Indeed, it's so accurate that state DOTs are just buying data from Inrix (the same company from which Google gets its data, I think) instead of bothering to install loop or video detection.
I was under the impression that breeder reactors are uncommon not because they don't work, but because of nuclear proliferation concerns.
Wikipedia seems to agree with me (and also mentions that they apparently cost more than "normal" reactors), and also has a list of reactors, some of which were/are in production.
I was going to post "And it should have mentioned Daggerfall!" but then I did a search to check whether Daggerfall really was procedurally generated, and the 3rd result of the search turned out to be TFA...
Considering that the waste problem is solved by breeder reactors and/or waste reprocessing, I can only assume the elephant you're referring to is pink and imaginary because you're drunk on the anti-nuclear kool-aid.
I wouldn't be surprised if the WiiU is slower than an iPhone-- those phones cost more than the WiiU and the GPU is probably the biggest expense.
No, the biggest expense in an iPhone is the "because they can" carrier markup. Take a look at the prices of the iPod Touch or unlocked (unsubsidized) high-end Android devices for a real cost comparison.
First, I can't parse your first sentence (when... what?).
Second, I wasn't talking about buying pre-ground beef, the analogy was about buying half a cow that had been killed, gutted, drained of blood, and cut in half with a big band saw, but which had otherwise not yet been butchered.
I suppose I've figured out how to adapt the analogy to apples after all: it's not as if you bought 1000 lbs of applesauce and are finding fragments of seeds in it, it's that you bought 1000 lbs of whole apples and are complaining that you can't eat the cores.
Why hasn't anybody simply continued the beef analogy? It's actually a really good one:
They sold you a 1000 lb side of beef, but by the time you butchered it into roasts and steaks you only had 700 lbs left because the rest was bone, skin, organs, gristle, trimmings, etc. (I've only looked into the subject briefly, but I believe this ~30% "overhead" for whole vs. butchered beef is pretty accurate.)
Oh, and by the way, both parties are chock full of authoritarian despots who work tirelessly to shit all over the Constitution and expand Federal power at the expense of the States, which doesn't help either!
...ObamaCare now (clearly hated among the Republican base)
The Republican base couldn't care less about ObamaCare as a policy (How could they? Just like the Democrat base, they can't be bothered to even understand it!); they hate it because they were told by the Republican cheerleaders on Faux News and talk radio to hate it simply because it belongs to the Other Team.
...but that's not really the point. The point is that we've got one party with a decent social policy and a shitty fiscal policy, another party with a decent fiscal policy and a shitty social policy, a few True Believers on each side who will root for their team no matter what (i.e., the "Base"), and a majority who are pissed off that they've been disenfranchised by the system that insists on measuring orthogonal dimensions along only one axis (which is why total turnout is so low)!
However, that's insufficient because the answer can also be "no one at all".
That sort of ridiculous bullshit is why Congress is full of screaming whiny childish assholes who can't compromise or get anything done!
For every rabid dumbass vote Romney would have lost by being reasonable, I'm absolutely convinced he would have gained two moderate votes.
Let me put it this way. I live in a safely red state, and two weeks before the election I noticed a Romney/Ryan bumper sticker. What really struck me was that was the first one I had seen.
Let me put it this way: if you live in a safely red state, who the fuck cares if some of them stay home?!! OMG, Romney won by 9% instead of 10%! Whoop-de-fucking-do!
Also, many Ron Paul supporters defected for Libertarian party after the Romney campaign's machinations during the primaries and convention to disenfranchise the Paul delegates despite there never being any plausible threat to Romney's nomination. Why is this relevant? I'm guessing the 0.53% of the vote the Libertarian candidate won in FL, for example, looks rather appealing to the Republicans in retrospectâ"given they lost by 0.86% of the vote there.
And here's what those Republicans don't get: the Republicans lost the Libertarian vote because of their authoritarian social platform, not their fiscal platform! The Republicans could cut taxes to fucking zero and it wouldn't matter because Libertarians refuse to accept their brain-damaged Baptist Sharia Law! I know this because I myself voted Libertarian, and that's exactly why.
Sure, the government could inflate the currency all it wants, but that doesn't change the fact that its spending compared to GDP is unsustainable. Maybe if the money were being invested in the economy (e.g. infrastructure, research, etc.) it'd be different -- the leverage afforded by the low interest rates the US can borrow at would be quite lucrative -- but since it's being squandered on bread and circuses the borrowing is irresponsible at any interest rate.
Which holy cows are you willing to turn into hamburger with regard to spending?
All of them, including (especially) entitlements and defense. But lest you think I'm some kind of Republican, I should emphasize that the Holy Tax Cuts must be slaughtered equally.
In fact, "drive it off the cliff" is an excellent sentiment: I would be perfectly happy for Congress to do nothing and allow the government to drive itself off the Fiscal Cliff -- the "draconian" tax increases and spending cuts are exactly what we need anyway!
I'd be more worried that 60% of voters think that taxes should go up for the richest people and only 35% thought that taxes shouldn't go up for anyone
Why? We're insolvent, and any fiscal conservative ought to know that when you're deep in debt, the only responsible thing to do is to pay it off, even if it means taking a second job (increasing income) as well as cutting expenses.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because there are too few samples to calculate a reasonable average, so the result is essentially a divide-by-zero error.
What Google ought to do is either not show the traffic overlay for that segment, show a gray overlay, or show a confidence measurement in a tooltip.
Indeed, it's so accurate that state DOTs are just buying data from Inrix (the same company from which Google gets its data, I think) instead of bothering to install loop or video detection.
I was under the impression that breeder reactors are uncommon not because they don't work, but because of nuclear proliferation concerns.
Wikipedia seems to agree with me (and also mentions that they apparently cost more than "normal" reactors), and also has a list of reactors, some of which were/are in production.
I was going to post "And it should have mentioned Daggerfall!" but then I did a search to check whether Daggerfall really was procedurally generated, and the 3rd result of the search turned out to be TFA...
Considering that the waste problem is solved by breeder reactors and/or waste reprocessing, I can only assume the elephant you're referring to is pink and imaginary because you're drunk on the anti-nuclear kool-aid.
No, the biggest expense in an iPhone is the "because they can" carrier markup. Take a look at the prices of the iPod Touch or unlocked (unsubsidized) high-end Android devices for a real cost comparison.
Only chumps play Elder Scrolls games on a console. They're pretty much unplayable without community bugfixes, which are only available on PC.
...is your analogy still stupid?
Because many times the company will just bury the problem instead of fixing it (not to mention persecute you anyway).
Speak for yourself (I'm 28, and am just as concerned as you are)!
By definition, half the nuclear powers aren't "first-world." First-world is NATO, second-world is [former] Soviet, and third-world is everybody else.
That analogy works if and only if you consider Palestinians to be more indigenous than Israelis.
You need to read up on something called the "broken window fallacy."
Oh yeah? Well I'm using WordStar and VisiCalc! So there!
That's amazing! I have the same combination on my luggage!
(Don't blame me; somebody had to say it!)
And yet nuclear still manages to be very much environmentally preferable to coal, even after taking such accidents into account!
First, I can't parse your first sentence (when... what?).
Second, I wasn't talking about buying pre-ground beef, the analogy was about buying half a cow that had been killed, gutted, drained of blood, and cut in half with a big band saw, but which had otherwise not yet been butchered.
I suppose I've figured out how to adapt the analogy to apples after all: it's not as if you bought 1000 lbs of applesauce and are finding fragments of seeds in it, it's that you bought 1000 lbs of whole apples and are complaining that you can't eat the cores.
Why hasn't anybody simply continued the beef analogy? It's actually a really good one:
They sold you a 1000 lb side of beef, but by the time you butchered it into roasts and steaks you only had 700 lbs left because the rest was bone, skin, organs, gristle, trimmings, etc. (I've only looked into the subject briefly, but I believe this ~30% "overhead" for whole vs. butchered beef is pretty accurate.)
Oh, and by the way, both parties are chock full of authoritarian despots who work tirelessly to shit all over the Constitution and expand Federal power at the expense of the States, which doesn't help either!
The Republican base couldn't care less about ObamaCare as a policy (How could they? Just like the Democrat base, they can't be bothered to even understand it!); they hate it because they were told by the Republican cheerleaders on Faux News and talk radio to hate it simply because it belongs to the Other Team.
...but that's not really the point. The point is that we've got one party with a decent social policy and a shitty fiscal policy, another party with a decent fiscal policy and a shitty social policy, a few True Believers on each side who will root for their team no matter what (i.e., the "Base"), and a majority who are pissed off that they've been disenfranchised by the system that insists on measuring orthogonal dimensions along only one axis (which is why total turnout is so low)!
It was a figure of speech (specifically, synecdoche), you idiot!
That sort of ridiculous bullshit is why Congress is full of screaming whiny childish assholes who can't compromise or get anything done!
For every rabid dumbass vote Romney would have lost by being reasonable, I'm absolutely convinced he would have gained two moderate votes.
Let me put it this way: if you live in a safely red state, who the fuck cares if some of them stay home?!! OMG, Romney won by 9% instead of 10%! Whoop-de-fucking-do!
And here's what those Republicans don't get: the Republicans lost the Libertarian vote because of their authoritarian social platform, not their fiscal platform! The Republicans could cut taxes to fucking zero and it wouldn't matter because Libertarians refuse to accept their brain-damaged Baptist Sharia Law! I know this because I myself voted Libertarian, and that's exactly why.
Sure, the government could inflate the currency all it wants, but that doesn't change the fact that its spending compared to GDP is unsustainable. Maybe if the money were being invested in the economy (e.g. infrastructure, research, etc.) it'd be different -- the leverage afforded by the low interest rates the US can borrow at would be quite lucrative -- but since it's being squandered on bread and circuses the borrowing is irresponsible at any interest rate.
All of them, including (especially) entitlements and defense. But lest you think I'm some kind of Republican, I should emphasize that the Holy Tax Cuts must be slaughtered equally.
In fact, "drive it off the cliff" is an excellent sentiment: I would be perfectly happy for Congress to do nothing and allow the government to drive itself off the Fiscal Cliff -- the "draconian" tax increases and spending cuts are exactly what we need anyway!
Why? We're insolvent, and any fiscal conservative ought to know that when you're deep in debt, the only responsible thing to do is to pay it off, even if it means taking a second job (increasing income) as well as cutting expenses.