Search


PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 17 September at 11:24 - Around 76000 files indexed.


Show results per page

Results for «states»:


Total: 8000 results - 0.092 seconds

Steve Obsitnik for Connecticut Donation Form 99%

I certify that I am either a United States citizen or a foreign national with permanent resident status in the United States.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/01/17/steve-obsitnik-for-connecticut-donation-form/

17/01/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

raven halfmoon cv 98%

Painting, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 2014 Post-Baccalaureate in Ceramics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States, 2016 Solo Exhibitions:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/04/14/raven-halfmoon-cv/

14/04/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

95818 98%

Senators Pearson of the 51st, Rogers of the 21st, Williams of the 19th, Wiles of the 37th, Mullis of the 53rd and others ADOPTED SENATE A RESOLUTION 1 Affirming states' rights based on Jeffersonian principles;

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/04/10/95818/

10/04/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

Federal Prosecution 98%

1 United States v. ... 2 United States v.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2012/02/24/federal-prosecution/

24/02/2012 www.pdf-archive.com

BRIEF FINAL 98%

United States, 135 S.C!.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/10/05/brief-final/

05/10/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

04291042 98%

As states in FSP are implicit, LTSA takes an approach that maps an action trace into a sequence of abstract states described by fluents.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/09/08/04291042/

08/09/2011 www.pdf-archive.com

EVERIFY 98%

State Laws In recent years, many states have been joining the ranks of immigration enforcement.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2012/02/09/everify/

09/02/2012 www.pdf-archive.com

darren goins cv 98%

Darren Goins Born 1984 Lives and works in Los Angeles, CA, United States Education:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/04/13/darren-goins-cv/

13/04/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

05734242 98%

GUI states are usually defined as the overall combination of properties of all the components or widgets of the GUI.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/09/08/05734242/

08/09/2011 www.pdf-archive.com

17-35105 (1) 98%

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF WASHINGTON;

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/02/10/17-35105-1/

10/02/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

JATIT 6Vol21No2 98%

GUI States, User Interface Testing, Modeling, XML, And State Charts.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/08/13/jatit-6vol21no2/

13/08/2011 www.pdf-archive.com

document 98%

134, Page 1 of 29 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF WASHINGTON;

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/02/10/document/

10/02/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

land use restrictions 97%

NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES TARNISHING THE GOLDEN AND EMPIRE STATES:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/11/14/land-use-restrictions/

14/11/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

CELEX 32008F0675 EN TXT 97%

L 220/32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 15.8.2008 III (Acts adopted under the EU Treaty) ACTS ADOPTED UNDER TITLE VI OF THE EU TREATY COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, (3) The purpose of this Framework Decision is to establish a minimum obligation for Member States to take into account convictions handed down in other Member States.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/03/celex-32008f0675-en-txt/

03/02/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

CMEDact 97%

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/04/13/cmedact/

13/04/2013 www.pdf-archive.com

337557265-Enforce-Laws 97%

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release January 25, 2017 EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - ENHANCING PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE INTERIOR OF THE UNITED STATES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/01/25/337557265-enforce-laws/

25/01/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

NuclearProliferationandSecurityConcerns 97%

      NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND SECURITY CONCERNS:   Accurately predicting future state proliferation by looking at various  factors outside the security model.                   Amanda Sewell  Sam Houston State University  September 2016              1  Why do states build nuclear weapons? This is the question that Scott  Sagan attempts to answer by in his research by looking at three different  theory models. In the past, the security concerns of the state were a positive  prediction to whether or not they would develop nuclear weapons, but the  same factors that pressured the states in the past, are no longer present  today. Without these factors, would security still be a reliable indicator?  Sagan argues that focusing only on the security considerations as the cause  of proliferation is “dangerously inadequate”.1  While the security model  accurately explains past cases of nuclear proliferation by states, it would not  be reliable in current times since the factors are no longer the same.  Therefore, if we want to predict which countries might develop nuclear  weapons in the future, underlying security concerns can not be the only area  we pay attention to. Recent proliferation cases have demonstrated that we  must take the other factors that play an important role in states decisions  regarding proliferation. These factors, along with security concerns, may  provide a much more accurate predictor of future proliferation.  First, let’s take a closer look at why the security model has  worked for past cases. Sagan describes the security model as “any state that  seeks to maintain its national security must balance against any rival state  that develops nuclear weapons by gaining access to a nuclear deterrent  itself.” 2 The overwhelming majority of nuclear programs were developed  1 2  Sagan, Scott D. 2012. Why do states build nuclear weapons? Three models in search of a bomb. Pp.54   Ibid. pp 56      2  around WWII and the Cold War. The security model is better at predicting  these  behaviors of superpowers such as Russia and the United States where  there is an imminent threat to state’s security. The nuclear arms race  between the United States and the former Soviet Union provides a case  example of this security model and how it explains behavior towards nuclear  proliferation.  On July 16, 1945, the first atomic bomb was tested in the New  Mexico Desert.3  Less than a month later, an atomic bomb was dropped on  Hiroshima, Japan. The United States gained military superiority and a need  arose for other states to have acquire similar weaponry for security. “Stallin  wanted to be able to threaten the United States with atomic weapons, just  as the United States was able to threaten the Soviet Union”4   The Soviets  tested their first atomic bomb in 1949 after blueprints were leaked to them  by German physicist, ​Klaus Fuchs, who worked on the first United States  bomb.5   Now that the Soviet Union had comparable weapons, the United  States began tests on new types and designs of bombs in order to regain  their superiority. Each side continued to add to their arsenals as the tensions  rose. There was a verifiable need for the Soviets to gain a nuclear deterrent  to prevent an attack by the United States, thus the security model  accurately explains proliferation decisions by the state.    Davis, Watson. "Background of Atomic Bomb." ​The Science News­Letter 49.25 (1946): 394­395.   Zuberi, Matin. "Stalin and the bomb." ​Strategic Analysis 23.7 (1999): 1133­1153.  5  "Soviets explode atomic bomb ­ Aug 29, 1949 ­ HISTORY.com." 2010. 20 Sep. 2016  <​http://www.history.com/this­day­in­history/soviets­explode­atomic­bomb​>

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/09/21/nuclearproliferationandsecurityconcerns/

21/09/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

NuclearProliferationandSecurityConcerns-AmandaSewell (3) 97%

      NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND SECURITY CONCERNS:   Accurately predicting future state proliferation by looking at various  factors outside the security model.                   Amanda Sewell  Sam Houston State University  Political Science 5367­International Relations  September 2016              1  Why do states build nuclear weapons? This is the question that Scott  Sagan attempts to answer by in his research by looking at three different  theory models. In the past, the security concerns of the state were a positive  prediction to whether or not they would develop nuclear weapons, but the  same factors that pressured the states in the past, are no longer present  today. Without these factors, would security still be a reliable indicator?  Sagan argues that focusing only on the security considerations as the cause  of proliferation is “dangerously inadequate”.1  While the security model  accurately explains past cases of nuclear proliferation by states, it would not  be reliable in current times since the factors are no longer the same.  Therefore, if we want to predict which countries might develop nuclear  weapons in the future, underlying security concerns can not be the only area  we pay attention to. Recent proliferation cases have demonstrated that we  must take the other factors that play an important role in states decisions  regarding proliferation. These factors, along with security concerns, may  provide a much more accurate predictor of future proliferation.  First, let’s take a closer look at why the security model has  worked for past cases. Sagan describes the security model as “any state that  seeks to maintain its national security must balance against any rival state  that develops nuclear weapons by gaining access to a nuclear deterrent  itself.” 2 The overwhelming majority of nuclear programs were developed  1 2  Sagan, Scott D. 2012. Why do states build nuclear weapons? Three models in search of a bomb. Pp.54   Ibid. pp 56      2  around WWII and the Cold War. The security model is better at predicting  these  behaviors of superpowers such as Russia and the United States where  there is an imminent threat to state’s security. The nuclear arms race  between the United States and the former Soviet Union provides a case  example of this security model and how it explains behavior towards nuclear  proliferation.  On July 16, 1945, the first atomic bomb was tested in the New  Mexico Desert.3  Less than a month later, an atomic bomb was dropped on  Hiroshima, Japan. The United States gained military superiority and a need  arose for other states to have acquire similar weaponry for security. “Stallin  wanted to be able to threaten the United States with atomic weapons, just  as the United States was able to threaten the Soviet Union”4   The Soviets  tested their first atomic bomb in 1949 after blueprints were leaked to them  by German physicist, ​Klaus Fuchs, who worked on the first United States  bomb.5   Now that the Soviet Union had comparable weapons, the United  States began tests on new types and designs of bombs in order to regain  their superiority. Each side continued to add to their arsenals as the tensions  rose. There was a verifiable need for the Soviets to gain a nuclear deterrent  to prevent an attack by the United States, thus the security model  accurately explains proliferation decisions by the state.    Davis, Watson. "Background of Atomic Bomb." ​The Science News­Letter 49.25 (1946): 394­395.   Zuberi, Matin. "Stalin and the bomb." ​Strategic Analysis 23.7 (1999): 1133­1153.  5  "Soviets explode atomic bomb ­ Aug 29, 1949 ­ HISTORY.com." 2010. 20 Sep. 2016  <​http://www.history.com/this­day­in­history/soviets­explode­atomic­bomb​>

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/09/21/nuclearproliferationandsecurityconcerns-amandasewell-3/

21/09/2016 www.pdf-archive.com