No, the main selling point of HRI and the Right Wing is that it is cheaper to move everyone from the coasts than plunge the planet into a new dark ages, and that, the more we use the cheapest forms of energy now, the more money we have to actually lift people out of povery, and tackle global problems....
Actuallly, check out the "entertainment line" in the UAH lower tropospheric temperature series, which, in my mind is probably the only reliable data set that can be used to check on the earth's temperature...
Can you think of any cycles that mirror that entertainment line?
I really wish the CO2 / Temperature / Atmospheric monitoring satellite had not blown up during lift off. Regardless of whether you are a tree hugger or not, more earth monitoring spacecraft and drones are desperately needed.
"That's why one group is deniers, and the other groups is actual science and fact based."
Except that, the actual science and fact based people keep ignoring the fact that scientifically speaking, the solutions they propose to AGW will undeniably force humanity into a new dark ages, unless they come around and support a massive buildout of nuclear power and massive investments in fusion research. For all their fact based and so-called based intellegence, AGW people have yet to realize that the solution they offer to the problem of global warming is, in fact arguably worse than the problems presented by doing nothing. In the worse case, sea levels rise by what, 10 feet? Fine, we move inland, use up the fossil that we have and invest continue to invest the savings and increased economic activity into researching alternative energies. That's not even acknowledging the very real scientific fact, that, even if we stop all CO2 output now, it will take 800 years for the earth to stabalize again and CO2 levels to actually drop - if it does, in fact, stabalize at all.
So, to recap, the idiotic deniers seem to think that if we do nothing, we can deal with whatever happens, but the scientifically brilliant proponents want humanity to go into a new dark ages, for a result that will take 800 years to achieve. Who are the ones that are stupid in this equation?
Here's what the proponents of radical action to stem greenhouse gasses do not get, is that all science has with it some element of uncertainty and that uncertainty is balanced against cost. It is not 100% certain what the effects of greenhouse gas emissions will be. Let's say, it is 99% certain, and then, as you drill down to locality, the certainty is reduced even more, until, you get to where you simply can't say what Delaware weather will be like in 5 years unless we just stop using fossil fuels.
Sure, if the cost of AGW remediation was like a few billion bucks, then, given the science that is out there today, its good enough to roll with. But the cost isn't a few billion dollars... it's -trillions- of dollars and ultimately a reduced living standard for most of the people on the planet earth. It's simply enormous, and while AGW proponents like to bandy about "unrealized costs", they also seem to neglect "unrealized or lost opportunity costs" that factor in that tax an increased energy foot print has, and its enormous. Like, how many more people will die, because they are pushed into the poverty well from increased energy prices. There will be less food, less transportation, less of everything, including drugs, and you can't fix that by cooking up some tax on the rich because all of their businesses are going to get hosed to... it's a self imposed dark ages..
So yes, some decisions need to be made. Why we aren't doing the smart thing and just rolling with modern nuclear power plant designs, and researching the hell of fusion, is utterly beyond me, and the fact that AGW advocates are more willing to wait for solar and wind technologies to supposedly come on line, tells me that the problem isn't as urgent as they say...
I understand your complaint. You and others, versed far more in orbital mechanics, assure the rest of us fools that, based on your admittedly superior knowledge and training, that what you propose is safe.
However, human history in the technological age has proven, time and time again, that reassurances of safety and no ill effects from domain experts is fraught with danger. Let's just run down through the list of things proclaimed to be safe, that we the luddites were wrong...
a) Coal / Heavy Metals - 1850s -.. everyone said coal was great.. built out a huge national infrastructure based on the use of coal and heavy metals, and woops, it turns out, that coal is not so cool, and heavy metals are good for you.
b) Ships / Tranes / Airplanes - Titanic - "practically unsinkable", sunk, Ford Trimotors all the way to the 747, all have crashed. A recent Airbus crash, with foolproof avionics, was partially caused by the pilot and copilot not having feedback to each other on their control yokes, like the way a Boeing plane does. Am waiting for the "superbly tested" wings of the 787 to fail in some unusual condition, am waiting for an A380 to go down in flames with a Titanic sized fatality list, has already watched two shuttles fail. It's gonna happen.
c) The Power of the Atom - I'm pro nuclear power, but pronouncements of public safety and "we've thought of everything"... are just the proof that, well, when self proclaimed smart people say they thought of everything, they missed something. There will be another accident.
d) Amphetimines - hey, doctors of the 1950s... let's dole these out.. perfectly safe. what could go wrong. Bonus points for Thalidomide.
e) DDT. perfectly safe, great against mosquitos and pests. Sorry about the birds, guess we didn't think of that.
f) Fossil Fuels. Global warming... no really, we didn't think of that.
g) Windmills. Perfectly safe. What could go wrong. Sorry about all the dead birds? God knows what other ill effects from land use.
h) FDA diet recommendations circa 1970s. Hey everybody, you should eat lots of bread and cheese. Four food groups! Oh wait, we were wrong. Sorry, cholesterol, who would have thought of that.
i) Cell phones, em radiation, birth control, psychiatric drugs, cholesterol drugs... all of which are too relatively new to know the effects of...except, cell phones cause as many car accidents as duis in some states, birth control might alter women's biochemistry to change their preferences in men and might have ripple environmental effects, cholesterol drugs might not be so great after all... and god knows what else will go wrong with other technologies.
The bottom line is, there's never been a roll out of some new thing in the last 150 years that has not been screwed up in some unforseen way. Mathematically, anyone with a degree of computer science, and this is a computer people kinda board, knows that complexity problems with loads of variables are essentially unsolvable, and yet there people who say "they have thought of everything"... when we already know just based on how information works, that no one can.
So yes, its not anti-technology at all, its anti-let's take a big frigging risk and abolish any common sense that says pushing a dinosaur killer closer to earth might be a bad fricking idea by deluding ourselves into pretending we know all the variables involved, when we can't. If we are going to do asteroid mining, why not mine and process the ore on site, and bring the concentrated stuff back to earth.
There's also 13,000 injuries to go with, and quite often those carry their own hideous expenses. Factor that in, and I could see the camera thing being cost effective from a dollars saved versus value of life perspective. Are there other ways to spend that money that might be more effective? Probably...
The bias present in the article is that it is money that they are looking at, rather than perceived empowerment. Like, I wonder how generals and senators and mid level bureaucrats drive about, or mayors and city managers, or even police.
Well, its all well and good to point to Kodak and say "see, they should have gone hog wild with digital." From that, we would infer, companies should ditch profitable core businesses and competencies whenever a technology billed as disruptive presents itself.
But...
What about all the times investors pour billions into some new technology or concept that completely flames out. Perhaps that new technology is too much, too soon, and it is better to let someone else take the risks. De Havilland invented the passenger jet, but was nearly bankrupted by it after a series of crashes and had to be bought out. Concord was a money loser from the get go. Chrysler, back in the day, spent lavish sums on trying to put a jet turbine into a car. Wankel Rotary engines pretty much destroyed AMC and almost destroyed Mazda as well. Boeing's massively composite 787 has seen delay after delay, the original investors of the super modern Empire State Building took a beating. Finally, there's IK Brunels Great Eastern, which was a wonderful piece of technology for its day that ruined everyone who had a shilling to stand near it.
So... yes, there's plenty of people out there that say Kodak should have changed. But, if you look at FY 2000's annual report, Kodak was actually making 3 billion a year in digital sales... and the company was paying a decent dividend.
Besides, nobody has stated the obvious. Kodak had a reputation as a maker of film, not cameras. For Kodak to have survived, it would have had to either develop enough FAB experience to try and corner the market on CCDs, or establish itself as a premium maker of cameras and that would mean going up against some stiff competition where brands who have a proven track record in optics and glass were the brand differentiators.
Sure Sony is doing "ok" with its digital cameras, but really, for photographers, the people that have the best reputation of making cameras were always the ones poised to win from the digital transition. Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, all those -camera- brands flourish, because people buy cameras... and they didn't need film anymore, and that's why Kodak died.
I'm pretty sure that this is just more police crap you can get screwed with... now will come breathalyzer inspections and gee who in gov't gets stock from them. they don't care about safety...its a power trip disguised as safety.
So science is impossible? duh, at least we have a theorem that says it.
Honestly, I'm not surprised at all... it's basically just saying that you can't figure out the nature of a machine that created a pattern of bits without having it to begin with. There are some cool implications.
Oh all of this supposed guilt by the nuclear scientists just nauseates me. They wanted to build it, and many of them wanted to use it - they were jews, and they thought the target was going to be Germany. But really, they wanted to build the bomb. They wanted to play with nuclear stuff, and didn't care so much about the consequences. All this hand wringing is almost fake, like a convict on tv saying "I feel sorry about what happened and I've discovered god"...
Let's see - France has better looking women, better food, better wine, better movies and better art, and has been a world leader in aeronautics since Bleriot through Arianespace and Bleriot. Their mintel predated and pioneered the idea of a pervasive online service, they've made tremendous contributions in math. And even though they took it on the chin from Germany in World War II, they had incredible artillery and aircraft in World War I, and previously, pioneered everything in engineering from steel warship construction in the La Gloire, and finally, they gave us mayonaisse.
Oh piss off about Germany and its supposed superiority over America.
1) Germany is about the size of Montana, just one of 50 American states, into which 80 million people are crammed. America's national parks (not including numerous state parks), alone, completely undeveloped, are nearly the size of Germany. So, right off the wheel, in terms of sheer size, and getting around, America is a much more rural country than Germany is.
2) Germany's standard of living is based on an export driven economy that essentially relies on the fact that first the mark and now the euro are way overvalued relative to the us dollar, and that the USA picks up the tab for ensuring that Germany even has access to oil by virtue of American military power in the persian gulf.
3) Germany has a declining population - if Germany was so great, why do they have a forecast net population decline? By contrast, the USA has a population that is growing the fastest out of any of the NATO nations.
4) German corporations have a -lower- tax rate than American ones do. Oops, did I say that? Also, German laws are absolutely brutal for debt collection compared to American ones. If you, in America, blow off paying a loan bank, you get a bunch of angry letters and pissy phone calls and for the most part that's really all about they can do to you. In Germany, they can just come and start taking your shit away.
5) The German educational system essentially creates a class system by picking kids early on to go to university. In America, anyone whose willing to take out a student loan and do the work can find some place to get a degree, and all kids are educated not to be tradesman, but to be college bound.
6) I'll take Kentucky bourbon over German beer, American NFL football and MLB baseball over stupid soccer.
7) Speaking of taxed to the hilt, Germans are actually more in debt per capita than Americans are, and the American financial picture improves rather dramatically when the Bush tax cuts expire, and the budget sequesters kick in.
8) Germans talk of a United Europe but bitch because the Greeks can't get their shit together. In America, we talk about a United States, and most Americans are not even aware of how federal dollars get redistributed all over the country for rural and urban development. (in essence, southerners wishing for reducing federal spending need to be periodically reminded that most federal spending is actually on them...)
9) Americans have way better food. Want cheap industrial food, got that. Want fresh cuisine representative of every nation on the planet? Got that too.
I hate to say it, but what the guy showed in the hypercard story looks like VB or WinForms. Is it that hypercard really died, or was it just head off at the pass by a swarm of things MS patented such that, once MS borrowed hypercard ideas, they could turn around then patent everything so that hypercard itself could not borrow back from MS...
If bouncy things were not competitive as a source of random information, then someone would be able to predict lottery powerball drawings, which are indeed governed by bouncy balls.
Look, we have torrents of people sneaking across the border from Mexico, and yet we make talented people jump through hoops to come to the USA. It's absolutely ridiculous. Despite some posturing otherwise, there's not even a consensus on the right wing that illegal immigrants should be deported - indeed, two GOP candidates are on the record for some sort of amnesty and the official libertarian GOP candidate generally doesn't give a shit about immigration at all - except when he's trying to raise money. At this point, I'm like ready to throw in the towel, embrace the future, and just let whoever wants to come to America, come to America. We have a huge fricking continent and if we run out of room, we can always cut a deal with Canada. It's just absolutely mind boggling that people cannot accept the political reality and just deal with it in the best way possible. Why not have a USA with like 20M immigrants from India? Their food is pretty good, the women are hot as hell, and they make decent engineers.
a 500 foot tall prehistoric monster slumbers, bathed in deadly radiation oozing from the nearby module, and transforms. It shifts as it sleeps, and rolls over onto the blocky module, which awakes it. Annoyed, the monster rises to the surface, then towards land, towards a sleeping Japan, unaware of the newest and greatest calamity about to visit them:
GODZILLA! ( and worse, with the cheezy Raymond Burr splices added in )
The whole thing about Facebook, or Slashdot, is that they are evocative of a community... and having another site like Google or anyone else barge in and harvest what is something akin to a chat, and save it for ten thousand years, is bullshit.
Be so laid.. That's why it's good to be a 1%..everyone sells out and it makes everything better. So screw an even 100%, or a fair society. I want to be a 1%er...
Slashdot Mirror
No, the main selling point of HRI and the Right Wing is that it is cheaper to move everyone from the coasts than plunge the planet into a new dark ages, and that, the more we use the cheapest forms of energy now, the more money we have to actually lift people out of povery, and tackle global problems....
Actuallly, check out the "entertainment line" in the UAH lower tropospheric temperature series, which, in my mind is probably the only reliable data set that can be used to check on the earth's temperature...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/02/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-goes-negative-2/
Can you think of any cycles that mirror that entertainment line?
I really wish the CO2 / Temperature / Atmospheric monitoring satellite had not blown up during lift off. Regardless of whether you are a tree hugger or not, more earth monitoring spacecraft and drones are desperately needed.
"That's why one group is deniers, and the other groups is actual science and fact based."
Except that, the actual science and fact based people keep ignoring the fact that scientifically speaking, the solutions they propose to AGW will undeniably force humanity into a new dark ages, unless they come around and support a massive buildout of nuclear power and massive investments in fusion research. For all their fact based and so-called based intellegence, AGW people have yet to realize that the solution they offer to the problem of global warming is, in fact arguably worse than the problems presented by doing nothing. In the worse case, sea levels rise by what, 10 feet? Fine, we move inland, use up the fossil that we have and invest continue to invest the savings and increased economic activity into researching alternative energies. That's not even acknowledging the very real scientific fact, that, even if we stop all CO2 output now, it will take 800 years for the earth to stabalize again and CO2 levels to actually drop - if it does, in fact, stabalize at all.
So, to recap, the idiotic deniers seem to think that if we do nothing, we can deal with whatever happens, but the scientifically brilliant proponents want humanity to go into a new dark ages, for a result that will take 800 years to achieve. Who are the ones that are stupid in this equation?
Here's what the proponents of radical action to stem greenhouse gasses do not get, is that all science has with it some element of uncertainty and that uncertainty is balanced against cost. It is not 100% certain what the effects of greenhouse gas emissions will be. Let's say, it is 99% certain, and then, as you drill down to locality, the certainty is reduced even more, until, you get to where you simply can't say what Delaware weather will be like in 5 years unless we just stop using fossil fuels.
Sure, if the cost of AGW remediation was like a few billion bucks, then, given the science that is out there today, its good enough to roll with. But the cost isn't a few billion dollars... it's -trillions- of dollars and ultimately a reduced living standard for most of the people on the planet earth. It's simply enormous, and while AGW proponents like to bandy about "unrealized costs", they also seem to neglect "unrealized or lost opportunity costs" that factor in that tax an increased energy foot print has, and its enormous. Like, how many more people will die, because they are pushed into the poverty well from increased energy prices. There will be less food, less transportation, less of everything, including drugs, and you can't fix that by cooking up some tax on the rich because all of their businesses are going to get hosed to... it's a self imposed dark ages..
So yes, some decisions need to be made. Why we aren't doing the smart thing and just rolling with modern nuclear power plant designs, and researching the hell of fusion, is utterly beyond me, and the fact that AGW advocates are more willing to wait for solar and wind technologies to supposedly come on line, tells me that the problem isn't as urgent as they say...
I understand your complaint. You and others, versed far more in orbital mechanics, assure the rest of us fools that, based on your admittedly superior knowledge and training, that what you propose is safe.
However, human history in the technological age has proven, time and time again, that reassurances of safety and no ill effects from domain experts is fraught with danger. Let's just run down through the list of things proclaimed to be safe, that we the luddites were wrong...
a) Coal / Heavy Metals - 1850s - .. everyone said coal was great.. built out a huge national infrastructure based on the use of coal and heavy metals, and woops, it turns out, that coal is not so cool, and heavy metals are good for you.
b) Ships / Tranes / Airplanes - Titanic - "practically unsinkable", sunk, Ford Trimotors all the way to the 747, all have crashed. A recent Airbus crash, with foolproof avionics, was partially caused by the pilot and copilot not having feedback to each other on their control yokes, like the way a Boeing plane does. Am waiting for the "superbly tested" wings of the 787 to fail in some unusual condition, am waiting for an A380 to go down in flames with a Titanic sized fatality list, has already watched two shuttles fail. It's gonna happen.
c) The Power of the Atom - I'm pro nuclear power, but pronouncements of public safety and "we've thought of everything"... are just the proof that, well, when self proclaimed smart people say they thought of everything, they missed something. There will be another accident.
d) Amphetimines - hey, doctors of the 1950s... let's dole these out.. perfectly safe. what could go wrong. Bonus points for Thalidomide.
e) DDT. perfectly safe, great against mosquitos and pests. Sorry about the birds, guess we didn't think of that.
f) Fossil Fuels. Global warming... no really, we didn't think of that.
g) Windmills. Perfectly safe. What could go wrong. Sorry about all the dead birds? God knows what other ill effects from land use.
h) FDA diet recommendations circa 1970s. Hey everybody, you should eat lots of bread and cheese. Four food groups! Oh wait, we were wrong. Sorry, cholesterol, who would have thought of that.
i) Cell phones, em radiation, birth control, psychiatric drugs, cholesterol drugs... all of which are too relatively new to know the effects of...except, cell phones cause as many car accidents as duis in some states, birth control might alter women's biochemistry to change their preferences in men and might have ripple environmental effects, cholesterol drugs might not be so great after all... and god knows what else will go wrong with other technologies.
The bottom line is, there's never been a roll out of some new thing in the last 150 years that has not been screwed up in some unforseen way. Mathematically, anyone with a degree of computer science, and this is a computer people kinda board, knows that complexity problems with loads of variables are essentially unsolvable, and yet there people who say "they have thought of everything"... when we already know just based on how information works, that no one can.
So yes, its not anti-technology at all, its anti-let's take a big frigging risk and abolish any common sense that says pushing a dinosaur killer closer to earth might be a bad fricking idea by deluding ourselves into pretending we know all the variables involved, when we can't. If we are going to do asteroid mining, why not mine and process the ore on site, and bring the concentrated stuff back to earth.
We just want more funding for our research... why can't people see how important it is!
with my tv wired to my pc, windows desktop seems "off", and metro seems more intuititive. hook me up!
There's also 13,000 injuries to go with, and quite often those carry their own hideous expenses. Factor that in, and I could see the camera thing being cost effective from a dollars saved versus value of life perspective. Are there other ways to spend that money that might be more effective? Probably...
The bias present in the article is that it is money that they are looking at, rather than perceived empowerment. Like, I wonder how generals and senators and mid level bureaucrats drive about, or mayors and city managers, or even police.
Well, its all well and good to point to Kodak and say "see, they should have gone hog wild with digital." From that, we would infer, companies should ditch profitable core businesses and competencies whenever a technology billed as disruptive presents itself.
But...
What about all the times investors pour billions into some new technology or concept that completely flames out. Perhaps that new technology is too much, too soon, and it is better to let someone else take the risks. De Havilland invented the passenger jet, but was nearly bankrupted by it after a series of crashes and had to be bought out. Concord was a money loser from the get go. Chrysler, back in the day, spent lavish sums on trying to put a jet turbine into a car. Wankel Rotary engines pretty much destroyed AMC and almost destroyed Mazda as well. Boeing's massively composite 787 has seen delay after delay, the original investors of the super modern Empire State Building took a beating. Finally, there's IK Brunels Great Eastern, which was a wonderful piece of technology for its day that ruined everyone who had a shilling to stand near it.
So... yes, there's plenty of people out there that say Kodak should have changed. But, if you look at FY 2000's annual report, Kodak was actually making 3 billion a year in digital sales... and the company was paying a decent dividend.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/annualReport00/financialHighlights.shtml
Besides, nobody has stated the obvious. Kodak had a reputation as a maker of film, not cameras. For Kodak to have survived, it would have had to either develop enough FAB experience to try and corner the market on CCDs, or establish itself as a premium maker of cameras and that would mean going up against some stiff competition where brands who have a proven track record in optics and glass were the brand differentiators.
Sure Sony is doing "ok" with its digital cameras, but really, for photographers, the people that have the best reputation of making cameras were always the ones poised to win from the digital transition. Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, all those -camera- brands flourish, because people buy cameras... and they didn't need film anymore, and that's why Kodak died.
I'm pretty sure that this is just more police crap you can get screwed with... now will come breathalyzer inspections and gee who in gov't gets stock from them. they don't care about safety.. .its a power trip disguised as safety.
rumblefish would not be able to do that, if the government did not give them the power... that's our "2nd amendment libertarian point".
That guy hypes himself way too much.
So science is impossible? duh, at least we have a theorem that says it.
Honestly, I'm not surprised at all... it's basically just saying that you can't figure out the nature of a machine that created a pattern of bits without having it to begin with. There are some cool implications.
If the government had not have created this police state, then airlines wouldn't give a damn.
Oh all of this supposed guilt by the nuclear scientists just nauseates me. They wanted to build it, and many of them wanted to use it - they were jews, and they thought the target was going to be Germany. But really, they wanted to build the bomb. They wanted to play with nuclear stuff, and didn't care so much about the consequences. All this hand wringing is almost fake, like a convict on tv saying "I feel sorry about what happened and I've discovered god"...
Let's see - France has better looking women, better food, better wine, better movies and better art, and has been a world leader in aeronautics since Bleriot through Arianespace and Bleriot. Their mintel predated and pioneered the idea of a pervasive online service, they've made tremendous contributions in math. And even though they took it on the chin from Germany in World War II, they had incredible artillery and aircraft in World War I, and previously, pioneered everything in engineering from steel warship construction in the La Gloire, and finally, they gave us mayonaisse.
Oh piss off about Germany and its supposed superiority over America.
1) Germany is about the size of Montana, just one of 50 American states, into which 80 million people are crammed. America's national parks (not including numerous state parks), alone, completely undeveloped, are nearly the size of Germany. So, right off the wheel, in terms of sheer size, and getting around, America is a much more rural country than Germany is.
2) Germany's standard of living is based on an export driven economy that essentially relies on the fact that first the mark and now the euro are way overvalued relative to the us dollar, and that the USA picks up the tab for ensuring that Germany even has access to oil by virtue of American military power in the persian gulf.
3) Germany has a declining population - if Germany was so great, why do they have a forecast net population decline? By contrast, the USA has a population that is growing the fastest out of any of the NATO nations.
4) German corporations have a -lower- tax rate than American ones do. Oops, did I say that? Also, German laws are absolutely brutal for debt collection compared to American ones. If you, in America, blow off paying a loan bank, you get a bunch of angry letters and pissy phone calls and for the most part that's really all about they can do to you. In Germany, they can just come and start taking your shit away.
5) The German educational system essentially creates a class system by picking kids early on to go to university. In America, anyone whose willing to take out a student loan and do the work can find some place to get a degree, and all kids are educated not to be tradesman, but to be college bound.
6) I'll take Kentucky bourbon over German beer, American NFL football and MLB baseball over stupid soccer.
7) Speaking of taxed to the hilt, Germans are actually more in debt per capita than Americans are, and the American financial picture improves rather dramatically when the Bush tax cuts expire, and the budget sequesters kick in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
8) Germans talk of a United Europe but bitch because the Greeks can't get their shit together. In America, we talk about a United States, and most Americans are not even aware of how federal dollars get redistributed all over the country for rural and urban development. (in essence, southerners wishing for reducing federal spending need to be periodically reminded that most federal spending is actually on them...)
9) Americans have way better food. Want cheap industrial food, got that. Want fresh cuisine representative of every nation on the planet? Got that too.
And then, best of all, there's this:
http://www.insideline.com/cadillac/cts-v/2009/2009-cadillac-cts-v-sets-nurburgring-record.html
I hate to say it, but what the guy showed in the hypercard story looks like VB or WinForms. Is it that hypercard really died, or was it just head off at the pass by a swarm of things MS patented such that, once MS borrowed hypercard ideas, they could turn around then patent everything so that hypercard itself could not borrow back from MS...
If bouncy things were not competitive as a source of random information, then someone would be able to predict lottery powerball drawings, which are indeed governed by bouncy balls.
Look, we have torrents of people sneaking across the border from Mexico, and yet we make talented people jump through hoops to come to the USA. It's absolutely ridiculous. Despite some posturing otherwise, there's not even a consensus on the right wing that illegal immigrants should be deported - indeed, two GOP candidates are on the record for some sort of amnesty and the official libertarian GOP candidate generally doesn't give a shit about immigration at all - except when he's trying to raise money. At this point, I'm like ready to throw in the towel, embrace the future, and just let whoever wants to come to America, come to America. We have a huge fricking continent and if we run out of room, we can always cut a deal with Canada. It's just absolutely mind boggling that people cannot accept the political reality and just deal with it in the best way possible. Why not have a USA with like 20M immigrants from India? Their food is pretty good, the women are hot as hell, and they make decent engineers.
a 500 foot tall prehistoric monster slumbers, bathed in deadly radiation oozing from the nearby module, and transforms. It shifts as it sleeps, and rolls over onto the blocky module, which awakes it. Annoyed, the monster rises to the surface, then towards land, towards a sleeping Japan, unaware of the newest and greatest calamity about to visit them:
GODZILLA! ( and worse, with the cheezy Raymond Burr splices added in )
The whole thing about Facebook, or Slashdot, is that they are evocative of a community... and having another site like Google or anyone else barge in and harvest what is something akin to a chat, and save it for ten thousand years, is bullshit.
It will be a mandated purchase, for $499.00, with cost savings to make that $599.00, you cocksmoking occupiers!
Be so laid.. That's why it's good to be a 1%..everyone sells out and it makes everything better. So screw an even 100%, or a fair society. I want to be a 1%er...