Poisionous snakes don't generally attack you unless you provoke them (granted, it could happen if you weren't looking where you were going and stepped on one). They have no reason to kill something too big for them to eat.
Totally trivial response: 50 full time weeks is 2000 hours a year, so $20K/yr is $10/hr full time or $20/hr part time. Agree with the rest of your post though.
For those numbers to have a chance of working you're going to have to expand "not NYC" to "Not within 50 miles of NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, Baltimore, Long Island, or the entire state of New Jersey". Otherwise you're never going to have a chance to get that kind of rent payment, and the high price of auto insurance throws your working car calculation off.
Not that I disagree with the general idea of living cheaply, but some of the prices you've listed aren't really possible in some areas. Also, that's $17000 after taxes, and doesn't leave *any* leeway for "Oh, shit!" kind of expenses, which seem to pop up from time to time.
I'm not a psychologist either, but I am from the small town kind of area where Bush got a lot of his support, and, the blue-collar [read as redneck if you'd like] groundswell of opinion seemed to be that W was the kind of guy you'd like to have at your BBQ while Kerry came across as distant, non-personable, and elitist. How this came to be while both men are fabulously rich and went to the same college where most people would never have a chance to is beyond me, or why even it struck people as a bad thing that Kerry was clearly intelligent and cultured, besides the fact that it made him harder to relate to.
If the Democratic party is deliberately not pandering to a large segment of the population, that strikes me as a pretty questionable political move. They can go all they want for the eggheads and college professors, but there aren't enough of them to make any difference.
My biggest problem with their disorganization and poor campaigning is this: They had a pretty good chance to unseat Bush in 2004 in an election that shouldn't have been hard to win because not many people liked either candidate, and they failed, leaving us with 4 more years of Bush, and making it that much more unlikely that McCain will have a chance, when he was the only Republican I wanted in office in the first place.
[Wow - that post has a ton of run on sentences, but I'm too lazy to rewrite it. Sorry]
I agree that both parties have their problems. It's probably a natural consequence of a two party system that both parties end up more or less in the middle, and most people, when voting, can't find a party that meets all or even most of their needs. However, the Republican party seems to make it very clear where exactly they stand on issues, and the Republicans who disagree are rogues and outsiders. The Democratic party doesn't have this sort of central leadership - granted, it's much easier to have a strong central leadership when you have the President in office.
The fact that Kerry lost in 2004 is a direct result of a poorly run campaign. Anyone would have gotten 35% of the vote on the "I'm not Bush" platform, and that's not a bad start. Whoever let him ever get away with sending people to his website to see where he really stood on positions was an idiot. Bush could get away with calling him wishy-washy because he never acted in a resolute enough manner to refute in, and IIRC, the site wasn't easy to navigate anyway. Edwards was another choice blunder - he didn't help carry any of the southern states he was expected to. It didn't matter if we could relate to his upbringing - we can't - or don't want to - relate to lawyers worth tens of millions of dollars. He came across as a phony. Another Clinton - charismatic and appealing to the people [disclaimer: I hated Clinton when he was president] would have won going away in 2004. The Democratic party, for whatever reason, seems unable to understand the Joe Schmos from podunk towns that make up a large part of the voting body of the country.
Just an FYI, the Department of Justice is part of the Executive branch, which is why the President appoints the Attorney General. So this has nothing whatsoever to do with separation of powers.
The bigger problem is that the Democratic party has just been incredibly disorganized and suffered from a lot of infighting over the last 5-10 years. I am of the opinion that in 2004 the Democrats lost the election far more than the Republicans won it.
Forgot about semi-auto shotguns. I was thinking deer rifles - I'm not a hunter, and the people I know who hunt aren't super serious about it, but they generally use bolt action.30's. Maybe semi-auto is legal there, too.
That's pretty skewed - there's only two polls that address W. One is from 2002 and the other is from the WSJ, which while a very respectable publication slants conservative and in favor of business.
A lot of hunters. AFAIK it's not legal to hunt with a semi-auto, at least in Pennsylvania, which is the only place I've ever seen the rules. Now a handgun that isn't semi-automatic, that's a different story.
No, you didn't read the post before yours. His reasoning is this: Say a black hole is created by a cosmic ray. Since the only thing that can affect the velocity of a black hole is gravity (it will pass through normal matter, eating whatever happens to fall within its Schwarzchild radius along the way), if the black hole created by the cosmic ray collision is moving faster than earth's escape velocity of around 7km/s, which is pretty much a given since the cosmic ray involved in the collision is moving close to the speed of light, the black hole will just pass through the earth, out the other side, and off into space.
Not that I believe that the LHC will bring about the end of the world, I presume these physicists know what they're talking about and that Hawking radiation is real.
I didn't grow up on a cow farm, but I grew up in a rural area, and EVERYONE I've met from more urban areas has asked me about cow tipping. It was kind of a pet peeve of mine, too, but for slightly different reasons: 1. Cows are big, and would be hard to tip over if you got close to them. 2. Cows are big and stupid, and seem prone to all start running in a big group. I wouldn't want to be in the way. 3. Cows are expensive, and farmers have shotguns.
Considering the other garbage people spend money on, I disagree. Given the choice between having my own (genetically speaking) children and adopting someone else's (genetically speaking), I would prefer the former. If I were to be somehow rendered infertile, and I could still arrange to have my genes passed on to my children, I would probably try to do it. Not, of course, if it were as risky as it seems to be in TFA. The only anecdotal evidence I have of the same feeling in other poeple is Lance Armstrong's autobiography, he donated sperm before chemotherapy so he could later use them for artificial insemination. Maybe my desire to see my genes passed on is selfish and proud, but it may also be backed by hundreds of millions of years of evolution in advanced organisms, but either way, I think it's a bit rash to say that this opinion 'is selfish', 'needs counseling', and will result in my not being a 'good parent'. Or perhaps I'll feel differently in a few years and the point will be moot.
Slashdot Mirror
You're correct, he was being extraordinarily generous in both directions. You've now gotten the effeciency down to 1-(284.26/291.48), or about 2.48%.
The same was said about Armstrong after his first tour victory: He only won because his best competition was missing. Look how that turned out.
Granted, Landis is too old at this point to run off a streak that long.
To be fair, the 3 Americans won the tour 11 times. I'm too lazy to look up how many individual tour winners there have been.
I took his sarcasm as more along the lines of "All in one DVD player, Game system, and Space heater! Now that's an innovation!", but I could be wrong.
Poisionous snakes don't generally attack you unless you provoke them (granted, it could happen if you weren't looking where you were going and stepped on one). They have no reason to kill something too big for them to eat.
Totally trivial response: 50 full time weeks is 2000 hours a year, so $20K/yr is $10/hr full time or $20/hr part time. Agree with the rest of your post though.
For those numbers to have a chance of working you're going to have to expand "not NYC" to "Not within 50 miles of NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, Baltimore, Long Island, or the entire state of New Jersey". Otherwise you're never going to have a chance to get that kind of rent payment, and the high price of auto insurance throws your working car calculation off.
Not that I disagree with the general idea of living cheaply, but some of the prices you've listed aren't really possible in some areas.
Also, that's $17000 after taxes, and doesn't leave *any* leeway for "Oh, shit!" kind of expenses, which seem to pop up from time to time.
I'm not a psychologist either, but I am from the small town kind of area where Bush got a lot of his support, and, the blue-collar [read as redneck if you'd like] groundswell of opinion seemed to be that W was the kind of guy you'd like to have at your BBQ while Kerry came across as distant, non-personable, and elitist. How this came to be while both men are fabulously rich and went to the same college where most people would never have a chance to is beyond me, or why even it struck people as a bad thing that Kerry was clearly intelligent and cultured, besides the fact that it made him harder to relate to.
If the Democratic party is deliberately not pandering to a large segment of the population, that strikes me as a pretty questionable political move. They can go all they want for the eggheads and college professors, but there aren't enough of them to make any difference.
My biggest problem with their disorganization and poor campaigning is this: They had a pretty good chance to unseat Bush in 2004 in an election that shouldn't have been hard to win because not many people liked either candidate, and they failed, leaving us with 4 more years of Bush, and making it that much more unlikely that McCain will have a chance, when he was the only Republican I wanted in office in the first place.
[Wow - that post has a ton of run on sentences, but I'm too lazy to rewrite it. Sorry]
I agree that both parties have their problems. It's probably a natural consequence of a two party system that both parties end up more or less in the middle, and most people, when voting, can't find a party that meets all or even most of their needs. However, the Republican party seems to make it very clear where exactly they stand on issues, and the Republicans who disagree are rogues and outsiders. The Democratic party doesn't have this sort of central leadership - granted, it's much easier to have a strong central leadership when you have the President in office.
The fact that Kerry lost in 2004 is a direct result of a poorly run campaign. Anyone would have gotten 35% of the vote on the "I'm not Bush" platform, and that's not a bad start. Whoever let him ever get away with sending people to his website to see where he really stood on positions was an idiot. Bush could get away with calling him wishy-washy because he never acted in a resolute enough manner to refute in, and IIRC, the site wasn't easy to navigate anyway. Edwards was another choice blunder - he didn't help carry any of the southern states he was expected to. It didn't matter if we could relate to his upbringing - we can't - or don't want to - relate to lawyers worth tens of millions of dollars. He came across as a phony. Another Clinton - charismatic and appealing to the people [disclaimer: I hated Clinton when he was president] would have won going away in 2004. The Democratic party, for whatever reason, seems unable to understand the Joe Schmos from podunk towns that make up a large part of the voting body of the country.
Just an FYI, the Department of Justice is part of the Executive branch, which is why the President appoints the Attorney General. So this has nothing whatsoever to do with separation of powers.
The chance of him delaying the election is absolutely, irrevocably, 0.
The bigger problem is that the Democratic party has just been incredibly disorganized and suffered from a lot of infighting over the last 5-10 years. I am of the opinion that in 2004 the Democrats lost the election far more than the Republicans won it.
Forgot about semi-auto shotguns. I was thinking deer rifles - I'm not a hunter, and the people I know who hunt aren't super serious about it, but they generally use bolt action .30's. Maybe semi-auto is legal there, too.
Does it specify the gearing? It's a two speed - it might gear out at 130.
That's pretty skewed - there's only two polls that address W. One is from 2002 and the other is from the WSJ, which while a very respectable publication slants conservative and in favor of business.
A lot of hunters. AFAIK it's not legal to hunt with a semi-auto, at least in Pennsylvania, which is the only place I've ever seen the rules. Now a handgun that isn't semi-automatic, that's a different story.
If you're not trolling, then you're a pedantic asshat, and you're wrong anyway.
Interesting story, but methinks your sarcasm detector is broken.
I hope you're not implying that you think this guy is a fair example of a Republican.
No, you didn't read the post before yours. His reasoning is this: Say a black hole is created by a cosmic ray. Since the only thing that can affect the velocity of a black hole is gravity (it will pass through normal matter, eating whatever happens to fall within its Schwarzchild radius along the way), if the black hole created by the cosmic ray collision is moving faster than earth's escape velocity of around 7km/s, which is pretty much a given since the cosmic ray involved in the collision is moving close to the speed of light, the black hole will just pass through the earth, out the other side, and off into space.
Not that I believe that the LHC will bring about the end of the world, I presume these physicists know what they're talking about and that Hawking radiation is real.
If this were the case, we'd be finding the Alaskan variety in California. I could be wrong, but I don't think this is the case.
I didn't grow up on a cow farm, but I grew up in a rural area, and EVERYONE I've met from more urban areas has asked me about cow tipping. It was kind of a pet peeve of mine, too, but for slightly different reasons:
1. Cows are big, and would be hard to tip over if you got close to them.
2. Cows are big and stupid, and seem prone to all start running in a big group. I wouldn't want to be in the way.
3. Cows are expensive, and farmers have shotguns.
Considering the other garbage people spend money on, I disagree. Given the choice between having my own (genetically speaking) children and adopting someone else's (genetically speaking), I would prefer the former. If I were to be somehow rendered infertile, and I could still arrange to have my genes passed on to my children, I would probably try to do it. Not, of course, if it were as risky as it seems to be in TFA. The only anecdotal evidence I have of the same feeling in other poeple is Lance Armstrong's autobiography, he donated sperm before chemotherapy so he could later use them for artificial insemination. Maybe my desire to see my genes passed on is selfish and proud, but it may also be backed by hundreds of millions of years of evolution in advanced organisms, but either way, I think it's a bit rash to say that this opinion 'is selfish', 'needs counseling', and will result in my not being a 'good parent'. Or perhaps I'll feel differently in a few years and the point will be moot.
You solved your own problem. You'd be a lot less boring if you were aggressive and violent.