serves environmental purpose can be 60 percent or more, while in dry years that proportion drops to roughly one-third
- Much of the water dedicated to agriculture in California also supports environmental habitats. For example, flood-irrigated rice fields serve as critical feeding grounds for many species of migratory birds that fly through California.
I know it's popular to blame agriculture - but the facts don't support that position. Per the State of California. California, overall, is mainly a dry State. It's had a historically "wet" season the last 60 years, and we're returning to the more normal, arid conditions over most of the State. So as Californians, we're faced with the choice of either shutting down some of our smaller industries (agriculture is only abour 2% of the economy of California) or rethinking some of our laws passed that dictate trying to maintain historically record flow levels in some rivers, or both.
Where California's water really goes. It's not 80% to agriculture. Not even close. In fact, the majority tends to go to keep high flow rates in "scenic and wild" rivers. Basically - dumping extra water from dams to keep some rivers pretty.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, even more confusing. What, is she hoping to go from 1% of the vote to 1.1% of the vote? She was so far out of contention that even if her vote totals increased 2000% she'd still lose. So why is she doing this, unless it's a back-room deal to assist the 2nd place candidate - Hillary Clinton?
I thought pretty much any salaried position came with paid vacation/PTO? I voluntarily gave that up - because I went the consultant route. I don't get paid for my vacation time, but I more than make up for it with my billing rate during the time I choose to work.
It will end up along the lines of automated manufacturing. Ninety nine percent of the time the automation is fine, you only need a few people to oversee hundreds of machines doing their work. The other 1% of the time something goes wrong and you only need a few people to fix the issue. No factory is completely automated, but once it reaches a certain level (90% or more, typically) it's considered "fully automated". A few people feed and oversee hundreds of machines, which replaces thousands of workers.
I love the interviews with current protestors, where about 75% of them didn't vote, or weren't even registered to vote! In other words, much of the traditional Democrat electorate expects other people will do the voting for them. And it failed, miserably.
Oh, I agree it's hard! But when you simply look at a model that says Democrats will turn out like they did in 2008 and 2012, but the campaign rallies are virtually empty (as compared to the GOP campaign events), your model is wrong. When you sample 15% more Democrats than Republicans nationwide and don't factor that out - your model is wrong. Three models got it right - and those were roundly criticized and dismissed by most of the mainstream media.
No, take a look at the polls: they oversampled Democrats by up to 15%, and did NOT correct accordingly. IF you looked at the internals, and scaled for the registered voter Dem/GOP ratio, you end up with Hillary or Trump up by a point or two, well within the margin of error. Polls putting Hillary up 12 points were simply garbage because of bad inputs (way oversampled Democrats) and improper calculations (no correcting for the oversample). It's why USC/Dornsife, IBD/TIPP, and Rasmussen got it right - they polled based upon voter registrations AND corrected all results based upon that ratio.
Apple pie is a perfectly suitable dessert on Thanksgiving as well!
Our two neighbors - Mexico and Canada - have national ID requirements for voting. If they can do it - why can't we?
Almost all of Hillary's lead in the popular vote is covered by Los Angeles County by itself. Basically, you're arguing that winning one small, compact geographically but dense population area is all you need to become President. Why would anyone campaign outside of NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia? That's 18 million people in those cities. The rest of the US you could just get a wash or slight loss and still win.
Maybe it's because the plan was the skew the polls to suppress the GOP vote by oversampling Democrats? A few national polls (USC/Dornsife, Rasmussen, IBD/TIPP) all had Trump up a point or two for the last few weeks of the campaign. This is really about sour grapes, and should be an object lesson in not letting a desire for a specific result to skew the methodology.
One only needed to look at the enthusiasm and size of events to get a good feel for how motivated a base was to turn out. Trump turned out tens of thousands to his events, Hillary dozens to a few hundreds. Pence had thousands, Kaine had dozens. There was no enthusiasm for the Clinton/Kaine campaign and it showed up at the vote.
Unfortunately, the major polls didn't account for enthusiasm - and that was the deciding factor. Trump got about the same number of votes as McCain and Romney (and had an actual increase in African American and Hispanic votes, by nearly 10% for each). Clinton dropped down by 10 million as compared to Obama in 2008, and 6 million as compared to Obama in 2012. She simply could not excite and turn out her traditional base.
What about Israel, which is also around 1/3rd the cost of water in Ventura - I don't think they have abundant sources of carbon fuels...
And how does that invalidate what I wrote? Especially the design handbook. Have you ever been involved in Government hardware projects? You get big specs and lots of definitions of processes that must be followed - and you, the contractor, must execute accordingly. You've only proven my point. Thank you!
At least I understand capitalization and apostrophe use, not to mention how to provide actual facts and links. All of which are conspicuously absent from your own post.
The link from the CA Government that I provided is for water under management; not that already in the rivers, just additional waters held in reservoirs and behind dams. And about half of that managed water is used for scenic river enhancement - waters above and beyond normal environmental flows.
I dunno, I see a lot of them launch not far from where I am, up at Vandenberg. If only we had some other Government agency or department who cared about putting things into space. Someone who was a Force in the Air... We could even call them the Air Force...
Well, I think NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - might be a better fit than NASA. NASA is more about aeronautics and space and NOAA focuses on the conditions of the oceans and atmosphere. So given a choice between the two - I'd say anything related to climate research would best be served in NOAA.
Who helps design them to function in space?
Companies like Teledyne, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. that have a LOT of engineers (mil-aero guys) who know a lot about hardening systems for space and extreme environments. In fact, most of the US satellites up there were designed by private contractors; yes, JPL does quite a bit too, but that's actually an arm of Caltech that is just nominally "controlled" by NASA. NASA tends to deal with delivery logistics and project management whilst private contractors do the actual work.
Try again idiot.
Yes, indeed...
Well then, clearly we must grab the pitchforks and torches and storm the White House! How dare the President Elect decide to put responsibilities in the proper departments! Organization is NOT allowed in DC!
Magnets. Ferrite as well as rare earth. China owns the market in terms of production (the only serious non-China magnet manufacturing is Supergauss in Brazil for ferrites, and Mitsubishi in Japan for rare earth), and after the US-based manufacturing closed down around 2000, prices started climbing up.
Then the whole "you cannot buy raw rare earths without high taxes" happened and the price of neos in the late 2000s exploded (10-20X increase). China owned the rare earth market (mining and refining), and placed huge (200%+) export tariffs on raw refined ore - but only a low (20%) tariff on finished rare-earth items like magnets. The result was the price of magnets shot up 5X in a short amount of time, and it took years to settle back down - at about 3X the original price in the mid 2000s.
I work in the audio industry - transducer development - and all of my clients felt these manipulations very hard.
No, that's not about damming the rivers dry - that's about extra releases throughout the year to enhance the appearance of the scenic river sections. From the California Government itself:
- On average, the proportion of water used by each sector is 10 percent cities and communities, 40 percent agriculture, and 50 percent environment.
- This statewide ratio varies widely depending upon whether a year is wet or dry. In wet years, the proportion that serves environmental purpose can be 60 percent or more, while in dry years that proportion drops to roughly one-third
- Much of the water dedicated to agriculture in California also supports environmental habitats. For example, flood-irrigated rice fields serve as critical feeding grounds for many species of migratory birds that fly through California.
I know it's popular to blame agriculture - but the facts don't support that position. Per the State of California. California, overall, is mainly a dry State. It's had a historically "wet" season the last 60 years, and we're returning to the more normal, arid conditions over most of the State. So as Californians, we're faced with the choice of either shutting down some of our smaller industries (agriculture is only abour 2% of the economy of California) or rethinking some of our laws passed that dictate trying to maintain historically record flow levels in some rivers, or both.
Well I didn't read about that on Facebook, and Mark Zuckerberg promised me he'd eliminate fake news - so if it's not on Facebook, it must not be real!
Comments like yours are why that game is circling the drain.
Unicode. It's got to be the unicode.
Where California's water really goes. It's not 80% to agriculture. Not even close. In fact, the majority tends to go to keep high flow rates in "scenic and wild" rivers. Basically - dumping extra water from dams to keep some rivers pretty.
Not a lot of corn here in California. And evaporation is good, because it creates clouds and rain when it heads towards the mountains. So...