Search results

A bit more than that. They can't convict him of, as one legal commentator put it, "lying to his own cheque register". And they'll have to figure out how to pin someone down on personal expenditures, for which existing case law is really, really generous.

Anyone who misuses the word. Nothing stops the first person to respond from restating the obvious.

Clinton means Hillary. As usual, never assume "conspiracy" where "people acting on their interests with the same general aims" will do.

I can guess from the tone he isn't unbiased. He just seems really bitter. Kind of pointless to be raging that a matter that has been dragging on for years suddenly has to pick up the pace. The original date set was 20 May (13 days away). That's an important relevant detail that I didn't find...

There is the problem of what happens when the contract has to be re-posted and there's real competition...

The demands of protestors at one of the universities that meals be delivered to them in the building they'd occupied (because they had paid for meal plans) illustrates a common characteristic of contemporary political protest. Protestors want the rights, security, benefits, and luxuries enabled...

Maybe that used to be true. Recently Hindus in India have been flexing some muscles to replace mosques standing on sites of former temples.

One-sided agreement doesn't mean anything. I could write a ceasefire agreement that Hamas would probably accept: "Israel agrees to retire to the original partition plan borders and grant right-of-return to anyone claiming a resident ancestor alive in 1947."

Disappointing. I missed out on a Grande Mothers show because Napoleon Murphy Brock couldn't cross the border due to an old drug-related thing.

Depends on which value of "genocide" you are using. One-off massacres are just one-off massacres. I don't mean they ought to be flippantly ignored; I mean that they aren't "genocide". The pronouncements of a bunch of people in suits and robes, or the rhetoric of journalists and politicians...

I suspect the reaction has nothing to do with the simple presence of the product or the implication a woman might be in a men's room, and everything to do with the political statement made by putting them there. I have yet to meet a guy who'd do more than shrug if a woman witnessed him hanging...

I gather that at the time something was needed, there was not also time for the usual "plan for the future" process to reach a conclusion.

"Movement elders." "OK, Boomers."

That's great, but it doesn't change the different numbers people have been putting out - which necessarily creates a range of reported values - or alter the facts that the data set is small and that extrapolations depend on the curve models.

I have been reading estimates of 3-5 mm per year for a couple of decades. What's going on basically amounts to curve-fitting games. People look at the data, see what they think might be non-linearity, and pick a non-linear model that seems to fit. Then they report extrapolations (into the...

50 centimetres is roughly 20 inches. That's a lot more than 4. I call bullsh!t. We know what the current rate of rise is because we measure it. We can't measure future rates of rise. Any guesses other than "more of the same" have approximately the status of "pulled out of someone's ass"...

So anywhere from 125 to 250 years away. A lot can and will change in that time. Consider how people were living and consuming 125 years ago.

Land subsidence is usually the culprit. A common cause of land subsidence is too much water being pumped out of underlying aquifers.

By 2050 that's 4 inches. Just think; a mere 4 inches is all that's preventing that flood map from becoming reality. I think I'll take my next trip to Imperial Hobbies during a king tide in January with a strong westerly blowing, and experience the thrill of living dangerously.

Yeah. I'll get right on planning for those projections.