I wonder how many people who are casually dismissing this report would be howling with outrage if the article was about, say, Bush's choice for assistant director of the FCC instead of about someone on Obama's transition team.
Not many, because those of us who would bitch about Bush's choice for assistant director of the FCC are also likely to know how to read, and would have noted that the person in question is not on Obama's transition team.
The ability of your tires to "penetrate the slush" is going to depend on your speed (faster you're going, the more slush you have to move out of the way in a given time), weight of your car (the heavier it is, the faster slush is moved), width of your tires (wider the tire, more slush you have to move), tread on your tire (better tread design, more slush moved), and whether your tire is turning - if it *IS* turning, then the tread does a better job of moving the slush, as slush-filled tread rolls up and slush-empty tread rolls down.
Locking your wheels so they don't turn makes it harder to get through the slush to the pavement, not easier.
More importantly, if you were not able to stop in time, the biggest problem is that you were following to closely.
I voted straight democrat this time around. Gave a bunch of money to the cause to.
But Card-Check is the ONE major item of the Democratic platform that really bothers me. Card-Check is bullshit. If workers want to organize, let them have their secret ballot and organize. But if the union can't win the secret ballot, we shouldn't let the union FORCE workers to give union bosses their money.
Watching the video it's pretty obvious what happened.
Tools in the bag are supposed to be tethered to the bag they are in. You can see the astronaut take the soon-to-be-lost bag out of another bag, and... no tether. So instead of the lost bag floating a bit and being held there by the tether, it floated a bit far and then was out of reach.
So when Russia invades a country to keep "religious nutbars" in check, it's okay?
Actually, yes. They would have saved us the trouble, considering they were doing EXACTLY what we're doing now - trying to keep the religious nutbars in check.
The people who took out loans they could not afford to pay are just as liable as the people who gave them the money. The borrowers should get tossed out of their homes and the banks should take the losses from having to sell the home at the new market price.
Of course, the problem with that is people who bought houses they could afford still had their homes lose tons of value. That's who the bailout is really for - keep too many homes from hitting the market so home owners who didn't make poor decisions don't pay the consequences of those who did through an inability to sell their house.
It would have been better had we had stronger regulation that prevented all those bad loans from being issued in the first place, but that ship has unfortunately sailed, so the only choices are, everybody is screwed, or everybody is saved, since there's unfortunately no way to only save the people who didn't do anything wrong.
As for colleges, if you are accepted to both Yale and a state school, it may still make sense to go to a state school. It just depends how much a Yale degree is worth to you, because chances are, outside of a very select few careers, you'll never make back the extra money you spend on your Yale degree.
Think of it this way - you can go to Yale, or you can finish college with $100,000 in savings at age 22. $100,000 savings at age 22 turns into $6.4 million at age 65. That's tough for a Yale degree to beat.
Becasue your one little piece of life is nothing more then an anecdote?
You realize that their ENTIRE study consisted of a U2 fan going to ONE U2 concert and ASKING the people in line how they felt about cutting and how big of fans they were?
That's not a study. That's a poll of statistically insignificant sample size. At least the guy who went to high school collected data over 4 years.
And where in the constitution is the prohibition against federal spending on disaster recovery?
There are certain aspects of disaster recovery where one-per-country is more efficient than one-per-state or one-per-city. It doesn't make sense, for example, for every major city to have their own set of emergency housing trailers when one set that gets moved as necessary will do. Why force every city to pay full price for things most cities will never need when all cities can, through the federal government, pay a portion of the cost and the city that ends up getting hit by the hurricane gets the resources? Seems more efficient to me.
Now that certainly doesn't mean EVERY aspect of disaster recovery is that way, but some things are indeed better done from the federal level.
And disaster recovery is, and must be, a primarily FEDERAL function.
Could New Orleans have done everything needed to make sure New Orleans was prepared for a hurricane like Katrina? Sure. But that's a stupid way to handle disasters - it doesn't make sense to have New Orleans, Louisiana, Houston, Texas, Miami, Florida, Alabama, Missippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, all each individually acquire the resources to handle a hurricane when you can have the Federal government do it ONCE and then just move those resources to wherever the hurricane lands.
There is really no way around it - the federal government must be responsible for a large part of major disaster recovery, and with Katrina, the federal government majorly screwed it up, in large part due to the complete incompetence of the Bush administration.
Slashdot Mirror
People 1100 km away won't use Linux.
Your right to bear muzzle-loading smooth-bore muskets and rifles has not been infringed!
A brick's value is the cost of creating a brick to replace it.
So if it is less expensive to throw something out and buy a new one than it is to repair it, it's bricked.
Gov't run health care? No thanks.
You must have the luxury of health care. There are tens of millions of people who would be happy to have ANY health care.
I wonder how many people who are casually dismissing this report would be howling with outrage if the article was about, say, Bush's choice for assistant director of the FCC instead of about someone on Obama's transition team.
Not many, because those of us who would bitch about Bush's choice for assistant director of the FCC are also likely to know how to read, and would have noted that the person in question is not on Obama's transition team.
The ability of your tires to "penetrate the slush" is going to depend on your speed (faster you're going, the more slush you have to move out of the way in a given time), weight of your car (the heavier it is, the faster slush is moved), width of your tires (wider the tire, more slush you have to move), tread on your tire (better tread design, more slush moved), and whether your tire is turning - if it *IS* turning, then the tread does a better job of moving the slush, as slush-filled tread rolls up and slush-empty tread rolls down.
Locking your wheels so they don't turn makes it harder to get through the slush to the pavement, not easier.
More importantly, if you were not able to stop in time, the biggest problem is that you were following to closely.
I voted straight democrat this time around. Gave a bunch of money to the cause to.
But Card-Check is the ONE major item of the Democratic platform that really bothers me. Card-Check is bullshit. If workers want to organize, let them have their secret ballot and organize. But if the union can't win the secret ballot, we shouldn't let the union FORCE workers to give union bosses their money.
Card Check = Wage Theft.
If the big SUVs hadn't been Detroit's sole focus the past 10 years, the big three would have gone bankrupt 10 years ago.
The margin on an SUV is enough to pay the bloated union labor costs. The margin on a sedan is not.
It's not being able to sell SUVs anymore that is the last straw in a bad business model.
An adult harassing a child is not the same as a child harassing a child. Adults should know better.
I spent most of my time in high school with a boner and looking out the window.
Vegetation fetish, eh?
Watching the video it's pretty obvious what happened.
Tools in the bag are supposed to be tethered to the bag they are in. You can see the astronaut take the soon-to-be-lost bag out of another bag, and ... no tether. So instead of the lost bag floating a bit and being held there by the tether, it floated a bit far and then was out of reach.
whereby only the top few percent of women are determined enough to make it through whatever it is that keeps women out of computer science in droves.
Simple.
There is no reason to put yourself through a difficult engineering curriculum when you can go to the bar and select a male to provide for you instead.
Society gives women the option of having someone else provide for their financial security. That option doesn't really exist for men.
At least late-game repetitive time-sinks will be source-material accurate.
If they just introduce each character once, that'll compress out 70% of the material right there.
So when Russia invades a country to keep "religious nutbars" in check, it's okay?
Actually, yes. They would have saved us the trouble, considering they were doing EXACTLY what we're doing now - trying to keep the religious nutbars in check.
There are people like me that are from small towns that are not small-minded so the two are not exclusive.
You may want to check your logic there. The existence of something that is A and not B does not show whether there is anything that is both A and B.
The people who took out loans they could not afford to pay are just as liable as the people who gave them the money. The borrowers should get tossed out of their homes and the banks should take the losses from having to sell the home at the new market price.
Of course, the problem with that is people who bought houses they could afford still had their homes lose tons of value. That's who the bailout is really for - keep too many homes from hitting the market so home owners who didn't make poor decisions don't pay the consequences of those who did through an inability to sell their house.
It would have been better had we had stronger regulation that prevented all those bad loans from being issued in the first place, but that ship has unfortunately sailed, so the only choices are, everybody is screwed, or everybody is saved, since there's unfortunately no way to only save the people who didn't do anything wrong.
As for colleges, if you are accepted to both Yale and a state school, it may still make sense to go to a state school. It just depends how much a Yale degree is worth to you, because chances are, outside of a very select few careers, you'll never make back the extra money you spend on your Yale degree.
Think of it this way - you can go to Yale, or you can finish college with $100,000 in savings at age 22. $100,000 savings at age 22 turns into $6.4 million at age 65. That's tough for a Yale degree to beat.
Becasue your one little piece of life is nothing more then an anecdote?
You realize that their ENTIRE study consisted of a U2 fan going to ONE U2 concert and ASKING the people in line how they felt about cutting and how big of fans they were?
That's not a study. That's a poll of statistically insignificant sample size. At least the guy who went to high school collected data over 4 years.
Single? SlashdotSingles.org
Slashdot.org works just fine.
$3600 is only 18 good nights out at the bar, so its relatively cheap in comparison.
There is something wrong with either where or how much you are drinking.
I doubt the people pulling down over $250,000 a year do much sweating.
It's more a man is not necessarily entitled to massive profits from the sweat of other men's brows.
Methinks you didn't read our constitution carefully enough.
How about Article 1, section 8:
The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
Maybe you should try reading yourself.
UHV2 MCHT IMON YURH NDS
And where in the constitution is the prohibition against federal spending on disaster recovery?
There are certain aspects of disaster recovery where one-per-country is more efficient than one-per-state or one-per-city. It doesn't make sense, for example, for every major city to have their own set of emergency housing trailers when one set that gets moved as necessary will do. Why force every city to pay full price for things most cities will never need when all cities can, through the federal government, pay a portion of the cost and the city that ends up getting hit by the hurricane gets the resources? Seems more efficient to me.
Now that certainly doesn't mean EVERY aspect of disaster recovery is that way, but some things are indeed better done from the federal level.
And disaster recovery is, and must be, a primarily FEDERAL function.
Could New Orleans have done everything needed to make sure New Orleans was prepared for a hurricane like Katrina? Sure. But that's a stupid way to handle disasters - it doesn't make sense to have New Orleans, Louisiana, Houston, Texas, Miami, Florida, Alabama, Missippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, all each individually acquire the resources to handle a hurricane when you can have the Federal government do it ONCE and then just move those resources to wherever the hurricane lands.
There is really no way around it - the federal government must be responsible for a large part of major disaster recovery, and with Katrina, the federal government majorly screwed it up, in large part due to the complete incompetence of the Bush administration.