I feel like I'm on newgrounds circa 2002.

all i see is failure of the staff to inform the people of the issue... i don't see them actively seeking/promoting it



especially in the first case presented in the video

if anything i see a protocol issue, that could be solved by a 15min meeting
a vast, left-wing conspiracy? no evidence of that
any proof that this doesn't occur at all with Republican supporters? no evidence of that
any proof that this is any thing other than isolated incidents with staged actors (we know the first lady undercover is... why not any of the other examples?)

A major study by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 showed of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and of those few cases, most involved persons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility.

because when elections are decided by 0.00000286% of the the voters, its an issue

wto make a different comparison... whats a bigger concern... the 1% or the 0.00000286%? which of those two groups do you think has more money to influence politics? yeah...

poor job at propoganda

Now I have no reason to distrust the Justice Department findings. But this seems like a non-issue, until you realize the actual tactic here is voter surpression.

Man, it's crazy that Fantastic Damage came out in 2002 and it's still mind blowing. The new one is pure awesome, a little more poppy and heavy hanging with the bass/synth but Fantastic Damage is like the Loveless of hip hop (outside of maybe Dalek).

Definitely, sucks that EL-P doesn't do Def Jux any more it definitely seemed like they shoulda had a shitload of money pouring in.

#1 DVR's are always marked up higher then their raw components. It is the usual tax on having the convenience of the set top box.

#2 DVR with cable decoding hardware like this are generally constructed a bit better then off the shelf hardware thus adding to the cost. Also the cable decoder hardware itself is always expensive. The equipment is built to go through more then one customer in its life span.

#3 the dvr might have offered advanced features like whole house DVR (even in consumer Tivo boxs, this is big money) even if the user didn't pay for them.

The finance department doesn't go out of there way to gouge customers who have to pay for damaged hardware. Instead it is customers finding out that the finance departments are getting ripped off on the hardware they pay for.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^arekin:
>> ^Yogi:
I'm sorry but what HIGH Amazing Technology is in a Cable Box that makes it cost more than my last 3 top of the line PCs combined? That's utter BS.

Depends on the cable box really, DVR's have a replacement value of arround $500 each, an EMTA is $300-$600 (depends on the model). I'm assuming we are talking about 4-5 boxes and a modem, which could well be around the amount he was billed. There may also be cable cards in some of his boxes that are billed separately, but they would not be near the cost. Also despite the 5-6 years he owned them cable technology doesn't change that rapidly, so a standard 2way set top box from back in 2000-2002 may still be refurbished and used and may still be a well functioning box. Electronics values depreciate based on reduced function (or continued ability to do what is needed in the current cable television market), and cable boxes don't tend to lose function (as long as they are not 1990's analog equipment), thus they don't tend to lose value.

That's fucking bullshit. For $500 I can build a top of the line PC, how in the fuck is a box with a hard drive in it that much money? That doesn't make any sense...is it made out of gold!?

>> ^arekin:

>> ^Yogi:
I'm sorry but what HIGH Amazing Technology is in a Cable Box that makes it cost more than my last 3 top of the line PCs combined? That's utter BS.

Depends on the cable box really, DVR's have a replacement value of arround $500 each, an EMTA is $300-$600 (depends on the model). I'm assuming we are talking about 4-5 boxes and a modem, which could well be around the amount he was billed. There may also be cable cards in some of his boxes that are billed separately, but they would not be near the cost. Also despite the 5-6 years he owned them cable technology doesn't change that rapidly, so a standard 2way set top box from back in 2000-2002 may still be refurbished and used and may still be a well functioning box. Electronics values depreciate based on reduced function (or continued ability to do what is needed in the current cable television market), and cable boxes don't tend to lose function (as long as they are not 1990's analog equipment), thus they don't tend to lose value.


That's fucking bullshit. For $500 I can build a top of the line PC, how in the fuck is a box with a hard drive in it that much money? That doesn't make any sense...is it made out of gold!?

>> ^Yogi:

I'm sorry but what HIGH Amazing Technology is in a Cable Box that makes it cost more than my last 3 top of the line PCs combined? That's utter BS.


Depends on the cable box really, DVR's have a replacement value of arround $500 each, an EMTA is $300-$600 (depends on the model). I'm assuming we are talking about 4-5 boxes and a modem, which could well be around the amount he was billed. There may also be cable cards in some of his boxes that are billed separately, but they would not be near the cost. Also despite the 5-6 years he owned them cable technology doesn't change that rapidly, so a standard 2way set top box from back in 2000-2002 may still be refurbished and used and may still be a well functioning box. Electronics values depreciate based on reduced function (or continued ability to do what is needed in the current cable television market), and cable boxes don't tend to lose function (as long as they are not 1990's analog equipment), thus they don't tend to lose value.

What year is this from??

I thought maybe it was from the 90s, but they're talking about Google, so it must be at least 2002.

I guess that is because they look at it as a temporary diet (Yoyo dieting) and not a change in their diet for the rest of their lives... I'm a (self-described) "carbaholic" and as such when I "fall of the wagon" I eat carbs like nobodies business (as in 4 doughnuts, a pound of chocolate, about a gallon of soda and energy drinks, 3-6 candy bars and ~2 pounds of assorted pick-and-mix candy every single day). As it is now I will never return to a carb heavy diet because I cannot handle it, in the same way that an alcoholic can't handle drinking just one beer. And not to go all Ad-Hominem on you but as an MD you are specialised on disease and not health.

I recommend that you look at this page as it has 17 links to 17 RCT studies on the effects of LCHF diets.

Also from the mayo clinic which I assume is a pretty good source: "There have been a number of studies comparing weight loss with these two types of diets [LCHF/HCLF - My clarification]. In general, low-carb diets may result in a little more weight loss in the first 3 to 6 months. However, after 1 to 2 years there isn't much difference. What's interesting is that the amount of weight loss varies widely among people following either diet. So which type of diet you choose may matter less than whether you stick to it."
On an LCHF diet where you are full all and have a stable blood sugar level all the time it is a lot easier to stay on the diet and not splurge... (Kind of an anecdote... see my previous post in this thread)

Also some more science posts here
1 LCHF vs. HCLF diet (I recommend reading all of it)
2 (A full text from 2002 that might not be available for all [I logged on my Uni resources to search databases for the it] and it is a decade old but still a bit interesting. Name of the study is: Very-low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets revisited. Authors: Volek JS; Westman EC in case you need to search for it on Google scholar or the like)
3 Long term (1 year +) effects

I'm drunk right now so can't be arsed to find more sources.. it is Friday Damn it!!


>> ^DocDarm:

>> ^pyloricvalve:
In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.

As a medical doctor, I call bullshit on this guy. Look at Atkins/South Beach's effect on peoples weight 1 year AFTER the diet. I see people go on diets all the time. They almost universally fail after 1 year. (Remember, we're talking about LONG-TERM weight loss, not SHORT-TERM weight loss...Atkins/South Beach perform very well in the short term!) My patients that go to the gym to lose weight do much, much better....but only if they KEEP going to the gym.

Now I'm waiting for the commercials that is nothing but 2002 Paul Ryan arguing for Obama's policies. Not that I'll see it on TV, but I'll probably hear of it eventually.

Exactly the logic I'd expect from a typical GOP wing-nut. Carry on.>> ^lantern53:

Why did deficit spending work during WWII, but doesn't work now?
Because it definitely isn't working now.

"Ryan 2012, allow to me me to introduce Ryan 2002"

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/08/20/paul-ryan-argued-for-the-stimulus-when-it-was-bushs-idea

The Stranger blog agrees with you.
Excerpt: Apparently, Chris Hayes is MSNBC's newest Rachel Maddow impersonator?


>> ^VoodooV:

I don't disagree with the reporter, but why does he sound exactly like Maddow?

Hey! Thanks!

Pretty nifty, this video match up, isn't it?

Hoisted on their own petard.


In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
*promote

I'm tired of this whole "you copied me!" battle going on between them. Everyone copies everyone. Look @ the 2002 pocket pc from HP and tell me the 2007 iphone got nothing from that. Puhleeze.

>> ^lantern53:

Hasn't the IRS had 10 years to look at Romney's tax return from 2002? And nine yrs to look at his return from 2003, and eight years to look at his return from 2004, etc?
If the IRS has no problem with them, why should anyone else?
Has Obama released his tax forms from 10 yrs ago?
Obama hasn't even released his college transcripts, admission papers, thesis paper, his Illinois state senate schedule, his medical records, and on and on. All these things are sealed. As is our fate if he is re-elected.


The IRS doesn't "look" at returns and analyze them. There are too many. They only respond to certain red flags and that's it. And they don't "look" at them because they're political candidates as that would be unethical not to mention illegal to just start looking through a return for shits and grins and to dig up dirt.

In all likelyhood, everything Romney is doing is technically legal, just crammed full of loopholes and dirty tricks. It probably wouldn't be bad per him per se, it would just highlight the extent the super-wealthy exploit the tax codes.

I don't think you understand how much corporate influence has over the gov't

I work IT in state revenue and while I'm not privy to details, I've talked to enough of the attorneys to know that some of the bigger companies will come in and argue essentially that they don't feel they owe that much tax. no facts, no figures, no calculations. simply "we feel our tax is too high" And deals get made...they get made all the time.

We supposedly live in a land of laws, but those laws get dodged and skirted and bent all the time and its usually the wealthy that get to do it.