OK, a little off topic here, but question for anyone who can actually answer knowledgeably:
If the wind is turning these turbines, it's obviously taking some energy out of the wind. If wind farms become massively deployed, couldn't that change weather patterns as we alter wind energies? Or, is the difference so negligible that the amount of turbines constructed for our energy needs would only be a fraction of what is necessary to cause such a disruption?
Not that I'm against wind energy, mind you. However, with all this talk about using wind energy because it's a green solution (i.e. to reduce global warming), the thought occurred to me that we might still be messing with localized weather->regional climate->global climate yet again.
A 100% improvement in something just means it has been improved by a factor equal to what it can already do.
In other words, it's twice as efficient.
If you can't understand that then you might want to think twice before posting on/./just sayin'
This won't do anything for the RTS.
This is Starcraft 2 repackaged with XBOX fanboy characters (Flood = Zerg, Marines = Terran, and Covenant = Protoss). Nothing to see here.
Nitpicking here:
It's actually Sallie Mae, with an IE instead of a Y.
www.salliemae.com
And FYI - it already happened. Just before the summer and the current financial crisis, Sallie wrote off over $1B in defaulted student loans. Consequently, Bank of America purchased a controlling share in Sallie.
I have to tell you that the problem coming up for new students isn't going to be paying off their huge debt after college, but instead finding a way to get the money to attend.
Lenders are going under quickly. We were backed up by a large bank with a promise of funding for private loans, even in these financial tough times; then a week later they backed out on us (myself and all my friends are all still without employment). At this point (IIRC) there are around 30 private loan lenders in the education marketplace, this is down from approx 100+ only two years ago.
The Feds are going to pull the plug on guaranteed FFEL buy-backs pretty soon (the whole country is out of money, not much choice); this is bad because schools are going to go with Direct Lending (which does have better interest rates, so that's good for students and families) and lenders will have no in-road to sell private loans (once they have a Stafford and they need more, you can recommend a private loan).
Lenders will drop FFEL as there is no incentive to participate any longer (high default rate with no 100% buy-back guarantee, BARELY profitable..I'm talking pennies on the dollar above operating costs), and since that will dissipate volume so heavily, probably drop out of the market altogether.
Thus, state schools, community colleges, and cheap private schools are going to see a huge spike in demand, and larger, more expensive private institutions are going to see a drop in enrollment. As no one can afford the big school and no one can get into the cheap ones (they're full, even after expansions), we're poised to start becoming a lot dumber than we are now unless something tips the scale back. Keep an eye on education costs, this is the "sleeper" of the worries that face the USA.
Ravers have a saying:
"If video games really affected kids, we'd all be running around darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive, electronic music."
Also can anyone actually explain why we should be bailing out these banks in the first place?
Oooh, car analogy time:
Let's say you are driving through the scorching desert and your car breaks down far far away from nearest civilization. A tow truck happens to drive by and the driver agrees to tow you to the nearest garage in return for some consideration. Halfway there, it turns out the tow truck driver is an idiot who has failed to fuel up his car sufficiently and it coasts to a halt. Also, in your conversation with him you have found him to be a complete and total asshole with very few redeeming qualities.
With all this in mind, can you think of any reason why you might want to bail him out by transferring some gas from your tank to his?
That does explain it very well, except after we gave that tow truck driver some gas, he claimed the extra load of our car being towed would make his gas millage suffer and he wouldn't be able to continue.
That's not our whole economy -- just a large part of it and the aspect that most Americans deal with on a day to day basis. Google is a part of the American economy -- are they based on retail sales of useless crap? What about Microsoft? Or the pharmaceutical/bio-tech industry? Is Boeing building useless crap that sells at retail?
I like that you're trying to be informative, don't get me wrong; but I think you just accidentally argued that Microsoft ISN'T based around the retail sale of useless crap with planned obsolescence.;-)
"Under President Clinton the growth in debt ceased, but note the radical change in direction since George W. Bush entered office"
I notice that the radical change in direction started while Clinton was still in office.
Should we also mention that Congress, not the President, makes the budget.
From TFA: "In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years, with a cooperative Democratic Congress, he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration. Contrary to the myth fostered by our right-wing friends, under a Democrat, revenue increased and spending decreased."
I'm a small government person. At least that's what I would prefer. However, we haven't seen anything like that with this Republican administration and I see no reason to believe that we would see it with another one. In addition to that, we've just effectively taken ownership of several incredibly large entities and in effect, nationalized them. Because of these reasons, I see no prospects of smaller government from either party. This removes my one philosophical reservation about voting for a democrat. Therefore, Obama.
Agreed.
Also, I understand your wish for a small government, but for example: a national healthcare plan is "big government" kind of talk. Why can't we have a few things be "big government", while other aspects be smaller? Do you feel it would lead to "swelling" of all aspects of government? (Really, I am interested to know)
Most people are sick of the Bushes, the Amadinajhads, the Limbaughs, O'Rilleys, etc. of the world making irrational decisions and offensive statements based on the good book of their God and their hunger for power without doing much of anything to protect, maintain, or elevate the quality of life of the common person.
Here in the US, the reason we have the right to bear arms is because the founders of the Constitution essentially said "If we fuck up, take us out." - point being, the government should act in your benefit only, as that is the way it was intended when it was founded.
Conservatives have proven time and time again they don't think about consequences, and they assume what is good for them is what is good for everyone. I don't know about you, but when I vote, my vote is supposed to count for ME and what benefits me, but also what benefits everyone else around me and everyone else in my country. (Side note: A healthy economy and NOT pissing off the rest of the world with military occupancy is good for my country)
After hearing all this neocon rhetoric over and over and being disgusted (Ann Coulter especially comes to mind), I can't say with any kind of conviction I can morally support anyone with opinions like that.
They've made irrational choices, they've been WRONG plenty of times, and they've outright LIED to us to further their own agendas. Not that liberals don't have some folks who are downright nuts, but by and large the conservative movement has proven itself to be untrustworthy on several fronts and, quite frankly, un-American.
(Disclaimer: Discussion thread. The preceding is my humble opinion.)
And you spelled "bug resistant" worng.:) (Yes, I know that's 'wrong' but one of the rules of the Internet is that spelling flames must invariably have a mistake in them!)
If he had a proper QA department, that bug would never have made it to the final release.
If you're running X11 inside OS X, this becomes a problem when some windows behave differently than other and you're trying to navigate quickly.
I always found this argument to be counter-intelligent. Of course you can "live with it", but you can get more done quicker and easier if you change it to suit your needs.
Then again, I suppose this explains a lot about the mentality of the Windows crowd...
Slashdot Mirror
OK, a little off topic here, but question for anyone who can actually answer knowledgeably:
If the wind is turning these turbines, it's obviously taking some energy out of the wind. If wind farms become massively deployed, couldn't that change weather patterns as we alter wind energies? Or, is the difference so negligible that the amount of turbines constructed for our energy needs would only be a fraction of what is necessary to cause such a disruption?
Not that I'm against wind energy, mind you. However, with all this talk about using wind energy because it's a green solution (i.e. to reduce global warming), the thought occurred to me that we might still be messing with localized weather->regional climate->global climate yet again.
Wind energy is a lot like politics and advertising. The more it blows, the more spin you see.
<rimshot />
A 100% improvement in something just means it has been improved by a factor equal to what it can already do. In other words, it's twice as efficient. If you can't understand that then you might want to think twice before posting on /. /just sayin'
This won't do anything for the RTS. This is Starcraft 2 repackaged with XBOX fanboy characters (Flood = Zerg, Marines = Terran, and Covenant = Protoss). Nothing to see here.
A 529 Plan is a excellent idea. The parent post is absolutely correct, get on that today. As stated in my other post, you may not have other options.
Nitpicking here: It's actually Sallie Mae, with an IE instead of a Y. www.salliemae.com And FYI - it already happened. Just before the summer and the current financial crisis, Sallie wrote off over $1B in defaulted student loans. Consequently, Bank of America purchased a controlling share in Sallie.
If there is an education bubble, it just burst and no one noticed. Not to be cliché, but as someone who was recently laid off from an education lender who exited the market for private loans, I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
I have to tell you that the problem coming up for new students isn't going to be paying off their huge debt after college, but instead finding a way to get the money to attend.
Lenders are going under quickly. We were backed up by a large bank with a promise of funding for private loans, even in these financial tough times; then a week later they backed out on us (myself and all my friends are all still without employment). At this point (IIRC) there are around 30 private loan lenders in the education marketplace, this is down from approx 100+ only two years ago.
The Feds are going to pull the plug on guaranteed FFEL buy-backs pretty soon (the whole country is out of money, not much choice); this is bad because schools are going to go with Direct Lending (which does have better interest rates, so that's good for students and families) and lenders will have no in-road to sell private loans (once they have a Stafford and they need more, you can recommend a private loan).
Lenders will drop FFEL as there is no incentive to participate any longer (high default rate with no 100% buy-back guarantee, BARELY profitable..I'm talking pennies on the dollar above operating costs), and since that will dissipate volume so heavily, probably drop out of the market altogether.
Thus, state schools, community colleges, and cheap private schools are going to see a huge spike in demand, and larger, more expensive private institutions are going to see a drop in enrollment. As no one can afford the big school and no one can get into the cheap ones (they're full, even after expansions), we're poised to start becoming a lot dumber than we are now unless something tips the scale back. Keep an eye on education costs, this is the "sleeper" of the worries that face the USA.
Ravers have a saying: "If video games really affected kids, we'd all be running around darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive, electronic music."
It's going to be a whole new game, not an expansion for Rock Band. Also, it won't be out until XMas 09.
Lame.
I doubt it's going to be a whole new game.
Just download it from the Playstation store.
Jackson bought the publishing rights to the music.
I thought Jackson didn't own them anymore?
You gotta start somewhere. Linux wasn't built in a day, either.
Also can anyone actually explain why we should be bailing out these banks in the first place?
Oooh, car analogy time: Let's say you are driving through the scorching desert and your car breaks down far far away from nearest civilization. A tow truck happens to drive by and the driver agrees to tow you to the nearest garage in return for some consideration. Halfway there, it turns out the tow truck driver is an idiot who has failed to fuel up his car sufficiently and it coasts to a halt. Also, in your conversation with him you have found him to be a complete and total asshole with very few redeeming qualities.
With all this in mind, can you think of any reason why you might want to bail him out by transferring some gas from your tank to his?
That does explain it very well, except after we gave that tow truck driver some gas, he claimed the extra load of our car being towed would make his gas millage suffer and he wouldn't be able to continue.
So he left us.
That's not our whole economy -- just a large part of it and the aspect that most Americans deal with on a day to day basis. Google is a part of the American economy -- are they based on retail sales of useless crap? What about Microsoft? Or the pharmaceutical/bio-tech industry? Is Boeing building useless crap that sells at retail?
I like that you're trying to be informative, don't get me wrong; but I think you just accidentally argued that Microsoft ISN'T based around the retail sale of useless crap with planned obsolescence. ;-)
"Under President Clinton the growth in debt ceased, but note the radical change in direction since George W. Bush entered office"
I notice that the radical change in direction started while Clinton was still in office.
Should we also mention that Congress, not the President, makes the budget.
From TFA: "In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years, with a cooperative Democratic Congress, he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration. Contrary to the myth fostered by our right-wing friends, under a Democrat, revenue increased and spending decreased."
I'm a small government person. At least that's what I would prefer. However, we haven't seen anything like that with this Republican administration and I see no reason to believe that we would see it with another one. In addition to that, we've just effectively taken ownership of several incredibly large entities and in effect, nationalized them. Because of these reasons, I see no prospects of smaller government from either party. This removes my one philosophical reservation about voting for a democrat. Therefore, Obama.
Agreed.
Also, I understand your wish for a small government, but for example: a national healthcare plan is "big government" kind of talk. Why can't we have a few things be "big government", while other aspects be smaller? Do you feel it would lead to "swelling" of all aspects of government? (Really, I am interested to know)
Most people are sick of the Bushes, the Amadinajhads, the Limbaughs, O'Rilleys, etc. of the world making irrational decisions and offensive statements based on the good book of their God and their hunger for power without doing much of anything to protect, maintain, or elevate the quality of life of the common person.
Here in the US, the reason we have the right to bear arms is because the founders of the Constitution essentially said "If we fuck up, take us out." - point being, the government should act in your benefit only, as that is the way it was intended when it was founded.
Conservatives have proven time and time again they don't think about consequences, and they assume what is good for them is what is good for everyone. I don't know about you, but when I vote, my vote is supposed to count for ME and what benefits me, but also what benefits everyone else around me and everyone else in my country. (Side note: A healthy economy and NOT pissing off the rest of the world with military occupancy is good for my country)
After hearing all this neocon rhetoric over and over and being disgusted (Ann Coulter especially comes to mind), I can't say with any kind of conviction I can morally support anyone with opinions like that.
They've made irrational choices, they've been WRONG plenty of times, and they've outright LIED to us to further their own agendas. Not that liberals don't have some folks who are downright nuts, but by and large the conservative movement has proven itself to be untrustworthy on several fronts and, quite frankly, un-American.
(Disclaimer: Discussion thread. The preceding is my humble opinion.)
NuAsis/Intervoice?
And you spelled "bug resistant" worng. :) (Yes, I know that's 'wrong' but one of the rules of the Internet is that spelling flames must invariably have a mistake in them!)
If he had a proper QA department, that bug would never have made it to the final release.
Grace Hopper, a.k.a. Grandma Cobol
If you're running X11 inside OS X, this becomes a problem when some windows behave differently than other and you're trying to navigate quickly.
I always found this argument to be counter-intelligent. Of course you can "live with it", but you can get more done quicker and easier if you change it to suit your needs.
Then again, I suppose this explains a lot about the mentality of the Windows crowd...
Knowing is half the battle.
...and figuring out how to use Mencoder ...
I run Womencoder. It's nicer to look at, but verbose mode usually produces too much irrelevant nonsense. </snark>
I seem to remember Slashdot having filtering options...
Yeah, you know what else I hate because I see stories about it everyday on Slashdot? Linux!
I mean, Jesus H Christ, enough already!