Heh, just wait a few months (or years) for them to get cheaper... At least for Xbox, you can go out and buy the system for less than 50% of the original cost. Most of the good games are "Platinum Classics" or some such, which means $20 brand new.
I just got a Nintendo 64, and let me tell you, that Goldeneye game is fun! You pay a high cost to keep up with the game industry, and arguably don't get any additional entertainment from your hours devoted to gaming. Don't be a herd consumer.
I became a Christian somewhat later in life, after a childhood spent playing D&D, and my high school / college years spent playing sports, chasing after women, and trying to make money.
I'd have to say without a doubt that D&D had absolutely zero effect on me. It's pretty fun, I think, as long as you get the right group of people.
I agree that pressure to succeed, comparing yourself to your peers, and basing your self-esteem on your personal appearance cause far more harm to our young people than any game ever could.
Atmospheric pollutant concentrations expressed as mass per unit volume of atmospheric air (e.g., mg/m3, ug/m3, etc.) at sea level will decrease with increasing altitude because the atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing altitude. (cribbed from here: http://www.air-dispersion.com/formulas.html#altitu de/concentration, see also equations listed)
The same reason we have sharply higher rainfall in areas facing coastal winds and abutted by mountain ranges would cause increased pollutant concentration in the same areas.
This looks like a relatively professional study: the maps on the website are a composite of 18 months worth of data. This is good methodology to ensure that anomalies are removed (unusual smog days, lightnings storms, etc).
This map is a measure of the vertical density of NO2 in a given column (represented by the area of each pixel on the original image, which is dependant on the camera).
One misleading thing: There is no mention of the climatological effects of the world's mountain ranges, and thus the prevailing winds. This is clearly illustrated along the Himilayas in India and the Andes mountains in South America. The topography is clearly causing bottlenecks in the distribution and dispersion of air. Thus, the map is not necessarily an indicator of where the actual pollution was produced. Naturally, in locations where airflow is reduced, the vertical profile of ANY gas concentration will be higher.
I'd predict you'll even see some similar patterns in global precipitation maps if you were to overlay the two.
No kidding, if you can't afford a new TV you should be watching less of it anyway. That would suck to be spending tax money on cruft like that at a time of record deficits.
"Transitional Action: We call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Banking System, and all similar national and state interventions affecting banking and credit."
I'd be interested in seeing a position paper describing what the candidate feels the FRB does, and how it's removal would facilitate the goals listed below. Here's the official LP statement on economic policy:
Trade and the Economy The only proper role of existing governments in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.
1. The Economy
Government intervention in the economy imperils both the personal freedom and the material prosperity of every American.
2. Taxation
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights.
3. Inflation and Depression
Government control over money and banking is the primary cause of inflation and depression.
4. Finance and Capital Investment
Regulation of financial and capital markets represses capital ventures.
5. Government Debt
We support a constitutional amendment requiring government budgets be balanced by cutting expenditures and not by raising taxes.
6. Monopolies
Government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy. We advocate a strict separation of business and State.
7. Subsidies
The unrestricted competition of the free market is the best way to foster prosperity. We oppose all government subsidies.
8. Trade Barriers
Tariffs and quotas give special treatment to favored special interests and diminish the welfare of consumers and other individuals.
9. Public Utilities
We advocate the termination of government-created franchise privileges. The right to offer services on the market should not be curtailed by law.
10. Unions and Collective Bargaining
We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union.
More specifically, look here for more information. The website article is merely fluff to appease the populace - I'd like to see some books written about this subject in great detail. So far I fail to see a compelling reason for this logic - instead, it is merely a list of various financial organizations that the LP would "eliminate" to allow "free markets".
Wow, I half-way consider myself a libertarian, but that is a pretty grandiose statement to assume the cancellation of the federal reserve bank.
It's been a staple of our economy for over a hundred years, and is a primary player in the IMF and Worldbank. Even to begin discussing this topic would be the subject of multiple PhD dissertations.
While I agree with many of the social stances of the Libertarian party (such as privitization of schooling), I think it is unconsionable to bandy about the elimination of one of humanity's largest financial organizations based on a half-baked ideology.
If you can show me multiple BOOKS written about this subject by pre-emanant financial thinkers, arguing for and against, and would be willing to debate a panel of leading finance/business professors on the subject... then you might have a case.
I can't stress enough the totally unknown effect this would have on the world economy, exchange rates, securities investment, home ownership, the national debt, and almost every other critical aspect of our nation's economy.
It's possible I'm just not familiar enough with the party line yet, but that remark caught me WAY off guard.
Perceived by whom? People who watch Fox for all their news?
Pereived by people like former president Bill Clinton, whom I saw verify the WMD assertion in an interview. Despite our inability to find them, I'm not convinced WMD don't exist. As a previous poster stated, Saddam was definitely capable of having them buried out in the desert, executing the construction workers, then having the executioners killed. It's not beyond the realm of possibility.
All you'd have to do is wait for the odd cloudy day over there, and that effectively eliminates most aerial surveilance of your activities.
I'm also not convinced Bush made the wrong decision. Assuming he had credible intelligence pointing to WMD being prepared for use against the US (which is also not beyond the realm of possibility), we're perfectly justified in attacking. We don't need French permission to defend ourselves, particularly in light of 9/11.
I agree that Saddam's winning strategy would be to not have WMD. Of course, if he was smart he would have simply complied with UN resolutions and got all the trade embargoes lifted. He could have been a multi-multi-billionaire like the Saudi royal family simply by "taxing" exports.
You're right, the statement about the aircraft carrier was uncalled for in terms of a tactical discussion of military deployment. That was me waxing dramatic to make a point.
I feel it's important to adequately compensate our troops. We spend 20 million per airplane, but an entry-level enlisted guy with two kids is eligible for welfare unless his wife works. My issue is not with defense spending in general, but with the disproportionate allocation of funds.
I'm not sure of the physics involved in detecting radiation, but I still think that a jettisoned nuclear bomb right off our coast should be more of a priority for the government. I'm not a mariner or a physicist, but I'm sure there's a way to detect a huge scrap of metal in a relatively localized area with favorable weather conditions.
I'm not a peacenik libertarian, I just think that the current military could be made more efficient and useful than it currently is. We spend an entirely disproportionate amount of money on technology gadgets, when what we need are good battlefield tacticians, soldiers trained in police methods and native languages in addition to other duties, and more oversight to prevent things like this bomb sitting right off the Georgia coast.
I'm all for protecting our national interests, and I know that often the best way to prevent violence is to add on intolerable layers of punishment to the perpetrators.
I agree with you in principle, but you also have to take into account the perceived threat of WMD being used on America.
Regardless of their location or availability now, the intelligence community believed they existed and could be used to arm terrorists to attack the US.
Stopping Saddam's murderous regime is an ancillary humanitarian benefit, and what we tell ourselves to sleep better at night. But, ultimately the go/no go decision was based on possible attacks to the US. If we were out to eliminate genocidal crazy regimes, we'd have 100k troops in Darfur right now instead of Baghdad.
I agree in principle that an American life is worth countless dollars, and I don't mind paying taxes to support any means possible to protect our troops. Some of my closest friends and family are in the military, and I'm proud of them as individuals for the sacrifices they've made for their country.
My issue isn't even so much with the amount being spent on the military, rather it is the blatant inefficiencies that get to me. Things such as being too lazy to find and recover a nuclear bomb from US coastal water, at a known crash site. With 300 billion dollars to spend, I don't think it's too much to ask that they clean up after themselves. It's for shame that someone had to track that down in their spare time.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks! I've never played that before, but I'm going to go nab it from the used game store on my lunchbreak.
Looks fun
Heh, just wait a few months (or years) for them to get cheaper... At least for Xbox, you can go out and buy the system for less than 50% of the original cost. Most of the good games are "Platinum Classics" or some such, which means $20 brand new.
I just got a Nintendo 64, and let me tell you, that Goldeneye game is fun! You pay a high cost to keep up with the game industry, and arguably don't get any additional entertainment from your hours devoted to gaming. Don't be a herd consumer.
My 0.02...
has little to do with technology. Read this for more info:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.h
Eric Lander of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts is quoted in the CNN story
Well, I guess he would know...
Sure, some of it was *thought* to be disproved but McDonald proved it was a reality
Yes, I hear McDonald can be defensive about his work...
I became a Christian somewhat later in life, after a childhood spent playing D&D, and my high school / college years spent playing sports, chasing after women, and trying to make money.
I'd have to say without a doubt that D&D had absolutely zero effect on me. It's pretty fun, I think, as long as you get the right group of people.
I agree that pressure to succeed, comparing yourself to your peers, and basing your self-esteem on your personal appearance cause far more harm to our young people than any game ever could.
I agree with you... Although this is even more shameful
They actually cited a dumb slashdot joke as the source
best comment of the day :)
Atmospheric pollutant concentrations expressed as mass per unit volume of atmospheric air (e.g., mg/m3, ug/m3, etc.) at sea level will decrease with increasing altitude because the atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing altitude. (cribbed from here: http://www.air-dispersion.com/formulas.html#altit
The same reason we have sharply higher rainfall in areas facing coastal winds and abutted by mountain ranges would cause increased pollutant concentration in the same areas.
Will post more detailed info if you reply
(disclaimer: yes I am a prefessional geographer)
On the other hand, I am not a prefessional speller...
This looks like a relatively professional study: the maps on the website are a composite of 18 months worth of data. This is good methodology to ensure that anomalies are removed (unusual smog days, lightnings storms, etc).
This map is a measure of the vertical density of NO2 in a given column (represented by the area of each pixel on the original image, which is dependant on the camera).
One misleading thing: There is no mention of the climatological effects of the world's mountain ranges, and thus the prevailing winds. This is clearly illustrated along the Himilayas in India and the Andes mountains in South America. The topography is clearly causing bottlenecks in the distribution and dispersion of air. Thus, the map is not necessarily an indicator of where the actual pollution was produced. Naturally, in locations where airflow is reduced, the vertical profile of ANY gas concentration will be higher.
I'd predict you'll even see some similar patterns in global precipitation maps if you were to overlay the two.
(disclaimer: yes I am a prefessional geographer)
Wonder where it would send me if www.hotmail.com were down?
*shudder*
(disclaimer: no, I didn't actually look to see what's on that site)
No kidding, if you can't afford a new TV you should be watching less of it anyway. That would suck to be spending tax money on cruft like that at a time of record deficits.
I wouldn't be surprised at this at all - I've even heard rumors of people playing online chess while using Chessmaster to tell them their moves.
It was, um, a friend of mine...
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/infldepr.html
"Transitional Action: We call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Banking System, and all similar national and state interventions affecting banking and credit."
I'd be interested in seeing a position paper describing what the candidate feels the FRB does, and how it's removal would facilitate the goals listed below. Here's the official LP statement on economic policy:
Trade and the Economy
The only proper role of existing governments in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.
1. The Economy
Government intervention in the economy imperils both the personal freedom and the material prosperity of every American.
2. Taxation
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights.
3. Inflation and Depression
Government control over money and banking is the primary cause of inflation and depression.
4. Finance and Capital Investment
Regulation of financial and capital markets represses capital ventures.
5. Government Debt
We support a constitutional amendment requiring government budgets be balanced by cutting expenditures and not by raising taxes.
6. Monopolies
Government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy. We advocate a strict separation of business and State.
7. Subsidies
The unrestricted competition of the free market is the best way to foster prosperity. We oppose all government subsidies.
8. Trade Barriers
Tariffs and quotas give special treatment to favored special interests and diminish the welfare of consumers and other individuals.
9. Public Utilities
We advocate the termination of government-created franchise privileges. The right to offer services on the market should not be curtailed by law.
10. Unions and Collective Bargaining
We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union.
More specifically, look here for more information. The website article is merely fluff to appease the populace - I'd like to see some books written about this subject in great detail. So far I fail to see a compelling reason for this logic - instead, it is merely a list of various financial organizations that the LP would "eliminate" to allow "free markets".
Wow, I half-way consider myself a libertarian, but that is a pretty grandiose statement to assume the cancellation of the federal reserve bank.
It's been a staple of our economy for over a hundred years, and is a primary player in the IMF and Worldbank. Even to begin discussing this topic would be the subject of multiple PhD dissertations.
While I agree with many of the social stances of the Libertarian party (such as privitization of schooling), I think it is unconsionable to bandy about the elimination of one of humanity's largest financial organizations based on a half-baked ideology.
If you can show me multiple BOOKS written about this subject by pre-emanant financial thinkers, arguing for and against, and would be willing to debate a panel of leading finance/business professors on the subject... then you might have a case.
I can't stress enough the totally unknown effect this would have on the world economy, exchange rates, securities investment, home ownership, the national debt, and almost every other critical aspect of our nation's economy.
It's possible I'm just not familiar enough with the party line yet, but that remark caught me WAY off guard.
Perceived by whom? People who watch Fox for all their news?
Pereived by people like former president Bill Clinton, whom I saw verify the WMD assertion in an interview. Despite our inability to find them, I'm not convinced WMD don't exist. As a previous poster stated, Saddam was definitely capable of having them buried out in the desert, executing the construction workers, then having the executioners killed. It's not beyond the realm of possibility.
All you'd have to do is wait for the odd cloudy day over there, and that effectively eliminates most aerial surveilance of your activities.
I'm also not convinced Bush made the wrong decision. Assuming he had credible intelligence pointing to WMD being prepared for use against the US (which is also not beyond the realm of possibility), we're perfectly justified in attacking. We don't need French permission to defend ourselves, particularly in light of 9/11.
I agree that Saddam's winning strategy would be to not have WMD. Of course, if he was smart he would have simply complied with UN resolutions and got all the trade embargoes lifted. He could have been a multi-multi-billionaire like the Saudi royal family simply by "taxing" exports.
cities that grow like viruses
You mean like Houston?
5) programme
grr, ruined my +5 funny
1) que
2) centre
3) colour
4) dialogue
5) program
6) pyjamas
Why yes, I am american
You're right, the statement about the aircraft carrier was uncalled for in terms of a tactical discussion of military deployment. That was me waxing dramatic to make a point.
I feel it's important to adequately compensate our troops. We spend 20 million per airplane, but an entry-level enlisted guy with two kids is eligible for welfare unless his wife works. My issue is not with defense spending in general, but with the disproportionate allocation of funds.
I'm not sure of the physics involved in detecting radiation, but I still think that a jettisoned nuclear bomb right off our coast should be more of a priority for the government. I'm not a mariner or a physicist, but I'm sure there's a way to detect a huge scrap of metal in a relatively localized area with favorable weather conditions.
I'm not a peacenik libertarian, I just think that the current military could be made more efficient and useful than it currently is. We spend an entirely disproportionate amount of money on technology gadgets, when what we need are good battlefield tacticians, soldiers trained in police methods and native languages in addition to other duties, and more oversight to prevent things like this bomb sitting right off the Georgia coast.
I'm all for protecting our national interests, and I know that often the best way to prevent violence is to add on intolerable layers of punishment to the perpetrators.
I agree with you in principle, but you also have to take into account the perceived threat of WMD being used on America.
Regardless of their location or availability now, the intelligence community believed they existed and could be used to arm terrorists to attack the US.
Stopping Saddam's murderous regime is an ancillary humanitarian benefit, and what we tell ourselves to sleep better at night. But, ultimately the go/no go decision was based on possible attacks to the US. If we were out to eliminate genocidal crazy regimes, we'd have 100k troops in Darfur right now instead of Baghdad.
I agree in principle that an American life is worth countless dollars, and I don't mind paying taxes to support any means possible to protect our troops. Some of my closest friends and family are in the military, and I'm proud of them as individuals for the sacrifices they've made for their country.
My issue isn't even so much with the amount being spent on the military, rather it is the blatant inefficiencies that get to me. Things such as being too lazy to find and recover a nuclear bomb from US coastal water, at a known crash site. With 300 billion dollars to spend, I don't think it's too much to ask that they clean up after themselves. It's for shame that someone had to track that down in their spare time.