Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:No... (Score 0) 252

Here's the thing, not every area of the country has the same air pollution issues. So why, they argued, do we need ultra clean cars? In response, the national legislature set minimum standards and also said states could choose to require the more stringent California standards.

Many states with air pollution problems chose to do this (13+DC). So it is still decided by the national legislature and individual state legislatures (via delegation to administrative bodies). There is no representation issue.

For other products this regime doesn't exist. It's still not a representation issue, though, when a company chooses to release products that only follow California standards. That is simply the manufacturer making a business decision.

Comment Re:A decade long product cycle sounds good to me (Score 1) 267

The BLS doesn't really recognize "core" CPI and only asserts that CPI is one way to measure inflation, not the only way. They publish an index called "All items, less food and energy" at the request of the Fed. The Fed doesn't even use it anymore, but the media has glommed onto it.

Comment Re: You may think it troll, flame bait, etc, but.. (Score 1) 641

"So it would be best to officially secularize the state-concerning legal aspects of marriage, and let various churches, sects and suicide cults conduct whatever rituals they want for who they want on whatever basis they want."

This is already how it is done. You go to city hall or county office, etc, to get a marriage license. There is no requirement to go to a church, sect, or cult, but you may not be viewed as married by those institutions. Similarly, if you only go to a church/sect/cult and don't go to city hall, you're not married in the eyes of the law (exception: states with common law marriage).

Comment Re:In the USA (Score 2) 398

"Actually, don't bother — I'll offer evidence to the contrary. In 2005 US was hit with 14 hurricanes, 10 in 2012. The average for period between 1944 and 2005 is 6 [weatherstreet.com]. Is there a rise? Hardly — between 1885 and 1889 there were 26..."

This does not seem to disprove GP. Let's accept all of your factual assertions as correct.

Average # of hurricanes/yr 1885-1889*: 5.2

Average # of hurricanes/yr 1944-2005: 6

Average # of hurricanes/yr (2005, 2012): 12

* I think you meant 1886-1888 which makes this number almost correct (27 hurricanes for those three years), which makes the average 9/yr still below the 2005, 2012 average.

(Yes I understand 2005, 2012 is not a real average, but it is the 'evidence to the contrary' that OP chose to include)

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman

Working...