I'm not sure it would save you much hassle, but I'm pretty sure one of the online PIN resellers would be happy to hook you up with the necessary refill PIN. You could also buy a couple while over here and email the PIN to yourself - it's not as though they expire.
I'm a practicing anesthesiologist. You're wrong. You do not have a limited number of hours of anesthesia on this earth (unless you're reckless about who puts you under - viz., Michael Jackson).
Plus, you do know that the more anesthesia your body takes, the less it endures in the future?
Not true, my friend. Not true. It's just that old people die more easily, and that people who need tons of surgical procedures tend not to be the healthiest. Rumor has it that many, many Soviet soldiers would take a half-shot of ether whenever they wanted to have a good evening...
Actually, once you spend $100 once, you only need to buy $10 of minutes a year to keep your T-mo To Go account alive. If you do so, the minutes never expire.
One of the tiny handful of things that actually has inherent value (the others, to my mind, being potable water, preserved food, fuel, and the weapons that fire said ammunition).
I have no idea how expensive it is - I'm guessing that if you have to ask, you can't afford it - but Philips has a system called iSite that is a wonderful PACS. Much better than any other one I've used.
We have to ask ourselves if keeping grandpa alive for another week (unconscious or in sever pain or zonked out of his gourd ) is really benefiting him.
No, you need to figure out if someone in the family is still cashing his Social Security check every month. A surprisingly large number of people who are still in the "receive maximal attempts at sustenance of life" category despite having essentially zero quality of life fall under that.
All lawyers are "trained in consitutional law". So what? Inexperienced people get steamrolled by the system.
FWIW, being in the Senate is a bad luck in a presidential run. Only three senators have moved directly from that chamber to the White House: Harding (a weak and corrupt president), Kennedy (young, inexperienced, charming but totally blew his foreign policy), and Obama. In the era of direct election of senators, the former senators who made it into the office were Truman, Johnson, and Nixon, all of whom served as vice president prior to becoming president. What was remarkable about the 2008 election is that all the major candidates were Senators.
It was the highest tax rates on the top income brackets that brought the years of economic growth, lowest unemployment and fewest bubbles, not total tax revenue over GDP.
does not square with
the years we paid the highest amount of taxes as a percentage of GDP were years of solid economic growth and no economic bubbles
You cannot have it both ways.
Furthermore,
The nation's economy does best when the top brackets pay well over 50%, because they are more inclined to invest in their companies, add workers, and thus end up making more money in the long run.
Why do tax rates of > 50% of income make people want to invest in a company? I am all ears.
You (and a lot of other people) gave money to a guy whose political career consisted of being a first-term US Senator after a couple of years in the state legislature. What did you expect?
Let's see if any Democratic group has the stones to mount a primary challenge. I'm not really impressed by any of the Republican candidates. See if you can get Hillary to give it another go.
the years we paid the highest amount of taxes as a percentage of GDP were years of solid economic growth and no economic bubbles
The highest peak on that graph comes at the end of the 90s. Surely you're not trying to tell me the dot-com boom was solid economic growth without a bubble?
It's also worth noting that that was the end of a long period of relatively increased government take that began with the 1986 tax reforms. Lower rates with a broader base can and do work when rates are too high and deductions too numerous. (And no, that's not a Laffer curve argument, because the base was broadened significantly.)
I'm not offended, I'm just acknowledging the world as it is: with roads. We have them, we are going to continue to have them. In that world, cars are freedom. Without roads, they're much less useful, but then without roads even walking is sometimes a challenge.
Huh? We already have a road system. It will take me to just about any inhabited place. If you want to go to a remote and uninhabited place, you can get a 4x4 and drive to it - but it's not going to be someone's "back gardens".
The (slow) Auto Train runs on lines already paid for. It's still a lot more expensive than just driving yourself. And environmental concerns over building the track are definitely not irrelevant, because they drive up costs and delay construction.
Our rails are very, very modern - but they're a freight system. We have a highly functional automobile transport system, and a pretty decent air transportation system. Why would we build a new high speed rail system when it's not going to be cost-competitive with cars or time-competitive with airplanes except in Boston-NYC-DC?
But it still takes nine hours, about as long as driving. By contrast, you can fly from Tegel to CDG in an hour and a half, meaning at most four hours total travel time including check in. I fail to see the appeal unless your time is really unimportant to you.
Right, but the Northeast Corridor is the only place in the US where rail makes sense. And the construction costs for a real high speed rail line would be astronomical.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure it would save you much hassle, but I'm pretty sure one of the online PIN resellers would be happy to hook you up with the necessary refill PIN. You could also buy a couple while over here and email the PIN to yourself - it's not as though they expire.
Soviet drunks are just an amusing aside.
I'm a practicing anesthesiologist. You're wrong. You do not have a limited number of hours of anesthesia on this earth (unless you're reckless about who puts you under - viz., Michael Jackson).
Plus, you do know that the more anesthesia your body takes, the less it endures in the future?
Not true, my friend. Not true. It's just that old people die more easily, and that people who need tons of surgical procedures tend not to be the healthiest. Rumor has it that many, many Soviet soldiers would take a half-shot of ether whenever they wanted to have a good evening...
His point is that once you eat it, it quickly loses its antibacterial properties.
Actually, once you spend $100 once, you only need to buy $10 of minutes a year to keep your T-mo To Go account alive. If you do so, the minutes never expire.
One of the tiny handful of things that actually has inherent value (the others, to my mind, being potable water, preserved food, fuel, and the weapons that fire said ammunition).
The health care is only so-so at most veterans' homes, but the company is top-notch.
I have no idea how expensive it is - I'm guessing that if you have to ask, you can't afford it - but Philips has a system called iSite that is a wonderful PACS. Much better than any other one I've used.
The VA uses VistA, not the active-duty military.
We have to ask ourselves if keeping grandpa alive for another week (unconscious or in sever pain or zonked out of his gourd ) is really benefiting him.
No, you need to figure out if someone in the family is still cashing his Social Security check every month. A surprisingly large number of people who are still in the "receive maximal attempts at sustenance of life" category despite having essentially zero quality of life fall under that.
All lawyers are "trained in consitutional law". So what? Inexperienced people get steamrolled by the system.
FWIW, being in the Senate is a bad luck in a presidential run. Only three senators have moved directly from that chamber to the White House: Harding (a weak and corrupt president), Kennedy (young, inexperienced, charming but totally blew his foreign policy), and Obama. In the era of direct election of senators, the former senators who made it into the office were Truman, Johnson, and Nixon, all of whom served as vice president prior to becoming president. What was remarkable about the 2008 election is that all the major candidates were Senators.
It was the highest tax rates on the top income brackets that brought the years of economic growth, lowest unemployment and fewest bubbles, not total tax revenue over GDP.
does not square with
the years we paid the highest amount of taxes as a percentage of GDP were years of solid economic growth and no economic bubbles
You cannot have it both ways.
Furthermore,
The nation's economy does best when the top brackets pay well over 50%, because they are more inclined to invest in their companies, add workers, and thus end up making more money in the long run.
Why do tax rates of > 50% of income make people want to invest in a company? I am all ears.
You thought the guy in office was a thug, so you voted for a Chicago machine politician hoping the thuggery would stop?
You (and a lot of other people) gave money to a guy whose political career consisted of being a first-term US Senator after a couple of years in the state legislature. What did you expect?
Let's see if any Democratic group has the stones to mount a primary challenge. I'm not really impressed by any of the Republican candidates. See if you can get Hillary to give it another go.
the years we paid the highest amount of taxes as a percentage of GDP were years of solid economic growth and no economic bubbles
The highest peak on that graph comes at the end of the 90s. Surely you're not trying to tell me the dot-com boom was solid economic growth without a bubble?
It's also worth noting that that was the end of a long period of relatively increased government take that began with the 1986 tax reforms. Lower rates with a broader base can and do work when rates are too high and deductions too numerous. (And no, that's not a Laffer curve argument, because the base was broadened significantly.)
It's just a comment on a device, not Kremlinology.
Ask your mom about the guys with big hands.
The screen still doesn't feel nearly as precise.
Christ, that's horrible. The iPad screen feels extremely imprecise to me; I can't imagine one that's worse.
I'm not offended, I'm just acknowledging the world as it is: with roads. We have them, we are going to continue to have them. In that world, cars are freedom. Without roads, they're much less useful, but then without roads even walking is sometimes a challenge.
Huh? We already have a road system. It will take me to just about any inhabited place. If you want to go to a remote and uninhabited place, you can get a 4x4 and drive to it - but it's not going to be someone's "back gardens".
The (slow) Auto Train runs on lines already paid for. It's still a lot more expensive than just driving yourself. And environmental concerns over building the track are definitely not irrelevant, because they drive up costs and delay construction.
Our rails are very, very modern - but they're a freight system. We have a highly functional automobile transport system, and a pretty decent air transportation system. Why would we build a new high speed rail system when it's not going to be cost-competitive with cars or time-competitive with airplanes except in Boston-NYC-DC?
But to do real HSR, you're going to need a dedicated track. Good luck building one of those in California and Oregon.
But it still takes nine hours, about as long as driving. By contrast, you can fly from Tegel to CDG in an hour and a half, meaning at most four hours total travel time including check in. I fail to see the appeal unless your time is really unimportant to you.
Right, but the Northeast Corridor is the only place in the US where rail makes sense. And the construction costs for a real high speed rail line would be astronomical.
Trains need those, too. And some vehicles actually can go without roads.