News flash: we all use the roads more indirectly, by the trucks that bring goods to the stores we shop at (or our doors), than we do in individual driving. Trying to bill by mile or gallon or whatever is just an excuse for more government employees and more intrusion by the government into your day-to-day activities. The % of the income taxes that you pay that goes to road building is just too small to sweat these sorts of details (unless your actual goal is government intrusiveness, of course).
And those trucks are already being taxed per mile by the States. I guess now the Federal Government wants in on that action. Well, guess they can't tax them twice, but look at all those cars and none of them are being taxed.... *sigh*
The detriment is environmental and military. We maintain an enormous navy to protect the supply routes from the Middle East to Europe, China, Japan, and United States. We maintain an enormous Marine Corp to ensure that any oil producing country that threatens these supplies will be dealt with. We maintain an enormous Air Force to supply and support that Marine Corp. We maintain an enormous Army..... well, I'm not sure why we maintain an enormous Army, probably to support the Marine Corp with slightly less well trained and qualified soldiers.
Not to pic nits...ok I am going to pick because the Air Force does NOT support the Marines. The Marines have their own aircraft and can support themselves. The Marines are also part of the Department of the Navy so they can draw on Navy aircraft as well. I could care less about your opinions about why we have each branch but at least get the little things right. The Marines are self contained, for the most part. They are their own supply, air support and ground. Which is one of the reasons they are usually the first ones sent in. There is no need to coordinate with multiple departments, just call up your Marine guard dog, point in a direction and say sic 'em. Oh, and it's Marine Corps not Corp.
you don't actually understand what a dictionary's function is. It documents how words are used.
If you want to use a word in a manner which the dictionary doesn't acknowledge, you are welcome to do so in private communications with others who understand that usage, but if you are writing to a broader audience who isn't aware of your non-standard definitions you should use standard words and standard meanings of words, as the dictionary has documented them to be.
Except for the fact that dictionaries will not make alterations or additions until the words or usage are in wide and accepted use. So what you are proposing is a catch-22. We shouldn't use such definitions until they are standard, but they can't become standard if they are not used.
FYI only recently was added (I have issues with acronyms in the dictionary, but that's another rant). You cannot say that it was not standard usage in many business communications for years, regardless of it not being included in the dictionary. This goes for every addition or modification that dictionary publishers make. Until it is a standard the definition will not be changed to reflect that.
They are not illegal as far as I can tell from Googling around. The breeder program has just been abandoned and defunded, which has pretty much the same effect. I doubt the non-proliferation treaty has anything to do with it, but they do happen to have a pretty serious proliferation problem among other things. The sodium that is normally used for a coolant is highly volatile and routinely causes fires from what I have read. So, while I always thought they were a good idea it appears that the technology is still unsafe, not very reliable and light water is still the best solution. Hopefully someday someone will be able to fix the issues with breeders and we'll be able to use all that spent fuel we've been accumulating.
Your link specifically excludes the US as a Representative Democracy. Might want to review those links first.
"For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered."[2]"
I pulled the information from Wiki, which of course goes to prove that you didn't bother reading the whole thread in the first place as I thought. It only lists individual years going back to 1977 prior to that it goes in 10 year increments which I also mentioned, not that you bothered to read it. Nice that you feel you can determine my reasons for using those years, must be some faulty clairvoyance you have there. Might want to get that checked. Of course you could have read the entire thread, but then that would have taken some intelligence on your part.
It is not spin. Percentage of GDP is the equivalent of a debt to income ratio that creditors use to evaluate individuals and businesses credit worthiness. The people use it is that it's the number that really matters.
No, it's bullshit and spin. Right, debt to income, but it doesn't matter a bit as far as debt reduction, which there is none. It is just spin so that one side can claim that our debt isn't as bad as your debt because we can afford it better. You *still* haven't done a fucking thing about the debt continuing to increase which is where this particular part of the thread started. Then the unthinkable happens and you find yourself in a depression. Exactly what good was your debt to income ratio or gdp ratio then?
I'll tell you, it's fucking worthless because you didn't do a damn thing about reducing your debt in the first place and acted like you can increase your debt continuously forever. This is what both sides of the aisle in congress are doing. They are whistling in the dark continuously raising the debt ceiling and not addressing the deficit or EVEN talking about it.
The so called balanced budget under Clinton was not in fact balanced. They reduced the deficit but they never balanced it or had a surplus as the debt continued unabated. They got it down to 20B and then just plowed ahead. Both parties do this and until we can get these career, elitist millionaires out of office it will never change. They will never pass term limits on themselves and will never pass a true balanced budget that results in actually paying the debt down. The special interests are in control of both parties and they are going to spend us into bankruptcy. Eventually the bill will come due. The interest on the debt will be more than we can pay and when that day comes, we all lose.
No. Only when dimwits like you stop believing that Republicans care about the debt will anything ever change.
What part of both sides of the isle are responsible do you not understand. It's asshats like yourself with tunnel vision for their party of choice that are the problem. Oh, Obama inherited all his problems yet Bush is responsible for everything from day one in office. Hypocrite much?
Civics 101. Congress spends the money not the president and neither side cares one bit about balancing the budget OR reducing the debt. Period.
Here's a clue dimwit, I'm Libertarian. I distrust both parties and don't take what either say as gospel, unlike your regurgitation of dem talking points. Your are immediately against a balanced budget because it would cut into *your* favored programs, whatever they are, or you perceive I am some Repub supporter which I am not.
Where did I claim the Repub were any better than the Dems. They are both criminally liable IMO. What I will object to is anyone claiming one party is better than the other at this. Neither is doing a damn thing about it. I have posted repeatedly in this thread how I feel about both parties yet apparently you are illiterate and just can't read what is posted and instead believe what you *think* I posted. Hell, you even quoted me where I plainly state I want term limits on everyone, yet for some reason only known to your twisted little mind that means I want limits on Dems only?
Let's try this one last time and I will use small words so you can understand. Both parties are doing nothing about the debt. The debt has been increasing every year since at least 1977 and possibly going back to 1870. The only difference between a Dem controlled congress and a Repub controlled congress is which one spends money faster. NEITHER really reduces the debt EVER. Percent of gdp is just spin used by those that just want to claim "But out debt isn't as bad as their debt". Until the debt is reduced in real numbers you haven't made things better. You have made them worse.
If we don't reduce the debt we eventually won't even be able to pay the interest and then it's game over. We CAN NOT continue to increase the debt forever, but apparently both parties in government think they can do exactly that. BTW the balanced budget legislation still resulted in a debt increase so how exactly is that a balanced budget again?
Nice reference. Unfortunately it proves the GP's point. Between 1992 and 2000 the public debt increased by 1.6 trillion, or about 200 billion per year. If you look at the above link you'll see that the interest payments were far greater than this increase. Or, to put it another way, during the Clinton administration the only increase in the public debt was interest on the public debt. Granted that has been spun like crazy, but compare that to the Bush years: Between 2000 and 2008 the public debt increased by 4.3 trillion, or about 540 billion per year. The interest on the debt was approximately 350 billion of that 540 billion per year. So in the case of clinton the "programs that they have decided to exclude from the formula" is the interest on the national debt. In the case of Bush there just isn't any case -- the debt rose way faster than the interest.
Sorry, I disagree. Interest on the debt is part of the overall debt and cannot be ignored or left out of the equation. The interest payment is part of your annual expenses. The debt went up every single year, so there was no balanced budget. A balanced budget means you add no additional debt and you pay the interest down. Anything else is just spin. There has not been a single year since 1977 that we have not added to the debt so the OP I was replying to was in error and the GP was correct. There is no effort by any administration to actually reduce the debt or have a balanced budget where that is possible. I don't really give a a shit which party does it, but someone needs to. This bullshit % of GDP does not impress me as being anything more than spin to claim we can afford it. Continued debt will eventually bankrupt us regardless of how well we can afford it right now. It eventually catches up with you and something needs to be done.
Did Clinton and his Repub Congress do better than other administrations? Sure, but they didn't finish the job nor did they achieve a balanced budget as they claimed. Now matters are even worse with Obama and a Dem controlled Congress having increased it 3 Trillion in 2 years and on target to surpass both Clinton and Bush's debt combined in 4 years. I doubt the new Repub Congress will do any better but I can be hopeful based Clinton's Repub Congress. As I said, I feel they are all cut from the same cloth and really do not care about anything other than staying in office. Until we have a true balanced budget amendment and term limits on all members of Congress nothing will ever change.
I don't see any credible evidence that an attempt will be made to balance the budget in my lifetime
We had a balanced budget a little over a decade ago. It was only after the "party of fiscal responsibility" took over that spending really spiraled out of control.
--Jeremy
Really? that's strange because the debt history shows that the US debt has risen every single year since 1977 and probably going back to 1870 although wiki doesn't break out individual years past 1977. Regardless of which party is in office, or which party controls congress and thereby the purse, the debt keeps going up and accelerating.
You should place less faith in what the talking heads of either party say they are doing and what the actual records shows they did. At the current rate of increase Obama's administration will outstrip both Bush and Clinton in debt accumulation....combined.
The problem is when they claim a balanced budget, they neglect to mention the various programs they have decided to exclude from the formula. Both sides of the aisle are a bunch of Elitist millionaires who make a habit of exempting themselves from the very laws they impose on the rest of us. I distrust all of them until such time there is both a balanced budget law/amendment and term limits on the lot of them.
OMG! Pictures of my house, on a public street, where thousands of people can drive by and see it? MY PRIVACY IS RUINED! I might as well post my SSN on the Internet now!
An M-16A1 is described by the USMC as a "semi-automatic". So clearly this generic use of the term "automatic" is probably a bit archaic as well as not being sufficiently precise (even for back in 1911).
umm...since when? I spent 6 years in the Marines and at no time was an M16 ever referred to as a semi-automatic. It was and is a select-fire assault rifle and believe me they drilled that shit into our skulls. The A2 was capable of burst mode, but was also a select-fire weapon. I don't know where you got the idea the USMC thinks an assault rifle is a semi-automatic, but whoever it was is dead wrong.
Perhaps I'm a dissenting voice here, but I actually do listen to broadcast radio, and I would love it if my android-based smart phone had an FM tuner in it. There are times when I don't have the music I want to listen to on the device, and I would tune in to either CBC 2 (classical music channel) or the local indy/alternative station.
My android has FM radio and I have used it exactly once. It was mostly out of curiosity and to check out how it worked. It is ok if I actually cared about anything broadcast radio played, but I don't. My android also is capable of playing MP3s which allows me to play whatever I want. So why would I want to listen to FM Radio? Except when I am driving to and from work, I don't listen to radio at all and even then I sometimes listen to my own CDs or pop in my Rosetta CD to practice my Russian.
Frankly, I think this is just another power and money grab by NAB and RIAA. They have to know that the audience for FM radio on mobile devices, at least in the US, is practically nil, but they still can charge the mobile device manufacturers and/or the radio stations and collect yet more money. They have to know that users getting music over the air is declining rapidly, yet they will attempt to jam this down the consumer's throat and milk it for all the revenue they can.
I am sure there is a small fraction of mobile device users that would use this feature. If the demand was there the device manufacturers would have already included it or would be actively working to include it in the near future. I have no problem with it being included in devices if it is due to consumer demand. Government mandates, on the other hand, are just a bad idea no matter what side of this fence you are sitting on.
I remember my dad's VW routinely getting around 30 mpg during the 70s. Previous to the VW's he had from 1970 until 1978 he had a 1964 Chrysler which I think got something in the mid teens to low 20s for MPG.
I think you are thinking about the mean average for MPG in 1970 which was about 10 mpg. Pretty sad that as of 2006 the average has only risen to 18. http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=384
One of the funniest cartoons I have seen recently had to do with this. Can't post the image but the caption was the funny part -
"Honk if you love Jesus...text while driving if you want to meet him."
This is actually fairly common style with Korean MMO's and multiplayer games. It seems to work good there and players like it, so it's not a surprise companies want to try it on western markets too.
True enough. However, they should make this clear upfront and not change the model after the fact and expect everyone to be happy. Korean MMOs use this model but they tell you this upfront during development. They don't claim it's free and then do a bait and switch after release and it's now micro-payments. The community feels betrayed with good reason. If they had started with the micro-payment model there would be less screaming now. But they specifically said they weren't going to do this and turned around and did it anyway.
Players do not like being lied to and depending on how angry people get about this it might kill this game outright.
Re:Troubleshooting skills.
on
Stargate Universe
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Oh and by the way photon torpedoes are warp-driven vessels filled with antimatter - they don't pass through the ship when they impact, even though they are traveling at warp speed.
Incorrect. They are warp-capable not warp driven.
"The propulsion system of the torpedoes is a warp sustainer engine. The engine coils of the torpedo grab and hold a hand-off field from the launcher tube's sequential field induction coils. A miniature matter/antimatter fuel cell adds power to the hand-off field. When launched in warp flight, torpedo will continue to travel at warp, when launched at sublight, torpedo will travel at a high sublight speed, but will not cross the warp threshold."
So, when fighting in sub-space the torpedo will remain in sub-space and hit its target. When fighting in normal space it will remain in normal space and hit its target. It will not cross the threshold either way which would make it unable to hit its target.
This is more about making 55 the new starting level for players who ALREADY have a level 80 character(s). I have no sympathy for these players since they should be more than competent to level though faster than any new player and spend a minimal amount of time doing it.
Obviously they won't find it 'hard' to level. I watched my wife level her mage to 70 as a 'melee magetank' so anything's possible. O.o Can you explain to me why, though, someone should have to spend 5 - 10 days of their life redoing trivial tasks in order to have another high level character? It's not hard, it's not new, all it is is a waste of time.
Then I would suggest those people find a different genre of game to play instead of forcing the entire community to adapt to their lazy attitude. WoW is by FAR the easiest game out there to level in and yet people are still, to this day, complaining its too hard, and too long.
If you want a lvl 80 character you have to put in the time to create it. It is not handed to you. I don't care if it's your first 80 or your 8th. No one is forcing you to create another character. This constant crying that you can't instantly make another 80 is pathetic. Go play on a private server if you want everything handed to you on a platter.
This is a game that everyone knows, going in, takes some time to level to 80. If you can't handle that - leave. This game isn't for you. Go buy an xbox game that you can beat in an afternoon. Don't screw up the game for everyone else that likes a challenge and the feeling of accomplishment that leveling a character entails. Don't trivialize it to the point where you login and immediately get to max level.
I swear, this complaint has been going on in one form or another for 4 years and yet every day people continue to roll new alts. Go Play EQ if you want a taste of what a real level grind is like. I am getting tired of people continuing to cry to put in an easy button for them and dumb down the game to the point where you can macro everything to one button and faceroll to win.
The problem is not that it takes a long time to level to 80. It's that Blizzard has made the game so easy now that people finish and get bored with the high end content before they can even finish creating any new content.
So what will these new fast 80s do when they instantly have 80s of every single class, dual spec'd into every conceivable build? The main reason people make alt's in the first place is because they are bored at the high end and you want to speed up the process where they get back to 80 again and get bored yet again?
Whenever Bliz puts out new content these crys up and quit immediately until the new content is finished and then they rise again, because people are bored again. The leveling mechanic is not broken. People's attitudes that they should be given things without working for it is. That goes for outside the game as well.
This is a great illustration of the difference between 'normal people' and 'casual' MMO players. I'm not saying you're bad or abnormal - you probably play about as much as I do. I'm just pointing out that spending "a few hours a night" is an order of magnitude more than 'normal' people are willing to spend, and like it or not, what's made WoW so massive is the fact that those normal people can play a couple of hours here and there and still feel like they're getting somewhere. Or, alternately, 'casuals' like us can play a couple of dozen arena games or run a couple of heroics, and then work on an alt for half an hour and still feel like the alt's made progress.
Sorry, that don't wash. A couple heroics, a dozen arena matches along with leveling an alt for an hour? That's about 4-5 hours of play if not more. Hmm, sounds exactly like the amount of playtime I was talking about. Everything in this game from instances to quests will take a couple hours of play to finish, sometimes more depending on the instance or quest line.
An hour's work on an alt, depending on level should net you 1-2 levels. Are you trying to tell me that isn't enough? Also, if these normal players are only playing 1-2 times a week they should have full vitality and might be able to get 3 levels in that hour....every single week. Again, this is not enough?? What, should they login and immediately get 5 levels? What about reward for work done?
Putting in, yet another easy button, is not the answer. New players will have to level up, make friends to help them etc. and sorry, I feel the current level progression is more than fast enough to allow even casual players to level quickly while experiencing the lore and fun of all those old zones. This is more about making 55 the new starting level for players who ALREADY have a level 80 character(s). I have no sympathy for these players since they should be more than competent to level though faster than any new player and spend a minimal amount of time doing it.
I create new characters only because I am bored of dailies, BGs, WG etc. I level so fast now, sometimes not even meaning to since I am trying to finish every quest in the zone, that questlines turn grey before I can complete them. It is just silly and now people are crying that leveling is too slow?
Tell you what, if these jokers want instant 80 they should go create an account on a private server where they do that. It is one thing to want easy levels its another to be given it. You know that old saying "Be careful what you wish for".
55-58 used to be 'run BRD and replace the worst of your greens' time, at least now there's a few more quests in Silithus and EPL to fill some of it. The Tirion Fordring questline is awesome too, especially if you can get groups for the bits in Stratholme.
I haven't seen a Strat group in ages and have only been able to do LBRS or Dire Maul a couple times in the last year or so. I started this game at launch and quit after 6 months because I felt it was too easy. 0-60 in 2 months was ridiculous in my opinion. Now I can do that in 2 weeks. I came here from EQ1 then and EQ2 recently. Go level a character there and get back to me on how difficult it is to level in WoW.
WoW players have it easy, but that isn't enough it seems. They want it so they can have an instant 80 and then complain there is no content after they get it.
Dude, have you tried to level a new character recently? It's a long, boring solo grind because so few players are still levelling. It'd be fun to do with a bunch of friends, but face it - the original, populated game that we played back in vanilla is gone. The real game starts at 80.
You're kidding, right? I have 3 80s and could level another if I wanted to in a month, probably less if I really pushed it. I have done 35 levels in a weekend. Leveling is so insanely easy now that I can get to Outland in less than 2 weeks, Northrend the week after and max out to 80 the week after that. When I started a DK (as everyone did when they came out) I was 70 in less than 5 days and no I don't play WoW every waking moment. I have a full time job. I play a few hours a night and probably quite a few on the weekend and some days I don't play at all. Outside the initial burst of levels at the low end I can usually do 5+ levels a day on the weekend and 1 or 2 levels a day during the week depending on what level I am working on. The only levels I usually have an issue with are between 55-58. I tend to run out of quests and have to resort to instances or outright mob grinding.
Yes, this is all solo. If my guild helps it goes by way faster as we can grind instances and level faster than the quests, but I like questing and it takes so little time and depending on the server there are still a lot of players either leveling alts or new to the game. ZF, ST and BRD groups are still fairly easy to come by, but it is true that many of the former high end instances are pretty vacant.
Still, if I want to I can get any class to 80 in a matter of a few weeks. That is actually not really that long considering at launch it could take at least 2 months or more to get to 60 and that was with pretty much every zone filled with people. Well, considering I don't have to fight over quest mobs now, maybe all those people were slowing me down. =)
Amazon is in no way responsible for use taxes for roads if it does not operate its own fleet. The shipper is responsible for that end. It is not relevant how much road fuel taxes comprise in the overall cost of roads. They do play a part and road fuel taxes for large trucks are considerable. Every single commercial vehicle is taxed for every mile they operate in the state. This is offset by any fuel they bought while in the state. The end result is their tax liability which must be paid for each and every state they operate in annually. Those states they did not operate in they can apply for a refund if they purchased a fuel tax sticker for that state.
Amazon contracts with shippers to deliver the goods to the consumer. It is the responsibility of the shipper to pay the road fuel taxes incurred by that delivery. It doesn't matter if that amount is a very small portion of the overall cost of upkeep on these roads. This is how every state assigns taxes for road use to commercial vehicles. If they felt it wasn't fair they should change their tax laws. Amazon, by themselves, are not responsible for ANY road taxes unless they operate the fleet delivering the merchandise. So, I see no reason why Amazon should be required to play tax collector in states it does not truly operate within.
Yes, I drove a semi for many years. These tax laws were one of the reasons I never bought my own rig.
The problem is that people buying out of state are supposed to pay taxes on what they buy. The internet makes this fuzzy because exactly where did the purchase take place? If it takes place at the consumer, the consumer is responsible for paying the tax and opts not to do so and Amazon is in no position legally or otherwise to make them do so. If it takes place at the shipper, then Amazon should be applying state tax for the jurisdiction it resides in and no other state. Then there is the matter that since this is virtual did the sale take place where Amazon has their offices or where they house their servers?
I think taxing at the shipper state of residence is probably the correct one. If they have multiple locations you could either allow the consumer to choose (probably a bad idea) or chose the location the product will be shipped from. All internet businesses should collect tax for the jurisdiction they reside in or the jurisdiction the product is being shipped from only. I don't believe it matters if you physically cross to another state or virtually visit another state via the web. You made the purchase in state 'X'. You pay the tax in state 'X', not state 'Y' and definitely not in state 'X and Y'. Are there problems with that? Sure. I can think of a bunch above what I already mentioned which is probably why Congress is dragging their heels addressing this. I don't have any ideas on how to fix it, but letting the States overreach their authority to burden a business with collecting taxes for municipalities it does not reside in is setting a very dangerous precedent.
Merits? What merits? It was an ad hominem attack against Lincoln solely because he was a lawyer. It offered nothing to the discussion and was, IMO, deliberately phrased to elicit an emotional response from other readers. Did the poster offer any indication where he got this idea? Did he offer any evidence that Lincoln was biased when he made this statement? No, his sole reason for discounting and attacking the quote was because Lincoln was a lawyer himself. Period.
Sorry, if I had mod points I would have tagged it the same way. You probably got tagged for the backhand comment towards the mods which, again IMO, were perfectly correct in labeling the post as flamebait.
Even more interesting is the fact that Lincoln did not originate this quote. A quick google finds this same adage in print going back to the very early 1800's so while Lincoln may have said it at some time, it was not originally his quote, unless he made it from the cradle.
Slashdot Mirror
News flash: we all use the roads more indirectly, by the trucks that bring goods to the stores we shop at (or our doors), than we do in individual driving. Trying to bill by mile or gallon or whatever is just an excuse for more government employees and more intrusion by the government into your day-to-day activities. The % of the income taxes that you pay that goes to road building is just too small to sweat these sorts of details (unless your actual goal is government intrusiveness, of course).
And those trucks are already being taxed per mile by the States. I guess now the Federal Government wants in on that action. Well, guess they can't tax them twice, but look at all those cars and none of them are being taxed.... *sigh*
The detriment is environmental and military. We maintain an enormous navy to protect the supply routes from the Middle East to Europe, China, Japan, and United States. We maintain an enormous Marine Corp to ensure that any oil producing country that threatens these supplies will be dealt with. We maintain an enormous Air Force to supply and support that Marine Corp. We maintain an enormous Army..... well, I'm not sure why we maintain an enormous Army, probably to support the Marine Corp with slightly less well trained and qualified soldiers.
Not to pic nits...ok I am going to pick because the Air Force does NOT support the Marines. The Marines have their own aircraft and can support themselves. The Marines are also part of the Department of the Navy so they can draw on Navy aircraft as well. I could care less about your opinions about why we have each branch but at least get the little things right. The Marines are self contained, for the most part. They are their own supply, air support and ground. Which is one of the reasons they are usually the first ones sent in. There is no need to coordinate with multiple departments, just call up your Marine guard dog, point in a direction and say sic 'em. Oh, and it's Marine Corps not Corp.
Semper Fi
you don't actually understand what a dictionary's function is. It documents how words are used.
If you want to use a word in a manner which the dictionary doesn't acknowledge, you are welcome to do so in private communications with others who understand that usage, but if you are writing to a broader audience who isn't aware of your non-standard definitions you should use standard words and standard meanings of words, as the dictionary has documented them to be.
Except for the fact that dictionaries will not make alterations or additions until the words or usage are in wide and accepted use. So what you are proposing is a catch-22. We shouldn't use such definitions until they are standard, but they can't become standard if they are not used.
FYI only recently was added (I have issues with acronyms in the dictionary, but that's another rant). You cannot say that it was not standard usage in many business communications for years, regardless of it not being included in the dictionary. This goes for every addition or modification that dictionary publishers make. Until it is a standard the definition will not be changed to reflect that.
They are not illegal as far as I can tell from Googling around. The breeder program has just been abandoned and defunded, which has pretty much the same effect. I doubt the non-proliferation treaty has anything to do with it, but they do happen to have a pretty serious proliferation problem among other things. The sodium that is normally used for a coolant is highly volatile and routinely causes fires from what I have read. So, while I always thought they were a good idea it appears that the technology is still unsafe, not very reliable and light water is still the best solution. Hopefully someday someone will be able to fix the issues with breeders and we'll be able to use all that spent fuel we've been accumulating.
I'm patenting my laser pointer as a cat bowling device.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFztjgfDWDA
Your link specifically excludes the US as a Representative Democracy. Might want to review those links first.
"For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered."[2]"
It is not spin. Percentage of GDP is the equivalent of a debt to income ratio that creditors use to evaluate individuals and businesses credit worthiness. The people use it is that it's the number that really matters.
No, it's bullshit and spin. Right, debt to income, but it doesn't matter a bit as far as debt reduction, which there is none. It is just spin so that one side can claim that our debt isn't as bad as your debt because we can afford it better. You *still* haven't done a fucking thing about the debt continuing to increase which is where this particular part of the thread started. Then the unthinkable happens and you find yourself in a depression. Exactly what good was your debt to income ratio or gdp ratio then?
I'll tell you, it's fucking worthless because you didn't do a damn thing about reducing your debt in the first place and acted like you can increase your debt continuously forever. This is what both sides of the aisle in congress are doing. They are whistling in the dark continuously raising the debt ceiling and not addressing the deficit or EVEN talking about it.
The so called balanced budget under Clinton was not in fact balanced. They reduced the deficit but they never balanced it or had a surplus as the debt continued unabated. They got it down to 20B and then just plowed ahead. Both parties do this and until we can get these career, elitist millionaires out of office it will never change. They will never pass term limits on themselves and will never pass a true balanced budget that results in actually paying the debt down. The special interests are in control of both parties and they are going to spend us into bankruptcy. Eventually the bill will come due. The interest on the debt will be more than we can pay and when that day comes, we all lose.
No. Only when dimwits like you stop believing that Republicans care about the debt will anything ever change.
What part of both sides of the isle are responsible do you not understand. It's asshats like yourself with tunnel vision for their party of choice that are the problem. Oh, Obama inherited all his problems yet Bush is responsible for everything from day one in office. Hypocrite much?
Civics 101. Congress spends the money not the president and neither side cares one bit about balancing the budget OR reducing the debt. Period.
Here's a clue dimwit, I'm Libertarian. I distrust both parties and don't take what either say as gospel, unlike your regurgitation of dem talking points. Your are immediately against a balanced budget because it would cut into *your* favored programs, whatever they are, or you perceive I am some Repub supporter which I am not.
Where did I claim the Repub were any better than the Dems. They are both criminally liable IMO. What I will object to is anyone claiming one party is better than the other at this. Neither is doing a damn thing about it. I have posted repeatedly in this thread how I feel about both parties yet apparently you are illiterate and just can't read what is posted and instead believe what you *think* I posted. Hell, you even quoted me where I plainly state I want term limits on everyone, yet for some reason only known to your twisted little mind that means I want limits on Dems only?
Let's try this one last time and I will use small words so you can understand. Both parties are doing nothing about the debt. The debt has been increasing every year since at least 1977 and possibly going back to 1870. The only difference between a Dem controlled congress and a Repub controlled congress is which one spends money faster. NEITHER really reduces the debt EVER. Percent of gdp is just spin used by those that just want to claim "But out debt isn't as bad as their debt". Until the debt is reduced in real numbers you haven't made things better. You have made them worse.
If we don't reduce the debt we eventually won't even be able to pay the interest and then it's game over. We CAN NOT continue to increase the debt forever, but apparently both parties in government think they can do exactly that. BTW the balanced budget legislation still resulted in a debt increase so how exactly is that a balanced budget again?
Sorry, I disagree. Interest on the debt is part of the overall debt and cannot be ignored or left out of the equation. The interest payment is part of your annual expenses. The debt went up every single year, so there was no balanced budget. A balanced budget means you add no additional debt and you pay the interest down. Anything else is just spin. There has not been a single year since 1977 that we have not added to the debt so the OP I was replying to was in error and the GP was correct. There is no effort by any administration to actually reduce the debt or have a balanced budget where that is possible. I don't really give a a shit which party does it, but someone needs to. This bullshit % of GDP does not impress me as being anything more than spin to claim we can afford it. Continued debt will eventually bankrupt us regardless of how well we can afford it right now. It eventually catches up with you and something needs to be done.
Did Clinton and his Repub Congress do better than other administrations? Sure, but they didn't finish the job nor did they achieve a balanced budget as they claimed. Now matters are even worse with Obama and a Dem controlled Congress having increased it 3 Trillion in 2 years and on target to surpass both Clinton and Bush's debt combined in 4 years. I doubt the new Repub Congress will do any better but I can be hopeful based Clinton's Repub Congress. As I said, I feel they are all cut from the same cloth and really do not care about anything other than staying in office. Until we have a true balanced budget amendment and term limits on all members of Congress nothing will ever change.
We had a balanced budget a little over a decade ago. It was only after the "party of fiscal responsibility" took over that spending really spiraled out of control.
--Jeremy
Really? that's strange because the debt history shows that the US debt has risen every single year since 1977 and probably going back to 1870 although wiki doesn't break out individual years past 1977. Regardless of which party is in office, or which party controls congress and thereby the purse, the debt keeps going up and accelerating.
You should place less faith in what the talking heads of either party say they are doing and what the actual records shows they did. At the current rate of increase Obama's administration will outstrip both Bush and Clinton in debt accumulation....combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U.S._public_debt
The problem is when they claim a balanced budget, they neglect to mention the various programs they have decided to exclude from the formula. Both sides of the aisle are a bunch of Elitist millionaires who make a habit of exempting themselves from the very laws they impose on the rest of us. I distrust all of them until such time there is both a balanced budget law/amendment and term limits on the lot of them.
True, but if the government already has you disarmed where are you going to get them?
It would also be accurate to say that most of the people alive today will be dead before the impact.
Todd Davis, is that you?
LifeLock
umm...since when? I spent 6 years in the Marines and at no time was an M16 ever referred to as a semi-automatic. It was and is a select-fire assault rifle and believe me they drilled that shit into our skulls. The A2 was capable of burst mode, but was also a select-fire weapon. I don't know where you got the idea the USMC thinks an assault rifle is a semi-automatic, but whoever it was is dead wrong.
My android has FM radio and I have used it exactly once. It was mostly out of curiosity and to check out how it worked. It is ok if I actually cared about anything broadcast radio played, but I don't. My android also is capable of playing MP3s which allows me to play whatever I want. So why would I want to listen to FM Radio? Except when I am driving to and from work, I don't listen to radio at all and even then I sometimes listen to my own CDs or pop in my Rosetta CD to practice my Russian.
Frankly, I think this is just another power and money grab by NAB and RIAA. They have to know that the audience for FM radio on mobile devices, at least in the US, is practically nil, but they still can charge the mobile device manufacturers and/or the radio stations and collect yet more money. They have to know that users getting music over the air is declining rapidly, yet they will attempt to jam this down the consumer's throat and milk it for all the revenue they can.
I am sure there is a small fraction of mobile device users that would use this feature. If the demand was there the device manufacturers would have already included it or would be actively working to include it in the near future. I have no problem with it being included in devices if it is due to consumer demand. Government mandates, on the other hand, are just a bad idea no matter what side of this fence you are sitting on.
I remember my dad's VW routinely getting around 30 mpg during the 70s. Previous to the VW's he had from 1970 until 1978 he had a 1964 Chrysler which I think got something in the mid teens to low 20s for MPG.
I think you are thinking about the mean average for MPG in 1970 which was about 10 mpg. Pretty sad that as of 2006 the average has only risen to 18.
http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=384
One of the funniest cartoons I have seen recently had to do with this. Can't post the image but the caption was the funny part - "Honk if you love Jesus...text while driving if you want to meet him."
True enough. However, they should make this clear upfront and not change the model after the fact and expect everyone to be happy. Korean MMOs use this model but they tell you this upfront during development. They don't claim it's free and then do a bait and switch after release and it's now micro-payments. The community feels betrayed with good reason. If they had started with the micro-payment model there would be less screaming now. But they specifically said they weren't going to do this and turned around and did it anyway. Players do not like being lied to and depending on how angry people get about this it might kill this game outright.
Incorrect. They are warp-capable not warp driven.
"The propulsion system of the torpedoes is a warp sustainer engine. The engine coils of the torpedo grab and hold a hand-off field from the launcher tube's sequential field induction coils. A miniature matter/antimatter fuel cell adds power to the hand-off field. When launched in warp flight, torpedo will continue to travel at warp, when launched at sublight, torpedo will travel at a high sublight speed, but will not cross the warp threshold."
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Photon_torpedo
So, when fighting in sub-space the torpedo will remain in sub-space and hit its target. When fighting in normal space it will remain in normal space and hit its target. It will not cross the threshold either way which would make it unable to hit its target.
Sigh, I am such a geek.
That is exactly correct. I found this is even included as a mandatory to do in my Manly Manual page 6251.
This is more about making 55 the new starting level for players who ALREADY have a level 80 character(s). I have no sympathy for these players since they should be more than competent to level though faster than any new player and spend a minimal amount of time doing it.
Obviously they won't find it 'hard' to level. I watched my wife level her mage to 70 as a 'melee magetank' so anything's possible. O.o Can you explain to me why, though, someone should have to spend 5 - 10 days of their life redoing trivial tasks in order to have another high level character? It's not hard, it's not new, all it is is a waste of time.
Then I would suggest those people find a different genre of game to play instead of forcing the entire community to adapt to their lazy attitude. WoW is by FAR the easiest game out there to level in and yet people are still, to this day, complaining its too hard, and too long.
If you want a lvl 80 character you have to put in the time to create it. It is not handed to you. I don't care if it's your first 80 or your 8th. No one is forcing you to create another character. This constant crying that you can't instantly make another 80 is pathetic. Go play on a private server if you want everything handed to you on a platter.
This is a game that everyone knows, going in, takes some time to level to 80. If you can't handle that - leave. This game isn't for you. Go buy an xbox game that you can beat in an afternoon. Don't screw up the game for everyone else that likes a challenge and the feeling of accomplishment that leveling a character entails. Don't trivialize it to the point where you login and immediately get to max level. I swear, this complaint has been going on in one form or another for 4 years and yet every day people continue to roll new alts. Go Play EQ if you want a taste of what a real level grind is like. I am getting tired of people continuing to cry to put in an easy button for them and dumb down the game to the point where you can macro everything to one button and faceroll to win.
The problem is not that it takes a long time to level to 80. It's that Blizzard has made the game so easy now that people finish and get bored with the high end content before they can even finish creating any new content.
So what will these new fast 80s do when they instantly have 80s of every single class, dual spec'd into every conceivable build? The main reason people make alt's in the first place is because they are bored at the high end and you want to speed up the process where they get back to 80 again and get bored yet again?
Whenever Bliz puts out new content these crys up and quit immediately until the new content is finished and then they rise again, because people are bored again. The leveling mechanic is not broken. People's attitudes that they should be given things without working for it is. That goes for outside the game as well.
This is a great illustration of the difference between 'normal people' and 'casual' MMO players. I'm not saying you're bad or abnormal - you probably play about as much as I do. I'm just pointing out that spending "a few hours a night" is an order of magnitude more than 'normal' people are willing to spend, and like it or not, what's made WoW so massive is the fact that those normal people can play a couple of hours here and there and still feel like they're getting somewhere. Or, alternately, 'casuals' like us can play a couple of dozen arena games or run a couple of heroics, and then work on an alt for half an hour and still feel like the alt's made progress.
Sorry, that don't wash. A couple heroics, a dozen arena matches along with leveling an alt for an hour? That's about 4-5 hours of play if not more. Hmm, sounds exactly like the amount of playtime I was talking about. Everything in this game from instances to quests will take a couple hours of play to finish, sometimes more depending on the instance or quest line.
An hour's work on an alt, depending on level should net you 1-2 levels. Are you trying to tell me that isn't enough? Also, if these normal players are only playing 1-2 times a week they should have full vitality and might be able to get 3 levels in that hour....every single week. Again, this is not enough?? What, should they login and immediately get 5 levels? What about reward for work done? Putting in, yet another easy button, is not the answer. New players will have to level up, make friends to help them etc. and sorry, I feel the current level progression is more than fast enough to allow even casual players to level quickly while experiencing the lore and fun of all those old zones. This is more about making 55 the new starting level for players who ALREADY have a level 80 character(s). I have no sympathy for these players since they should be more than competent to level though faster than any new player and spend a minimal amount of time doing it.
I create new characters only because I am bored of dailies, BGs, WG etc. I level so fast now, sometimes not even meaning to since I am trying to finish every quest in the zone, that questlines turn grey before I can complete them. It is just silly and now people are crying that leveling is too slow?
Tell you what, if these jokers want instant 80 they should go create an account on a private server where they do that. It is one thing to want easy levels its another to be given it. You know that old saying "Be careful what you wish for".
55-58 used to be 'run BRD and replace the worst of your greens' time, at least now there's a few more quests in Silithus and EPL to fill some of it. The Tirion Fordring questline is awesome too, especially if you can get groups for the bits in Stratholme.
I haven't seen a Strat group in ages and have only been able to do LBRS or Dire Maul a couple times in the last year or so. I started this game at launch and quit after 6 months because I felt it was too easy. 0-60 in 2 months was ridiculous in my opinion. Now I can do that in 2 weeks. I came here from EQ1 then and EQ2 recently. Go level a character there and get back to me on how difficult it is to level in WoW.
WoW players have it easy, but that isn't enough it seems. They want it so they can have an instant 80 and then complain there is no content after they get it.
You're kidding, right? I have 3 80s and could level another if I wanted to in a month, probably less if I really pushed it. I have done 35 levels in a weekend. Leveling is so insanely easy now that I can get to Outland in less than 2 weeks, Northrend the week after and max out to 80 the week after that. When I started a DK (as everyone did when they came out) I was 70 in less than 5 days and no I don't play WoW every waking moment. I have a full time job. I play a few hours a night and probably quite a few on the weekend and some days I don't play at all. Outside the initial burst of levels at the low end I can usually do 5+ levels a day on the weekend and 1 or 2 levels a day during the week depending on what level I am working on. The only levels I usually have an issue with are between 55-58. I tend to run out of quests and have to resort to instances or outright mob grinding.
Yes, this is all solo. If my guild helps it goes by way faster as we can grind instances and level faster than the quests, but I like questing and it takes so little time and depending on the server there are still a lot of players either leveling alts or new to the game. ZF, ST and BRD groups are still fairly easy to come by, but it is true that many of the former high end instances are pretty vacant.
Still, if I want to I can get any class to 80 in a matter of a few weeks. That is actually not really that long considering at launch it could take at least 2 months or more to get to 60 and that was with pretty much every zone filled with people. Well, considering I don't have to fight over quest mobs now, maybe all those people were slowing me down. =)
Amazon is in no way responsible for use taxes for roads if it does not operate its own fleet. The shipper is responsible for that end. It is not relevant how much road fuel taxes comprise in the overall cost of roads. They do play a part and road fuel taxes for large trucks are considerable. Every single commercial vehicle is taxed for every mile they operate in the state. This is offset by any fuel they bought while in the state. The end result is their tax liability which must be paid for each and every state they operate in annually. Those states they did not operate in they can apply for a refund if they purchased a fuel tax sticker for that state.
Amazon contracts with shippers to deliver the goods to the consumer. It is the responsibility of the shipper to pay the road fuel taxes incurred by that delivery. It doesn't matter if that amount is a very small portion of the overall cost of upkeep on these roads. This is how every state assigns taxes for road use to commercial vehicles. If they felt it wasn't fair they should change their tax laws. Amazon, by themselves, are not responsible for ANY road taxes unless they operate the fleet delivering the merchandise. So, I see no reason why Amazon should be required to play tax collector in states it does not truly operate within.
Yes, I drove a semi for many years. These tax laws were one of the reasons I never bought my own rig.
The problem is that people buying out of state are supposed to pay taxes on what they buy. The internet makes this fuzzy because exactly where did the purchase take place? If it takes place at the consumer, the consumer is responsible for paying the tax and opts not to do so and Amazon is in no position legally or otherwise to make them do so. If it takes place at the shipper, then Amazon should be applying state tax for the jurisdiction it resides in and no other state. Then there is the matter that since this is virtual did the sale take place where Amazon has their offices or where they house their servers?
I think taxing at the shipper state of residence is probably the correct one. If they have multiple locations you could either allow the consumer to choose (probably a bad idea) or chose the location the product will be shipped from. All internet businesses should collect tax for the jurisdiction they reside in or the jurisdiction the product is being shipped from only. I don't believe it matters if you physically cross to another state or virtually visit another state via the web. You made the purchase in state 'X'. You pay the tax in state 'X', not state 'Y' and definitely not in state 'X and Y'. Are there problems with that? Sure. I can think of a bunch above what I already mentioned which is probably why Congress is dragging their heels addressing this. I don't have any ideas on how to fix it, but letting the States overreach their authority to burden a business with collecting taxes for municipalities it does not reside in is setting a very dangerous precedent.
Merits? What merits? It was an ad hominem attack against Lincoln solely because he was a lawyer. It offered nothing to the discussion and was, IMO, deliberately phrased to elicit an emotional response from other readers. Did the poster offer any indication where he got this idea? Did he offer any evidence that Lincoln was biased when he made this statement? No, his sole reason for discounting and attacking the quote was because Lincoln was a lawyer himself. Period.
Sorry, if I had mod points I would have tagged it the same way. You probably got tagged for the backhand comment towards the mods which, again IMO, were perfectly correct in labeling the post as flamebait.
Even more interesting is the fact that Lincoln did not originate this quote. A quick google finds this same adage in print going back to the very early 1800's so while Lincoln may have said it at some time, it was not originally his quote, unless he made it from the cradle.