Post some citations on this. The only known info like this HRC was given were a heads up on possible topics for a town hall meeting, and they were quite obvious. For example: http://thehill.com/media/32458...
Except you're wrong and just repeating incorrect right/alt-right talking points. Read the primary sources (the emails) on this. A couple DNC staffers did discuss via email whether there was some way they could minimize Sanders, but they also discussed how they could not due to explicit guidelines from the DNC chair. In any case, the whole thing is BS because the DNC does not run the primaries. The states do, and Sanders was in the primaries and did pretty well. Second, HRC certainly did not receive debate questions. The alleged incident was about her being given a heads up about some topic that might come up at a town hall meeting, like Flint, MI's water problem. A town hall discussion not a debate, and this was one of the most current topics in the news related to governance. Big deal.
You need to read the primary sources on this, as you are just repeating incorrect right/alt-right talking points.
Sanders was in no way blocked from state primaries. The DNC does not run the primaries; the states do, and Sanders did fine.
HRC was not given debate questions. There was a town hall where she was given a heads up that some topic might come up, this was pretty obvious, not at all a presidential debate.
Finally, just because some DNC staffers chatted through email about things they might like to try, they did not act on this and in fact they cited the DNC chair's guidelines to each other that they could not do these things.
The conspiracy laden Drudge, etc. sites and the mentally challenged MSM are to blame. The leaked emails show no actions were taken, just banter about activities, including emails saying they can't do some of the things discussed due to direction from the top. Just because some people talk about stuff doesn't mean they act on it, and everyone has bias. Note the DNC doesn't run any state elections, either. The noise around these emails was just that, but the MSM reporters have no clue how to sort that out.
>> Why would anyone believe Clapper...?
Because he works for the U.S. and not Russia, maybe? You should read Michael Hayden's book about the years and programs around the Clapper testimony, as well.
Armchair quarterbacking the intelligence agencies is so easy, isn't it? Perhaps you should read more history and some primary sources like Michael Hayden's book for some additional perspective.
You're only getting the public portion of the report, the part that doesn't compromise methods. Instead of making up your own stories about this, you should be asking people that have sat in the intelligence briefings what their opinion is, and whether the remaining, and valid, questions have been answered.
You're only seeing the unclassified information. What you're saying about the quality of the evidence is only relevant to the public portion of the report. The intelligence agencies do not like to disclose information that can compromise their methods.
B.S. If any significant number of illegals had voted and their votes were counted there would be scads of evidence. But there is none. Nada. Zip. The BS theories posted about the motor voter laws, etc. are all BS. Just because someone casts a ballot does not mean it is counted.
Just because someone casts a ballot does NOT mean it is counted. The details of the individual have to be verified. In my state the provisional ballots are not even counted unless the vote difference is small. And then if they are needed, they are first investigated. About half are thrown out.
This is some kind of fallacy. Most states were very closely divided. It took voters all over the country to reach the total Clinton had. You can't say either Candidate won "all" their votes that made the difference in one place. It's utterly ridiculous. How about this: Start counting with the biggest leads first, e.g. California for Clinton, then add in the progressively smaller ones. Then the 3M vote difference comes from all the smallest differences that lean to Clinton.
Just because someone casts a ballot does not mean it counts. In my state they can provide a provisional ballot to someone, but those are checked later only if they need to be counted. About 50% of them are discarded due to incomplete information or the voter being ineligible.
"It's looking quite promising that a solar roof will actually cost less than a normal roof before you even take the value of electricity into account," he said. "So the basic proposition would be, 'Would you like a roof that looks better than a normal roof, lasts twice as long, costs less, and by the way generates electricity?' It's like, why would you get anything else?"
Musk added that the price he was speaking to factored in the cost of labor.
Musk said the key to this surprise announcement is that the roofing materials supply chain as it exists today is incredibly inefficient. He said the glass solar roof tiles Tesla will sell are up to 80% lighter in weight than ceramic or concrete roofing materials. They are also much less fragile. The result is that transportation and breakage costs are greatly reduced, which is a big factor in keeping costs down. The other factor, as Musk said during the Solar Roof reveal last month, is that glass is mostly sand and sand is cheap.
Distributed power generation has a lot of benefits. Plus, if you watch the announcement video from October, Tesla has battery systems for commercial and utility solar systems, as well. The subsidies are going to phase out in any case.
That's a bizarre explanation and misunderstanding. No, the atom absorbs the whole photon's energy, and a (large) portion of it raises the energy state of an electron. Any additional energy is lost as heat. When the electron falls back to the lower energy state, a photon is emitted with a wavelength corresponding to the difference in energy between the two states. So some is absorbed as heat, but certainly not all, and the more efficient the conversion the less waste heat. Plus, if the energy was all converted to heat then none would be around for use as electricity... conservation of energy, you know.
In his original 19min. video of the announcement in late October, Musk was very careful to always say the new roof is less than the sum of the costs of a traditional roof and the energy costs of a traditional house. The linked Bloomberg article only has snippets of Musk quotes, and I can't tell if what he said was misinterpreted. Can someone point to a more thorough report on what he has said?
Apparently Ballmer didn't know squat about the phone business, and didn't bother to ask. Classic behavior for American financial types running technology businesses. Carriers had been subsidizing mobile phone costs since at least the mid-1990s after the PCS spectrum auctions.
From the Bloomberg article, "I wish I'd thought about the model of subsidizing phones through the operators," [Ballmer] said.
By the way, if you change the base period at the GISS/nasa.gov site to 2005 to 2015 you'll find that northern Europe does go to white, meaning the difference is within +/-0.2C. Also note that this map is for the full 2016 data set, not just the three months of April to June that you want to cite as being below average. Where January to March also below average, or above? And July? You have to look at what this map is showing and not just make assumptions.
>> But you know: enough individual weather data points are climate.
No, they add up to a total picture of the overall climate. You can't cherry pick some data points and ignore others.
>> the way historical temperatures have been artificially adjusted downwards.
You're misunderstanding the adjustments. When measuring stations are replaced the offset between the old and new data is taken into account by offsetting the old data to align to the new, rather than the other way around. The trends are checked and aligned, since it makes sense that instrumentation changes would be the cause of a step change rather than actual weather having a step change at the same time as the station being changed. In any case the absolute value of the reference point just doesn't matter. It's the change (slope, trend, etc.) that matters.
Question: In Europe the spring and early summer were cool, but how does the average over the period compare to the reference period of 1951 to 1980 in the GISS citation?
The point is, before you go accusing the agencies of falsifying results you need to first understand what they do and where the data comes from, then if you want to refute it you need to show the data and analysis that contradicts these reports. Can you cite contradictory data and analysis?
Where is this that the cold temperatures 'cancelled' the summer temperatures? The global average continues to rise on both month by month and annual basis. Locally it's quite possible to have a very cold or very hot or average season and for local annual average to be up or down for a period. But that's just a variance within the data that adds up to the global average.
>> Well here's a news flash, the law of averages means that there are going to be the odd extremes here and there but the rest of the data points will cancel them out.
You're implying the average is flat because the extreme data points are cancelling each other out. Based on what data?
One has to ask why we apparently let the terrorist organizations use these services that run on networks used for commercial and public services, as it is clear they provide a low cost and wide coverage recruiting method. There seems to be too little discussion on strategies to keep them off the networks in the first place. This probably sounds naive, but come on, Twitter and Facebook are for-profit companies. It's not like a public infrastructure like a roadway that the terrorists are driving down. (Any links to real proposals on this would be appreciated...)
The article does mention some brands such as Birkenstock and Canada Goose that most likely have trademarks. They are probably seeing counterfeits take sales. But the other 600 members of the FB group might not have patents or trademarks, in which case they have no leg to stand on. It's a free, and now global, market.
It's probably a design patent, since it's specific to the use of shock cords. A utility patent would be much broader, but it seems she filed a year or two after she started selling. At least, a few years ago the first sale sets a bar date where you have one year to file. (IANAL)
Slashdot Mirror
Post some citations on this. The only known info like this HRC was given were a heads up on possible topics for a town hall meeting, and they were quite obvious. For example: http://thehill.com/media/32458...
"Why does the left hate Russia?" Stupid question. Why would any American trust Russia is the question.
Except you're wrong and just repeating incorrect right/alt-right talking points. Read the primary sources (the emails) on this. A couple DNC staffers did discuss via email whether there was some way they could minimize Sanders, but they also discussed how they could not due to explicit guidelines from the DNC chair. In any case, the whole thing is BS because the DNC does not run the primaries. The states do, and Sanders was in the primaries and did pretty well. Second, HRC certainly did not receive debate questions. The alleged incident was about her being given a heads up about some topic that might come up at a town hall meeting, like Flint, MI's water problem. A town hall discussion not a debate, and this was one of the most current topics in the news related to governance. Big deal.
You need to read the primary sources on this, as you are just repeating incorrect right/alt-right talking points. Sanders was in no way blocked from state primaries. The DNC does not run the primaries; the states do, and Sanders did fine. HRC was not given debate questions. There was a town hall where she was given a heads up that some topic might come up, this was pretty obvious, not at all a presidential debate. Finally, just because some DNC staffers chatted through email about things they might like to try, they did not act on this and in fact they cited the DNC chair's guidelines to each other that they could not do these things.
The conspiracy laden Drudge, etc. sites and the mentally challenged MSM are to blame. The leaked emails show no actions were taken, just banter about activities, including emails saying they can't do some of the things discussed due to direction from the top. Just because some people talk about stuff doesn't mean they act on it, and everyone has bias. Note the DNC doesn't run any state elections, either. The noise around these emails was just that, but the MSM reporters have no clue how to sort that out.
Bases is a common plural form for basis.
>> Why would anyone believe Clapper...? Because he works for the U.S. and not Russia, maybe? You should read Michael Hayden's book about the years and programs around the Clapper testimony, as well.
Armchair quarterbacking the intelligence agencies is so easy, isn't it? Perhaps you should read more history and some primary sources like Michael Hayden's book for some additional perspective.
You're only getting the public portion of the report, the part that doesn't compromise methods. Instead of making up your own stories about this, you should be asking people that have sat in the intelligence briefings what their opinion is, and whether the remaining, and valid, questions have been answered.
You're only seeing the unclassified information. What you're saying about the quality of the evidence is only relevant to the public portion of the report. The intelligence agencies do not like to disclose information that can compromise their methods.
B.S. If any significant number of illegals had voted and their votes were counted there would be scads of evidence. But there is none. Nada. Zip. The BS theories posted about the motor voter laws, etc. are all BS. Just because someone casts a ballot does not mean it is counted.
Just because someone casts a ballot does NOT mean it is counted. The details of the individual have to be verified. In my state the provisional ballots are not even counted unless the vote difference is small. And then if they are needed, they are first investigated. About half are thrown out.
This is some kind of fallacy. Most states were very closely divided. It took voters all over the country to reach the total Clinton had. You can't say either Candidate won "all" their votes that made the difference in one place. It's utterly ridiculous. How about this: Start counting with the biggest leads first, e.g. California for Clinton, then add in the progressively smaller ones. Then the 3M vote difference comes from all the smallest differences that lean to Clinton.
Just because someone casts a ballot does not mean it counts. In my state they can provide a provisional ballot to someone, but those are checked later only if they need to be counted. About 50% of them are discarded due to incomplete information or the voter being ineligible.
http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-solar-roof-cost-less-than-normal-roof-2016-11
"It's looking quite promising that a solar roof will actually cost less than a normal roof before you even take the value of electricity into account," he said. "So the basic proposition would be, 'Would you like a roof that looks better than a normal roof, lasts twice as long, costs less, and by the way generates electricity?' It's like, why would you get anything else?" Musk added that the price he was speaking to factored in the cost of labor.
And another from a fan page.
http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-solar-roof-cost-less-than-traditional/
Musk said the key to this surprise announcement is that the roofing materials supply chain as it exists today is incredibly inefficient. He said the glass solar roof tiles Tesla will sell are up to 80% lighter in weight than ceramic or concrete roofing materials. They are also much less fragile. The result is that transportation and breakage costs are greatly reduced, which is a big factor in keeping costs down. The other factor, as Musk said during the Solar Roof reveal last month, is that glass is mostly sand and sand is cheap.
Distributed power generation has a lot of benefits. Plus, if you watch the announcement video from October, Tesla has battery systems for commercial and utility solar systems, as well. The subsidies are going to phase out in any case.
That's a bizarre explanation and misunderstanding. No, the atom absorbs the whole photon's energy, and a (large) portion of it raises the energy state of an electron. Any additional energy is lost as heat. When the electron falls back to the lower energy state, a photon is emitted with a wavelength corresponding to the difference in energy between the two states. So some is absorbed as heat, but certainly not all, and the more efficient the conversion the less waste heat. Plus, if the energy was all converted to heat then none would be around for use as electricity... conservation of energy, you know.
In his original 19min. video of the announcement in late October, Musk was very careful to always say the new roof is less than the sum of the costs of a traditional roof and the energy costs of a traditional house. The linked Bloomberg article only has snippets of Musk quotes, and I can't tell if what he said was misinterpreted. Can someone point to a more thorough report on what he has said?
Apparently Ballmer didn't know squat about the phone business, and didn't bother to ask. Classic behavior for American financial types running technology businesses. Carriers had been subsidizing mobile phone costs since at least the mid-1990s after the PCS spectrum auctions.
From the Bloomberg article,
"I wish I'd thought about the model of subsidizing phones through the operators," [Ballmer] said.
By the way, if you change the base period at the GISS/nasa.gov site to 2005 to 2015 you'll find that northern Europe does go to white, meaning the difference is within +/-0.2C. Also note that this map is for the full 2016 data set, not just the three months of April to June that you want to cite as being below average. Where January to March also below average, or above? And July? You have to look at what this map is showing and not just make assumptions.
>> But you know: enough individual weather data points are climate.
No, they add up to a total picture of the overall climate. You can't cherry pick some data points and ignore others.
>> the way historical temperatures have been artificially adjusted downwards.
You're misunderstanding the adjustments. When measuring stations are replaced the offset between the old and new data is taken into account by offsetting the old data to align to the new, rather than the other way around. The trends are checked and aligned, since it makes sense that instrumentation changes would be the cause of a step change rather than actual weather having a step change at the same time as the station being changed. In any case the absolute value of the reference point just doesn't matter. It's the change (slope, trend, etc.) that matters.
Question: In Europe the spring and early summer were cool, but how does the average over the period compare to the reference period of 1951 to 1980 in the GISS citation?
Another report is here with a similar 0.5C positive anomoly for Europe: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...
The point is, before you go accusing the agencies of falsifying results you need to first understand what they do and where the data comes from, then if you want to refute it you need to show the data and analysis that contradicts these reports. Can you cite contradictory data and analysis?
Where is this that the cold temperatures 'cancelled' the summer temperatures? The global average continues to rise on both month by month and annual basis. Locally it's quite possible to have a very cold or very hot or average season and for local annual average to be up or down for a period. But that's just a variance within the data that adds up to the global average.
>> Well here's a news flash, the law of averages means that there are going to be the odd extremes here and there but the rest of the data points will cancel them out.
You're implying the average is flat because the extreme data points are cancelling each other out. Based on what data?
One has to ask why we apparently let the terrorist organizations use these services that run on networks used for commercial and public services, as it is clear they provide a low cost and wide coverage recruiting method. There seems to be too little discussion on strategies to keep them off the networks in the first place. This probably sounds naive, but come on, Twitter and Facebook are for-profit companies. It's not like a public infrastructure like a roadway that the terrorists are driving down. (Any links to real proposals on this would be appreciated...)
The article does mention some brands such as Birkenstock and Canada Goose that most likely have trademarks. They are probably seeing counterfeits take sales. But the other 600 members of the FB group might not have patents or trademarks, in which case they have no leg to stand on. It's a free, and now global, market.
It's probably a design patent, since it's specific to the use of shock cords. A utility patent would be much broader, but it seems she filed a year or two after she started selling. At least, a few years ago the first sale sets a bar date where you have one year to file. (IANAL)