Actually, yes. Didn't want to move the kids out of their schools, and the wife's family (whom they visit about once every 3 months) is closer to there. Schools close to work were rated best in the greater Houston area. Basically sounded like a case of the wife and kids ruling his life and not valuing his presence at home - I hope the sex was worth it because the rest of the relationship seemed pretty low value.
Not many people in the US realize that the most precious thing in life isn't money, but time.
Very true. As to the idiot working effective 11 hour days for at least 3 years that I know of, I think he didn't want to uproot his kids from their schools, which I can understand to some extent, but is keeping your kids with their 3rd grade friends really worth 15 extra hours a week away from them? Money wise, he figured he was spending at least $1000/month in gas,maintenance and depreciation on his car, an effective $12K/yr pay cut for not moving - housing wasn't any cheaper or nicer where he lived, though the air was marginally less polluted.
Specifically, end of his first term just prior to the elections, I seem to recall approximately 50% increase in gas prices, yet slightly more than 50% of voters chose to renew his license.
So is greater Europe - if a German salesman chose to cover Northern Norway through Southern Italy as his territory, he's be doing a lot of travelling too.
You drive about as much as you choose to drive, if you don't like driving so much, get a different job - possibly in a different town. In America it is popular to live in your car 2 hours+ a day (sometimes 8+ hours, as in your case), but it is not required, or necessary.
When I lived in a suburb of Houston, my house was 4 miles from the office and 1/2 mile from the grocery store - the idiot in the cubicle outside my office commuted 3 hours a day, he could afford a house in my neighborhood, to rent or buy, he just chose not to.
Let's just pass a car use tax of $5/day, in your face, like it or take the bus.
That should cut the number of automotive deaths by at least 200/year. Of course, deaths from muggings and pneumonia contracted while waiting for the bus will increase, but, hey, we're saving the planet and paying down the national debt, right?
There are cars that need cameras, and cars that don't. My Miata comes to mind as one that doesn't, if you can't tell what's behind you in a Miata, you have no business driving, backwards or forwards.
But good. I've got the BR and it is good. The effects truly were amazing for the time, and now really! Worried about the cost per ep for something I've seen a million times, but really, if you like TNG at all, this is the way to see them.
Great joy and gratitude!
My attention span has been shortening across the decades, I can almost enjoy a rerun as much listening to it on Netflix watch it now, occasionally glancing at the screen, as I can sitting infront of it like some lame vegetable that doesn't remember seeing this all before...
If they decide to take taiwan by force you're going to be scrambling to source electronic components, because they will control the sea around taiwan, shipping around korea will be treacherous at best, and the same could be said of most of japan and thailand, and it suddenly looks much harder to run a high tech war without reliable access to most of those goods.
If it's a real, protracted war, 6 months to 2 years can get fabs up and running anywhere we want them, likely Texas.
The advantage of the ship-mounted bomb-throwers starts on the second week of a war, when you need the cheapest way to get bomb tonnage on target, not the most effective.
If we've been flinging nukes, I hope the war is over in a lot less than a week.
Of course I'm not in favor of higher unemployment rates. I'm guessing that you're implying that spending on the Pentagon employs people. It does, but it's some of the most wasteful socialism the country indulges in. Spending the $billions elsewhere, instead of through the Pentagon, is a much more powerful stimulus.
...
NASA creates far more jobs per dollar than any military spending.
Pentagon spending ships loads of money overseas, has no accountability so is terribly wasteful
Lots of assertions, let me throw out a few equally backed up counterpoints:
Most of the money spent in government programs is spent on personnel. Most government employed personnel are sub-six-figure income people, and even those who are up in the six figure incomes are at the low end... very few million dollar+ bonuses being handed around, even in the "black" programs, now compare that to a private or publicly traded corporation. Even though you don't know what a black development ops engineer does during the day, he still comes home and buys groceries, gas, pays contractors to fix his house, etc. There are some fancy buildings built, but again, most of the cost there is feeding the families of the contractors.
I would prefer that Pentagon money went to something like NASA with better accountability and less overseas operations, but I do believe that there is a balance to strike on defense spending, and that we are close to optimal around the 5% of GDP level.
and eventually stimulates wars, which destroy value and efficiencies.
Counterpoint: I don't think Pearl Harbor would have happened if the U.S. had been brandishing a bigger stick at the time. 9/11 is a little harder to call, but again, when 9/11 happened, defense spending was at a 50 year low. I enjoy living in relative peace and security, and in this world I see few ways to achieve that: 1) The way the U.S./NATO/China/USSR has done it all my life through intimidation, 2) hang out somewhere under the U.S./NATO/China/USSR umbrella of peace, 3) find an obscure corner somewhere that just happens to be quiet at the moment and move when things get bad.
The price is not to like. The Pentagon should pay for this new system by deleting some other system. In fact the Pentagon should delete more expenses than this one is currently pretended to cost, to accommodate the inevitable cost overruns of the new system.
We are spending far more than what our security needs to cost us. If we really do have a new "highest priority", the Pentagon should cut enough of its lower priorities to pay for it.
Are you also in favor of higher unemployment rates?
Focusing just on the post World War II period, U.S. military spending as a percent of GDP has ranged from a 15 percent high in 1952 (during the Korean War) to a low of 3.7 percent in 2000 (the period of relative tranquility preceding the terrorist attacks of the following year).
There's nothing that can't be hacked! If it's controllable by something outside of the craft itself, it is vulnerable to hacking! Oh let's give enemies the opportunity to hack our BOMBERS, with a Nuclear option no less!
At the end of the decade long project, I could sign off on the security/reliability of an electro/mechanical (including software) system to be 100% fail-safe LONG before I could make such assertions about a human crew.
It's just that we've been refining human based loyalty systems for millenia, whereas nearly all computer systems to-date have been schedule-compressed out the door before they're fully tested, often before they're even fully specified. Put the same number of man-hours into developing a pilotless bomber control system that we have put into developing and executing our nuclear launch officer recruitment, screening, training and surveillance operations, and you could have the same level of confidence in the system.
Of course, that would require over a decade in development - and lots and lots of talent that's highly valuable for things other than delivering nuclear weapons... seems like what we really need is an education system that produces more of these people.
apparently, the Earth's crust has been absorbing CO2 in some form of thermoregulatory negative feedback loop that was compensating for the irradiation increase. The problem is, there is almost no CO2 to absorb anymore. (And if *that* gets absorbed, we'll die anyway, since we'll lose our food crops.)
Ummmm.... wasn't it the photosynthesizing algae that scrubbed most of the CO2 in a rather dramatic step?
The only example of a literary work that I think might be improved by hypertext is the Bible. Possibly there are other works of the same kind. Maybe "Grimms Fairy Tales".
I could see Niven's Known Space series working well with hypertext, not that the stories would change much, perhaps abridged to reduce local retelling. Referencing concepts detailed in other works could make an interesting reread.
Problem is: who would tie into a multi-novel 8x the size of Lord of The Rings? And, what would the publisher try to charge for it? The result of these two factors leads to an audience approaching zero, unless the links were "pay as you click..."
Hmmm.... most of my media library was tailored to be PS3 DLNA compatible, so I haven't had any breakage problems. It does lock up once every couple of months, but that's better than any PC I've ever used.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you ever ask why?
Actually, yes. Didn't want to move the kids out of their schools, and the wife's family (whom they visit about once every 3 months) is closer to there. Schools close to work were rated best in the greater Houston area. Basically sounded like a case of the wife and kids ruling his life and not valuing his presence at home - I hope the sex was worth it because the rest of the relationship seemed pretty low value.
Not many people in the US realize that the most precious thing in life isn't money, but time.
Very true. As to the idiot working effective 11 hour days for at least 3 years that I know of, I think he didn't want to uproot his kids from their schools, which I can understand to some extent, but is keeping your kids with their 3rd grade friends really worth 15 extra hours a week away from them? Money wise, he figured he was spending at least $1000/month in gas,maintenance and depreciation on his car, an effective $12K/yr pay cut for not moving - housing wasn't any cheaper or nicer where he lived, though the air was marginally less polluted.
Most of Texas is virtually worthless desert, Germany is arguably more comparable to the New England states.
Specifically, end of his first term just prior to the elections, I seem to recall approximately 50% increase in gas prices, yet slightly more than 50% of voters chose to renew his license.
And, when you need it most (after a major disaster) construction materials and labor are at a high premium, as are habitable structures.
Avoiding destruction in a wide scale disaster is a very high value-add.
The United States is a big frikkin' place.
So is greater Europe - if a German salesman chose to cover Northern Norway through Southern Italy as his territory, he's be doing a lot of travelling too.
You drive about as much as you choose to drive, if you don't like driving so much, get a different job - possibly in a different town. In America it is popular to live in your car 2 hours+ a day (sometimes 8+ hours, as in your case), but it is not required, or necessary.
When I lived in a suburb of Houston, my house was 4 miles from the office and 1/2 mile from the grocery store - the idiot in the cubicle outside my office commuted 3 hours a day, he could afford a house in my neighborhood, to rent or buy, he just chose not to.
I live in a democracy, and I watched my nation re-elect Junior Bush as gas prices went through the roof on his watch.
Let's just pass a car use tax of $5/day, in your face, like it or take the bus.
That should cut the number of automotive deaths by at least 200/year. Of course, deaths from muggings and pneumonia contracted while waiting for the bus will increase, but, hey, we're saving the planet and paying down the national debt, right?
There are cars that need cameras, and cars that don't. My Miata comes to mind as one that doesn't, if you can't tell what's behind you in a Miata, you have no business driving, backwards or forwards.
But good. I've got the BR and it is good. The effects truly were amazing for the time, and now really! Worried about the cost per ep for something I've seen a million times, but really, if you like TNG at all, this is the way to see them.
Great joy and gratitude!
My attention span has been shortening across the decades, I can almost enjoy a rerun as much listening to it on Netflix watch it now, occasionally glancing at the screen, as I can sitting infront of it like some lame vegetable that doesn't remember seeing this all before...
Did they cut out the first two seasons? That's that easiest way to make a substantial improvement.
You know you have the hots for Wesley and are just afraid you can't control yourself.... /jest
If they decide to take taiwan by force you're going to be scrambling to source electronic components, because they will control the sea around taiwan, shipping around korea will be treacherous at best, and the same could be said of most of japan and thailand, and it suddenly looks much harder to run a high tech war without reliable access to most of those goods.
If it's a real, protracted war, 6 months to 2 years can get fabs up and running anywhere we want them, likely Texas.
The advantage of the ship-mounted bomb-throwers starts on the second week of a war, when you need the cheapest way to get bomb tonnage on target, not the most effective.
If we've been flinging nukes, I hope the war is over in a lot less than a week.
Of course I'm not in favor of higher unemployment rates. I'm guessing that you're implying that spending on the Pentagon employs people. It does, but it's some of the most wasteful socialism the country indulges in. Spending the $billions elsewhere, instead of through the Pentagon, is a much more powerful stimulus.
...
NASA creates far more jobs per dollar than any military spending.
Pentagon spending ships loads of money overseas, has no accountability so is terribly wasteful
Lots of assertions, let me throw out a few equally backed up counterpoints:
Most of the money spent in government programs is spent on personnel. Most government employed personnel are sub-six-figure income people, and even those who are up in the six figure incomes are at the low end... very few million dollar+ bonuses being handed around, even in the "black" programs, now compare that to a private or publicly traded corporation. Even though you don't know what a black development ops engineer does during the day, he still comes home and buys groceries, gas, pays contractors to fix his house, etc. There are some fancy buildings built, but again, most of the cost there is feeding the families of the contractors.
I would prefer that Pentagon money went to something like NASA with better accountability and less overseas operations, but I do believe that there is a balance to strike on defense spending, and that we are close to optimal around the 5% of GDP level.
and eventually stimulates wars, which destroy value and efficiencies.
Counterpoint: I don't think Pearl Harbor would have happened if the U.S. had been brandishing a bigger stick at the time. 9/11 is a little harder to call, but again, when 9/11 happened, defense spending was at a 50 year low. I enjoy living in relative peace and security, and in this world I see few ways to achieve that: 1) The way the U.S./NATO/China/USSR has done it all my life through intimidation, 2) hang out somewhere under the U.S./NATO/China/USSR umbrella of peace, 3) find an obscure corner somewhere that just happens to be quiet at the moment and move when things get bad.
There hasn't been a "real" war since WWII.
The price is not to like. The Pentagon should pay for this new system by deleting some other system. In fact the Pentagon should delete more expenses than this one is currently pretended to cost, to accommodate the inevitable cost overruns of the new system.
We are spending far more than what our security needs to cost us. If we really do have a new "highest priority", the Pentagon should cut enough of its lower priorities to pay for it.
Are you also in favor of higher unemployment rates?
Check the trends:
Focusing just on the post World War
II period, U.S. military spending as a
percent of GDP has ranged from a 15
percent high in 1952 (during the
Korean War) to a low of 3.7 percent in
2000 (the period of relative tranquility
preceding the terrorist attacks of the
following year).
There's nothing that can't be hacked! If it's controllable by something outside of the craft itself, it is vulnerable to hacking! Oh let's give enemies the opportunity to hack our BOMBERS, with a Nuclear option no less!
At the end of the decade long project, I could sign off on the security/reliability of an electro/mechanical (including software) system to be 100% fail-safe LONG before I could make such assertions about a human crew.
It's just that we've been refining human based loyalty systems for millenia, whereas nearly all computer systems to-date have been schedule-compressed out the door before they're fully tested, often before they're even fully specified. Put the same number of man-hours into developing a pilotless bomber control system that we have put into developing and executing our nuclear launch officer recruitment, screening, training and surveillance operations, and you could have the same level of confidence in the system.
Of course, that would require over a decade in development - and lots and lots of talent that's highly valuable for things other than delivering nuclear weapons... seems like what we really need is an education system that produces more of these people.
So, more crew than a cruise missile? Multiple targets like a MIRV, ability to recall, and no (pilot/crew) lives at risk... what's not to like?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofUZNynYXzM
less falling coal down the guild-hall than in the mine...
Sue the birds for using copyrighted content all the time.
Damn pirates.
It's spelled Byrds, and didn't they write their own stuff? [-)
apparently, the Earth's crust has been absorbing CO2 in some form of thermoregulatory negative feedback loop that was compensating for the irradiation increase. The problem is, there is almost no CO2 to absorb anymore. (And if *that* gets absorbed, we'll die anyway, since we'll lose our food crops.)
Ummmm.... wasn't it the photosynthesizing algae that scrubbed most of the CO2 in a rather dramatic step?
"All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content."
Complete bold-faced lie.
Simpler than that, it's robosigning for copyright infringement. Nobody reviewed anything.
It took almost 90 years and a civil war for us to figure out that freedom applies to everyone or no-one.
It took another 100 years to get serious about starting to put those ideas into practice, and there's still a long way to go.
The only example of a literary work that I think might be improved by hypertext is the Bible. Possibly there are other works of the same kind. Maybe "Grimms Fairy Tales".
I could see Niven's Known Space series working well with hypertext, not that the stories would change much, perhaps abridged to reduce local retelling. Referencing concepts detailed in other works could make an interesting reread.
Problem is: who would tie into a multi-novel 8x the size of Lord of The Rings? And, what would the publisher try to charge for it? The result of these two factors leads to an audience approaching zero, unless the links were "pay as you click..."
Except that netflix is tied to Windows Media Player and is thus unavailable.
? I mostly "watch it now" on an iPad or PS3, if your digital media portal must be Linux based, maybe you want to use a WDTV Live?
Hmmm.... most of my media library was tailored to be PS3 DLNA compatible, so I haven't had any breakage problems. It does lock up once every couple of months, but that's better than any PC I've ever used.
Special When Lit: A Pinball Documentary
available on Netflix watch it now.