To be fair, borrowing from the Social Security was not the reason Clinton ran a surplus.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

Borrowing from the Social Security trust fund was a wise move. It reduced the national debt, thereby saving interest on that money until the time it would have been needed for Social Security.

Not that the gov't should ever be run like individual finances, but it's sorta like if you had $50,000 in an emergency fund, but had $40,000 in debt. If you knew you didn't need $40,000 of that emergency fund for the next 15-20 years, should you keep it, or pay off that debt? Debt virtually always has a significantly higher interest rate than savings.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what things the government owes money on. The problem wasn't that Clinton raided the Social Security trust fund. The problem is that the Social Security trust fund was structured to become insolvent due to population aging patters, and how it is funded. It's also that the following president ran up massive deficits during a time of economic boom, and said deficits contributed to the economic bubble. Unfortunately, that bubble was so bad we find ourselves in an economy now where the deficit must take an unfortunate backseat to getting the economy back on track.

>> ^bmacs27:

To be fair Clinton's "surplus" has a lot to do with why we are scrambling to protect Social Security right now. He never should have borrowed the money, and just paid the political price.
>> ^heropsycho:
The last surplus was not under Clinton. I forgot when he claimed it was.

To be fair Clinton's "surplus" has a lot to do with why we are scrambling to protect Social Security right now. He never should have borrowed the money, and just paid the political price.

>> ^heropsycho:

The last surplus was not under Clinton. I forgot when he claimed it was.

Thanks for getting Siftbot up and running again! Perhaps we should come up with a codeword so that in future we don't scramble the jets and raid store shelves as a precautionary measure.

Hmm...started with a solved cube, did not scramble it and only makes a couple of moves away from the solved cube and then reverses the moves. That said, I can't balance 15 books on my head while reciting Pi, so I'm still impressed.

The DNS control mechanism of implementing SOPA and/or PIPA policies needs to get some more full explanation to Joe Public. Everything that the Content groups, the MPAAs and RIAAs etc. have done has been fatally flawed in that it can at best delay casual piracy, and usually even that is circumvented almost instantaneously. From what I can see, policing DNS would do no better than their other historical efforts in that regard.

This guy mentions that you can still type in an IP address and get to an infringing site. Maybe I am wrong or don't understand the full situation, but I would go a step further and say that this practice would simply result in US-based DNS servers being immediately replaced by DNS providers in other nations that fail to tow the SOPA/PIPA line. Joe User would get a quick walkthrough of changing his DNS provider through router or software settings, everybody would scramble for a brief period of time, and then the "sanctions" could be fairly safely ignored.

When the *AA's realize that the legislation they purchased with massive "campaign contributions" has no teeth, they would probably push (as in, push more dollars into the hands of lobbyists) for legal penalties to infringing sites beyond being de-listed from (US-based) DNS. If *that* were to actually happen also, it would simply chase ALL internet hosting outside of the US. The US could threaten trade sanctions or whatever against countries that turn a blind eye to infringing, but there would be so much of it going on that everyone could just balk at it and we'd be blowing a whole lot of hot air with jack behind it.

I think that the mainstream media needs a somebody with the balls to stand up and say that the cat is out of the bag on "protecting" Intellectual Property. For better or worse, it just isn't going to happen. The first group that accepts that and moves towards some new model is going to be way ahead of the curve in comparison to these dinosaurs that are trying to stitch a broken balloon together with needle and thread.

@bareboards2:
Røget ørred med røræg og rød grød med fløde.
Translated its:
Smoked Trout with scrambled eggs and "red porridge" with cream.

A better tongue twister in danish is
"Plukke frugt med en brugt frugt plukker"
I think.
"Picking fruit with a used fruit picker" basically.

>> ^budzos:

>> ^buzz:
The problem with Guy Pearce is that you never know whether the film is going to be absolutely awesome (Memento for instance) or an absolute steaming pile of gangrenous, maggot ridden, shit... (errr, lots of his other stuff)

This looks like maggot shit to me. I'm turned off by any scene with a guy being unfazed by a series of merciless punches to the face. That shit will scramble your eggs. It takes me right into "this is a silly movie for Buffy fans" territory.


Found your comment funny, but don't forget that some films are good because of blatantly over trumped characters. I mean, i fucking love Starship Troopers, and it's crap in theory. Overly stoic hero - could work. Arny's pulled it off many times.

>> ^buzz:

The problem with Guy Pearce is that you never know whether the film is going to be absolutely awesome (Memento for instance) or an absolute steaming pile of gangrenous, maggot ridden, shit... (errr, lots of his other stuff)


This looks like maggot shit to me. I'm turned off by any scene with a guy being unfazed by a series of merciless punches to the face. That shit will scramble your eggs. It takes me right into "this is a silly movie for Buffy fans" territory.

In the USA for roped climbing most climbers rate the difficulty with the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS).

First to explain the five in a "5.14d" understand the below:

Class 1: Walking with a low chance of injury.
Class 2: Simple scrambling, with the possibility of occasional use of the hands. Little potential danger is encountered.
Class 3: Scrambling with increased exposure. A rope can be carried but is usually not required. Falls are not always fatal.
Class 4: Simple climbing, with exposure. A rope is often used. Natural protection can be easily found. Falls may well be fatal.
Class 5: Technical free climbing involving rope, belaying, and other protection hardware for safety. Un-roped falls can result in severe injury or death.


So that explains the "5" in a 5.14d

Now 5.1-5.9 with each .1 you have another level of difficulty. From 5.10-5.15 you have 5.10a,5.10b,5.10c,5.10d and so on. Each letter change represents a full level or degree of difficulty.

Thus the difference between a 5.14a and a 5.14d is the same difference between a 5.6 and a 5.10a - or four levels of difficulty. While this may seem subjective climbers usually come to a consensus regarding the grade of a route over time.

Most people I would consider in reasonable shape can climb 5.6-5.8 in the first few times they climb. In contrast I have been climbing for about sixteen years and I climb about 5.13a (with many many attempts!).

Pure imagination may cater to Sasha's particular climbing style - thin crimpy moves. She is amazingly strong.


That said I have been to the base of this route and am amazed ANYONE is able to climb it.

Reminds me of the old joke:

Two biologists are in the field following the tracks of a radio-collared grizzly bear. All of a sudden, the bear crashes out of the brush and heads right for them. They scramble up the nearest tree, but the bear starts climbing up the tree after them. The first biologist starts taking off his heavy leather hiking boots and pulls a pair of sleek running shoes from his back-pack. The second biologist gives him a puzzled look and says, "What in the world are you doing?"

He replies, "I figure when the bear gets close to us, we'll jump down and make a run for it."

The second guy says, "Are you crazy? We both know you can't outrun a full-grown grizzly bear."

The first guy says, "I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you!"

>> ^Barseps:

I posted something v-e-r-y similar to this a few nights back & it vanished.


Same technology--different guy, and this one shows the workings.

I'd link to it, but I can't find it right now.

>> ^marinara:

non-correlation (in that japan study) is not a fact in your favor. We're determining if vaccines are a cause of autism, not if vaccines cause all autism.
delivery methods or "drug absorption" does affect toxicity. There are exceptions to the rule, some drugs are absorbed well through ingestion, but they are the exception.
I guess it's easier to call marbles names than to do real science. I think marbles would be happy for science to speak for itself.


Huh?

As the article I linked to a few comments above stated, the medical community took the claims that autism could be caused by vaccines very seriously... and so many studies have been undertaken, and none of them have found any link.

They might in the future, who knows. The HUGE bloody issue is that all of this was kicked off by one crooked doctor who scammed people into giving him money based on bogus research and a false link between the MMR vaccine and Autism. Suddenly, all these parents who have kids who developed Autism started blaming the vaccines with NO PROOF AT ALL... NONE, other than the two things happened at vaguely the same time... vaguely. And they just DO happen at the same time, so it's not causation.

So all these unknowing parents who are scrambling for someone/thing to blame for their apparently normal child becoming autistic latch onto vaccines. This makes thousands of people become unnecessarily fearful of vaccines and stop immunising their children, based on NO EVIDENCE. This leads to children dying due to the diseases the vaccines were preventing coming back.

So, the Japanese splitting the vaccine into three different ones (which is what the bogus doctor was saying people should do because, surprise, surprise, he had developed vaccines for that and so would profit hugely) has made no impact on the rise of Autism.

Absolutely there should always be people looking into the validity of claims made against medicines.

But if the science is done, done correctly, done multiple times and STILL shows things to be safe then people need to STOP SPOUTING SHIT. People like marbles are harmful individuals for just the reason @ChaosEngine states. There is critical thinking, and judging validity of sources, and not just accepting things with blind faith.

And then there is this insane 'anything to do with anyone other than my fellow conspiracy nuts is all just 'big business' and 'government conspiracy''. All this does is to make people either:

a) Mistrust absolutely everything, no matter how valid, and therefore end up 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' and rejecting all the good things that are done by large business and the government and society at large.

OR

b) Regard every single thing going against authority as a raving loon notion and so just accept EVERYTHING they are told, which is the opposite mindless sheep approach to life.

There is a happy medium where you critically take that things that make sense and are for the betterment of us all, and sometimes reject things which you can see through REASON and logic and critical thinking to be perhaps created with someone elses betterment in mind rather than yours.

>> ^catbutt:

Reasons it looks funny to me:
1. Michel shuffles his feet before the tablecloth pull, as if he is getting in place and getting ready.
2. Michel pre-blocks with his arms. Not natural.
3. Michel scrambles backwards into the shelves without using his arms to catch himself, seeming to propel himself. That's the impression I get, maybe he was slipping on the tablecloth at that point?
4. Sven's hand trajectory during the pull seems purposefully targeted.
Reasons I don't think they planned for the whole shelf to come down:
1. That thing in the top left is a full aquarium - oops
2. The TV appears to be real - and really heavy.
3. Sven's "GTFO" reaction seems very sincere.
Initially staged, but unintended consequences?


no, probably just staged.

Reasons it looks funny to me:
1. Michel shuffles his feet before the tablecloth pull, as if he is getting in place and getting ready.
2. Michel pre-blocks with his arms. Not natural.
3. Michel scrambles backwards into the shelves without using his arms to catch himself, seeming to propel himself. That's the impression I get, maybe he was slipping on the tablecloth at that point?
4. Sven's hand trajectory during the pull seems purposefully targeted.

Reasons I don't think they planned for the whole shelf to come down:
1. That thing in the top left is a full aquarium - oops
2. The TV appears to be real - and really heavy.
3. Sven's "GTFO" reaction seems very sincere.

Initially staged, but unintended consequences?

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

Found a nest of those the hard way. Was helping a guy prepping a house for painting. I was on the roof prepping some over hangs. When I got stung the first time. No biggie I thought I'll swat it and go on. I looked down and saw about 10 of the fuckers on my stomach and more streaming out of a hole in the roof. Then as more and more landed on me they all stung about the same time. I screamed, rolled, fell, landed on top of a fence, pinwheeled and landed on the guy. (All the while getting stung again and again) we both screamed. We are now both being stung. Scrambled and dove in to a near by pool. 80+ stings. 3 cracked ribs and 2 broken fingers. (No idea how I broke them) I decided no to work outside anymore after that.
Mother nature does not like me and I've not found enough money to buy a flame thrower so I could fight back.


My father is a carpenter so dealing with wasps was a regular thing. Rather than a flamethrower, we found a plain old hand saw to be the most practical line of defense. I dubbed it the "bee accelerator". Waving it through the air is a great way to fend off dozens of them at a time. They also make a very satisfying *ping!* as they hit the blade.

Of course the most important part of dealing with wasps is to be aware of them before they start stinging you. If you find yourself totally surprised, all bets are off.

Congrats on breaking my record for most stings in a single attack, though. I've only ever managed about 30-35.