No reason given. No announcement or warning. Just boom, new bill.
No reason given. No announcement or warning. Just boom, new bill.
The countdown for the Top 30 Murder Capitals of America:
30 Chicago Heights, IL
29 Baton Rouge, LA
28 Buffalo, NY
27 Hattiesburg, MS
26 East Chicago, IN
25 Birmingham, AL
24 Desert Hot Springs, CA
23 Compton, CA
22 Myrtle Beach, SC
21 Fort Pierce, FL
20 Harvey, IL
19 Bridgeton, NJ
18 Flint, MI
17 Rocky Mount, NC
16 Pine Bluff, AR
15 Petersburg, VA
14 Newark, NJ
13 Baltimore, MD
12 Harrisburg, PA
11 Jackson, MS
10 Wilmington, DE
9 Trenton, NJ
8 Riviera Beach, FL
7 New Orleans, LA
6 Camden, NJ
5 Detroit, MI
4 Gary, IN
3 St. Louis, MO
2 Chester, PA
1 East St. Louis, IL
"when asked of the TSA has a theory on why so many more guns are being brought onboard airlines"
I would thought that preventing people from taking guns "onboard airlines" was sort of the sine qua non for a TSA checkpoint.
I suppose the sentence should be "why so many guns are being brought into security checklanes". Or maybe not, as TSA has been shown to be an abject farce.
While I'm sure the climate is warming, and I'm sure that humans are exacerbating the trend, it is hard to be impressed with the alarmist rants when the models used and raw data are not made available. When even the people developing the models cannot explain what they are doing. When the data is massaged beyond recognition. Not to mention that rather than being treated as a ecological problem, AGW has morphed into a treatise on income inequality, rich nations vs poor ones, etc.
"In early 2001, CPC was requested to implement the 1971-2000 normal for operational forecasts. So, we constructed a new SST normal for the 1971-2000 base period and implemented it operationally at CPC in August of 2001" (Journal of Climate). Read that again: "we constructed a new SST normal", that's not science, that's manipulation of data to fit the model.
Just the abstract to that particular paper reveals how fragile the models are, being based on assumptions piled on top of assumptions, and unveiling a tendency to massage data.
www dot ncdc dot noaa dot gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/xue-etal.pdf
"SST predictions are usually issued in terms of anomalies and standardized anomalies relative to a 30-yr normal: climatological mean (CM) and standard deviation (SD). The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) suggests updating the 30-yr normal every 10 yr."
How can a normal be updated--the data is the data, and its normal is its normal? This sentence implies that the data is somehow massaged every ten years or so. There may be legitimate reasons to do so, but anytime you massage data, there have to be questions as to the legitmacy of the alteration.
"Using the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) on a 28 grid for 1854-2000 and the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and SST dataset (HadISST) on a 18 grid for 1870-1999, eleven 30-yr normals are calculated, and the interdecadal changes of seasonal CM, seasonal SD, and seasonal persistence (P) are discussed."
This says that data is being assembled from widely disparate data sources, with different measurement techniques, and that some of the data was made with instrumentation that simply cannot be validated (data from 1854?).
"Both PDO and NAO show a multidecadal oscillation that is consistent between ERSST and HadISST except that HadISST is biased toward warm in summer and cold in winter relative to ERSST."
Now we see that different data sets, ostensibly of the same population, disagree. And the fact that one data set exhibits bias to the extreme (too warm in summer and too cold in winter) raises questions about the proper use of this data. One scientist may be able to make a valid claim that the more stable data is in error and "correct" it to be more in line with the more volatile data; another scientist may do the opposite. And how is the bias measured? Why, against the model! Which one is right? Who's model is now more correct?
Virtually every glacier in the world is in full-on retreat.
Ice chunks the size of small US states have broken off of Antarctica in the last few years.
Rising surface temperatures in the subarctic are melting permafrost, permitting decay (with associated methane release) and destabilizing shallow methane calthrate deposits of unknown but possibly substantial extent.
You must have been really upset when the Laurentide Ice Sheet almost completely melted. 5 million square miles of ice up to 2 miles thick just *melted*. Damn those cavemen. Why didn't they think that their campfires 10,000 years ago would melt all that ice and ruin the whole Earth's ice-based ecosystem?
took over Uganda. Millions cheered Hitler, Lenin, and Mao. Hugo Chavez was swept in to power by the people.
I know a few anti-gun folks who blather on and on about closing loopholes using "common-sense gun control".
Some of them are also quad-copter enthusiasts.
I've very much enjoyed using this phrase on them now that it's their ox getting gored. Of course, I point out that while the RTK&BA actually appears in the Constitution and "shall not be infringed", quad-copters do not.
And then I got a quad-copter for Christmas and have to decide if I'm going risk my CCW by not registering the damn toy drone.
You provided a single example, I provided an example from the other side. Neither of those sides is one I've voted for, but I found it quite hilarious a the time that so many self-proclaimed "most intelligent people in in the room" claimed later to have been duped by someone they repeatedly named a dunce.
Cheney may have been the brains behind the puppet, but that's not what those Dems said at the time or since, really, because "Bush lied! People died!" is such a nice bumper-sticker itself, and you can't fit "Bush stupidly repeated lies fed to him by Cheney and Democrats were so easily distracted that they voted for a war that they would later repudiate with 'I was for the war before I was against it' and endlessly blame Bush for any and all problems that might ever follow! People died!" on a bumper sticker.
Back when George Bush--the idiot who couldn't walk and breathe at the same time, the goofball who only got elected because of his Daddy, etc.--somehow managed to trick a large number of the Democrats in Congress to support his Iraq war.
If Bush was somehow able to scheme up a lie that convinced John Kerry and Hillary Clinton (among others) to vote for the Iraq war, how stupid could he be? Or for that matter if Kerry and Clinton were duped by the simpleton Bush, how can we take anything the say or do seriously either?
Now the happy couple should go off and spawn some pirates!
Was confused there for a second.
Those fools hate everything and everybody.
"A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces." [CBO report "THE INCIDENCE OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX"]
This report goes on to say:
Although economists are far from a consensus about exactly
who bears how much of the burden of the corporate income tax, the existing studies
highlight the significant types of economic mechanisms as well as the empirical
estimates necessary for further quantifying the burdens. CBO's review of the studies
yields the following conclusions:
o The short-term burden of the corporate tax probably falls on
stockholders or investors in general, but may fall on some more than
on others, because not all investments are taxed at the same rate.
o The long-term burden of corporate or dividend taxation is unlikely to
rest fully on corporate equity, because it will remain there only if
marginal investment is not affected by those taxes. Most economists
believe that the corporate tax system has some effect on investment
o Most evidence from closed-economy, general-equilibrium models
suggests that given reasonable parameters, the long-term incidence of
the corporate tax falls on capital in general.
o In the context of international capital mobility, the burden of the
corporate tax may be shifted onto immobile factors (such as labor or
land), but only to the degree that the capital and outputs of different
countries can be substituted.
o In the very long term, the burden is likely to be shifted in part to
labor, if the corporate tax dampens capital accumulation.
o Most attempts to distribute the burden of corporate taxation have
neglected the possible importance of effects on the relative prices of
I have no choice in the matter, so I will be unable to get my yahoo email. The last reason I had for using yahoo just went away (I've had a yahoo email account for a *very* long time).
It's no wonder you have problems.
Seriously, $2400 ($200/month) for 2-phone plan? Mine is $70 for two iPhones with unlimited talk, text, and shared 4G of data (we've got wi-fi everywhere so why pay for 10G or more?).
And $100/month for the triple play is not bad, but that adds up to only $1200, not the $5200 you deducted for it.
And if you can't afford all the expenses of having a kid on top of the other things you're spending on, perhaps you ought rethink the decision to have one. Or maybe you could cut the TV and landline if you need to buy diapers.
An engineer is someone who does list processing in FORTRAN.