RG6 is a single tasker. It's for people who haven't bought into set top boxes.
Not a bad point except that the next owner of the house is unlikely to have bought into that high-tech mumbo jumbo and just wants to connect his Zenith woodgrain floor console to the cable.
As long as the walls are open, run the coax. It'll add (marginally) to the resale value of the house.
So if I understand you correctly, you're saying "partisan partisan partisan", backed up by "left-wing biased poo-poo head!".
First: I agree, labeling a chart with "Oil Wars" reflects a bias BUT it doesn't change the data. Second: it wasn't my chart. Remember?
On Bush's tax cuts for the rich AND their effect on the deficit (hint: they disproportionately favour the rich and it's a big effect), see here for a well-documented assessment: http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
On Bush's deficit projection game, the difference lies in whose projection you're talking about. Of course the CBO makes a projection and it's generally very accurate. And every year the Bush political team makes its own *very high* projection, so when the results come in, the Bush admin can claim the deficit is less than *their* projection. Guess which tactic gets the (politically-favourable) headlines?
On Clinton - of *course* government spending grew under Clinton. Once again, my point was that Clinton held spending to modest growth. And of course tax revenues grew during that time and that helped him balance the budget. It doesn't change the fact that he balanced the budget.
Bush on the other hand, has allowed government spending to grow unchecked under his watch - you'll recall I provided a couple of sources for that. At the same time, he chose massive tax cuts (regardless of who they benefit, they were a massive reduction in federal revenues). The result is a ballooning deficit, especially when you throw in the cost of a voluntary war.
Whether Bush increases federal debt by 66%, 60% or 58%, the fact is that he inherited a balanced budget and chose massive deficits. 9/11 was a factor, Katrina was a factor, but neither measures up to Bush's incredible growth in government spending nor his huge tax cuts nor his war.
Clinton: good management Bush: poor management
And that just f*cking kills you Republicans, doesn't it?
And, like you say, the book on Clinton is closed: he won't add any more to the federal debt. Bush, OTOH, has 2 years left in which to, say, initiate a nuclear attack on Iran, invade North Korea... heck, the guy has a solid track record of pissing away money and no credibility whatsoever on fiscal discipline. The book not being closed on Bush cuts both ways, depending on how much faith you have in the man.
So aside from calling me "partisan" (which could only be considered an insult by a Republican devotee), can you address these points at all?
Oh, and BTW, "Since I am not as biased as you..."
You can just cram that. Just who do you think you are?
I don't follow your math - I see federal debt at ~$6T at the start of Bush's term, projected to wind up at ~$10T. That's a 66% increase, hardly "identical" to Clinton's increase. Not chicken feed, indeed. Grossly irresponsible, one could argue.
And you seem determined to pooh-pooh Clinton's elimination of the Reagan/Bush deficit while making (at least partial) excuses for Bush. The fact is that Clinton controlled federal discretionary spending AND didn't start any unnecessary wars of aggression. Bush, OTOH, presided over the largest growth in domestic discretionary spending in the last 40 years AND drove massive tax cuts for the rich AND started an unnecessary war that has already cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Honestly, your assessment is so slanted it's laughable. 'Clinton was just lucky, but it mostly wasn't Bush's fault!' It just kills you conservatives that the only fiscal responsibility of the last 25 years has been that hippie Democrat Clinton.
You do understand that the tilde (~) indicates "approximately", right? So whether Clinton started at $4.0B or $4.2B is really kinda missing the point, innit?
The point is that three of the last three republican presidents have presided over massive accumulation of federal debt. Only the Democratic president tackled the deficit and he reduced it to near-zero.
Surely THAT is the overarching lesson in that chart. Surely you can't deny my point.
Incidentally, Bush routinely plays games with his deficit projections, such excluding the cost of war. He has also clearly indicated that he will not expend effort to reduce the deficit. Anyone waiting for some miracle to relieve the Bush fiscal nightmare is in complete la-la land.
Just how far up your ass does your head have to be to draw THAT conclusion from THAT chart?
What I see is:
Reagan - Large, mostly uncontrolled deficit Bush I - Large, completely uncontrolled deficit Clinton - Severe deficit wrestled down to near-zero Bush II - Return to uncontrolled deficits
Surely you're not so hopelessly married to the Republican party that you're willing to deny what's plainly in front of your face.
By the way, the chart isn't difficult to read:
Clinton - national debt increased from ~$4.2T to ~$5.8B, or about 38% Bush II - Increased from ~$6T to ~$8T, or about 33% with TWO YEARS LEFT IN HIS TERM
The chart projects Bush will increase the national debt by almost 66% overall. Clinton inherited massive deficits and fixed them. Bush inherited a surplus and flushed it.
Warm air holds more water. That means rain less frequently but with more severity and in different places than today.
Witness India a couple of years ago - simultaneous drought AND monsoons.
All told, things are going to be a lot less temperate than they are today. That translates into lower food production and higher damages due to weather.
Yup. Nuclear in particular has a real "minimum power" factor - they just don't throttle down elegantly... not unlike the diesel engines on trains. Coal, OTOH, is much easier to power up and down.
Around here (Toronto) there's talk of using nuclear power to pump lakewater uphill at night, then reverse the flow during the day to recapture the energy and covert to electricity. Seems smart to me.
Angry liberals forced out the only good man in the whole Democratic party because he didn't walk in lock step with their angry liberal commie plans. Sean Hannity told me.
This idea that Joementum lost through the standard democratic primary process is just liberal spin. Angry liberal spin.
Interesting - I would suggest that the majority of business looks for major server manufacturer support first - if they can't sign a support contract with HP, IBM, etc, it's a non-starter despite space, power and performance advantages.
Businesses like Google that get under the hood of their servers are the exception not the rule.
I think a huge factor here is the enthusiastic adoption of AMD chips by the big server manufacturers.
Agreed, PPPoE is an ugly hack. But I think its origin lies in telcos' desire to use existing dial-based billing systems for broadband customers rather than develop new billing interfaces.
Personally I think they should have bitten the bullet up front. Now they're stuck with this crappy protocol.
It's not a straw man, I was responding to the grandparent post. Jeez...
So the news coverage of the Clinton impeachment was *sympathetic* to Clinton? Can you back that up at all? Bob Somerby's Daily Howler has extensive analysis of just how absurdly pro-Republican the coverage actually was, to the point of abandoning common journalistic practices and ethics. Just throw "Starr" into the search box on his site.
And my greater point, which you completely ignored, is that the press has been on a right-wing tear for over a decade now. Again, I point to their performance on Gore/Election 2000, Iraq, John Kerry... all breathlessly repeating Republican spin no matter how absurd.
Can you address that at all? Or are you just going to call it a straw man again?
None of the newspapers would cover the Clinton impeachment trial? What planet were you on? It was the biggest story in years and it was plastered all over every newspaper in the country!
The same newspapers that breathlessly printed every seedy leak from Ken Starr's office were right there wringing their little hankies about the example the president set with his tryst, but they never tried to tell anyone he was impeached for anything other than lying.
These are the same newpapers that participated in the character assassination of Al Gore in 2000, that breathlessly printed administration bullshit about Iraq, that participated in the character assassination of John Kerry, that printed Republican spin about the Social Security scam that Bush attempted...
You know, if you're going to bitch about "liberal" newspapers, you should try reading one sometime.
Oh, no you don't. Conservatives backed Bush through years of outrageous behaviour and are only now trying to sever him from their movement like a gangrenous limb to save their own hides.
If it's only now "becoming increasingly obvious" to you, then you've had your conservative head jammed up your conservative ass for years. Bush was your boy through defecits, environmental destruction, 9/11, the bullshit invasion of Iraq, torture, "extraordinary rendition", corruption and this wiretap scandal. Just because he's dropped below 30% popular support doesn't mean you can claim you never supported him.
The Diebold suspicions are difficult to prove (and I don't have time to dig for info right now) but the Ohio election itself was a disgrace. That's not a "liberal urban legend", it's well-documented fact.
Telomerase is huge in oncology. Basically, there are two steps involved in generating cancer:
1) Transformation, in which the cell begins to replicate outside of normal controls. You can get a tumour this way, but without step 2, the tumour doesn't get very far before the cells start to grow quiescent - they lose vitality and stop dividing.
The reason they slow down is that their telomeres have degraded. Telomeres are long stretches of "junk" DNA at the end of each chromosome. Every cycle of DNA replication erodes the end of each chromosome (due to the way replication works at the molecular level). Telomeres absorb this loss without causing erosion of active genes.
A human zygote cell is only capable of ~80-90 cell divisions before these telomeres have fully eroded and active genes are affected. Fortunately, 2^90 is plenty of cells for an adult with a typical lifespan.
2) Activation of telomerase. The purpose of telomerase seems to be to refresh telomeres in the genes of sperm/egg cells to start the cycle fresh for a new human. In "successful" cancer, telomerase permits the cancerous cells to reproduce indefinitely by maintaining telomeres.
*wistful sigh* Ah, the PhD I never did. Then again, I can afford to feed my family in my current career...
Slashdot Mirror
I got your MCA right here!
Seriously, I'm typing this on a PS/2 Mod 95...
I'm intrigued - what is this "girl" you speak of?
RG6 is a single tasker. It's for people who haven't bought into set top boxes.
Not a bad point except that the next owner of the house is unlikely to have bought into that high-tech mumbo jumbo and just wants to connect his Zenith woodgrain floor console to the cable.
As long as the walls are open, run the coax. It'll add (marginally) to the resale value of the house.
I use Quicktime Alternative: http://www.free-codecs.com/download/QuickTime_Alte rnative.htm
Real software has the same obnoxious habit of re-establishing crap in your startup routine. Voila, Real Alternative: http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternati ve.htm
Can you back that up? Links? Quote a study? Wikipedia? Anything?
So if I understand you correctly, you're saying "partisan partisan partisan", backed up by "left-wing biased poo-poo head!".
First: I agree, labeling a chart with "Oil Wars" reflects a bias BUT it doesn't change the data.
Second: it wasn't my chart. Remember?
On Bush's tax cuts for the rich AND their effect on the deficit (hint: they disproportionately favour the rich and it's a big effect), see here for a well-documented assessment: http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
On Bush's deficit projection game, the difference lies in whose projection you're talking about. Of course the CBO makes a projection and it's generally very accurate. And every year the Bush political team makes its own *very high* projection, so when the results come in, the Bush admin can claim the deficit is less than *their* projection. Guess which tactic gets the (politically-favourable) headlines?
On Clinton - of *course* government spending grew under Clinton. Once again, my point was that Clinton held spending to modest growth. And of course tax revenues grew during that time and that helped him balance the budget. It doesn't change the fact that he balanced the budget.
Bush on the other hand, has allowed government spending to grow unchecked under his watch - you'll recall I provided a couple of sources for that. At the same time, he chose massive tax cuts (regardless of who they benefit, they were a massive reduction in federal revenues). The result is a ballooning deficit, especially when you throw in the cost of a voluntary war.
Whether Bush increases federal debt by 66%, 60% or 58%, the fact is that he inherited a balanced budget and chose massive deficits. 9/11 was a factor, Katrina was a factor, but neither measures up to Bush's incredible growth in government spending nor his huge tax cuts nor his war.
Clinton: good management
Bush: poor management
And that just f*cking kills you Republicans, doesn't it?
And, like you say, the book on Clinton is closed: he won't add any more to the federal debt. Bush, OTOH, has 2 years left in which to, say, initiate a nuclear attack on Iran, invade North Korea... heck, the guy has a solid track record of pissing away money and no credibility whatsoever on fiscal discipline. The book not being closed on Bush cuts both ways, depending on how much faith you have in the man.
So aside from calling me "partisan" (which could only be considered an insult by a Republican devotee), can you address these points at all?
Oh, and BTW, "Since I am not as biased as you..."
You can just cram that. Just who do you think you are?
I don't follow your math - I see federal debt at ~$6T at the start of Bush's term, projected to wind up at ~$10T. That's a 66% increase, hardly "identical" to Clinton's increase. Not chicken feed, indeed. Grossly irresponsible, one could argue.
And you seem determined to pooh-pooh Clinton's elimination of the Reagan/Bush deficit while making (at least partial) excuses for Bush. The fact is that Clinton controlled federal discretionary spending AND didn't start any unnecessary wars of aggression. Bush, OTOH, presided over the largest growth in domestic discretionary spending in the last 40 years AND drove massive tax cuts for the rich AND started an unnecessary war that has already cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Domestic spending growth (warning, PDF): http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf
More on Bush the Big Spender: http://www.slate.com/id/2095237/
Honestly, your assessment is so slanted it's laughable. 'Clinton was just lucky, but it mostly wasn't Bush's fault!' It just kills you conservatives that the only fiscal responsibility of the last 25 years has been that hippie Democrat Clinton.
You do understand that the tilde (~) indicates "approximately", right? So whether Clinton started at $4.0B or $4.2B is really kinda missing the point, innit?
The point is that three of the last three republican presidents have presided over massive accumulation of federal debt. Only the Democratic president tackled the deficit and he reduced it to near-zero.
Surely THAT is the overarching lesson in that chart. Surely you can't deny my point.
Incidentally, Bush routinely plays games with his deficit projections, such excluding the cost of war. He has also clearly indicated that he will not expend effort to reduce the deficit. Anyone waiting for some miracle to relieve the Bush fiscal nightmare is in complete la-la land.
Just how far up your ass does your head have to be to draw THAT conclusion from THAT chart?
What I see is:
Reagan - Large, mostly uncontrolled deficit
Bush I - Large, completely uncontrolled deficit
Clinton - Severe deficit wrestled down to near-zero
Bush II - Return to uncontrolled deficits
Surely you're not so hopelessly married to the Republican party that you're willing to deny what's plainly in front of your face.
By the way, the chart isn't difficult to read:
Clinton - national debt increased from ~$4.2T to ~$5.8B, or about 38%
Bush II - Increased from ~$6T to ~$8T, or about 33% with TWO YEARS LEFT IN HIS TERM
The chart projects Bush will increase the national debt by almost 66% overall. Clinton inherited massive deficits and fixed them. Bush inherited a surplus and flushed it.
Warm air holds more water. That means rain less frequently but with more severity and in different places than today.
Witness India a couple of years ago - simultaneous drought AND monsoons.
All told, things are going to be a lot less temperate than they are today. That translates into lower food production and higher damages due to weather.
Yup. Nuclear in particular has a real "minimum power" factor - they just don't throttle down elegantly... not unlike the diesel engines on trains. Coal, OTOH, is much easier to power up and down.
Around here (Toronto) there's talk of using nuclear power to pump lakewater uphill at night, then reverse the flow during the day to recapture the energy and covert to electricity. Seems smart to me.
"Puddle" is a euphamism for "toilet", right?
Or am I the only one who knows a girl who went through more than one cellphone that way?
No, no, no - it was a LIBERAL PURGE!
Angry liberals forced out the only good man in the whole Democratic party because he didn't walk in lock step with their angry liberal commie plans. Sean Hannity told me.
This idea that Joementum lost through the standard democratic primary process is just liberal spin. Angry liberal spin.
Interesting - I would suggest that the majority of business looks for major server manufacturer support first - if they can't sign a support contract with HP, IBM, etc, it's a non-starter despite space, power and performance advantages.
Businesses like Google that get under the hood of their servers are the exception not the rule.
I think a huge factor here is the enthusiastic adoption of AMD chips by the big server manufacturers.
...and boiled till they practically dissolve! I think I was 10 before I learned that green beans are *crunchy* in their natural state.
The best part about a meatball sandwich in your drive bay is when the grease makes your case transparent.
No kidding. Remember the pilot of Star Trek TNG?
Giordi LaForge: "Hooo-eee!"
Fortunately they fine-turned that little quirk out of the character immediately.
Spooky - same thing happened to Richard Pryor in Superman III!
Agreed, PPPoE is an ugly hack. But I think its origin lies in telcos' desire to use existing dial-based billing systems for broadband customers rather than develop new billing interfaces.
Personally I think they should have bitten the bullet up front. Now they're stuck with this crappy protocol.
Fair enough - props for integrity, it seems vanishingly rare on the right these days.
It's not a straw man, I was responding to the grandparent post. Jeez...
So the news coverage of the Clinton impeachment was *sympathetic* to Clinton? Can you back that up at all? Bob Somerby's Daily Howler has extensive analysis of just how absurdly pro-Republican the coverage actually was, to the point of abandoning common journalistic practices and ethics. Just throw "Starr" into the search box on his site.
And my greater point, which you completely ignored, is that the press has been on a right-wing tear for over a decade now. Again, I point to their performance on Gore/Election 2000, Iraq, John Kerry... all breathlessly repeating Republican spin no matter how absurd.
Can you address that at all? Or are you just going to call it a straw man again?
None of the newspapers would cover the Clinton impeachment trial? What planet were you on? It was the biggest story in years and it was plastered all over every newspaper in the country!
The same newspapers that breathlessly printed every seedy leak from Ken Starr's office were right there wringing their little hankies about the example the president set with his tryst, but they never tried to tell anyone he was impeached for anything other than lying.
These are the same newpapers that participated in the character assassination of Al Gore in 2000, that breathlessly printed administration bullshit about Iraq, that participated in the character assassination of John Kerry, that printed Republican spin about the Social Security scam that Bush attempted...
You know, if you're going to bitch about "liberal" newspapers, you should try reading one sometime.
Oh, no you don't. Conservatives backed Bush through years of outrageous behaviour and are only now trying to sever him from their movement like a gangrenous limb to save their own hides.
d nt-like-nixon-_b_11735.html
If it's only now "becoming increasingly obvious" to you, then you've had your conservative head jammed up your conservative ass for years. Bush was your boy through defecits, environmental destruction, 9/11, the bullshit invasion of Iraq, torture, "extraordinary rendition", corruption and this wiretap scandal. Just because he's dropped below 30% popular support doesn't mean you can claim you never supported him.
This was beautifully expressed here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-perlstein/i-di
Can you back up your claim about the geographic locations of Diebold machines? What about machines made by Triad systems: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml, or http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml
h io.html
The 2004 election in Ohio is a black mark on America's democracy: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud_o
The Diebold suspicions are difficult to prove (and I don't have time to dig for info right now) but the Ohio election itself was a disgrace. That's not a "liberal urban legend", it's well-documented fact.
Telomerase is huge in oncology. Basically, there are two steps involved in generating cancer:
1) Transformation, in which the cell begins to replicate outside of normal controls. You can get a tumour this way, but without step 2, the tumour doesn't get very far before the cells start to grow quiescent - they lose vitality and stop dividing.
The reason they slow down is that their telomeres have degraded. Telomeres are long stretches of "junk" DNA at the end of each chromosome. Every cycle of DNA replication erodes the end of each chromosome (due to the way replication works at the molecular level). Telomeres absorb this loss without causing erosion of active genes.
A human zygote cell is only capable of ~80-90 cell divisions before these telomeres have fully eroded and active genes are affected. Fortunately, 2^90 is plenty of cells for an adult with a typical lifespan.
2) Activation of telomerase. The purpose of telomerase seems to be to refresh telomeres in the genes of sperm/egg cells to start the cycle fresh for a new human. In "successful" cancer, telomerase permits the cancerous cells to reproduce indefinitely by maintaining telomeres.
*wistful sigh* Ah, the PhD I never did. Then again, I can afford to feed my family in my current career...