>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Yeah, I kept thinking the same thing. What goes up, must come down. And someone is gonna have to clean it up.

Traditionally this is done in China so, no, nobody has to clean it up.

>> ^robbersdog49:

I think people think they just go up into the sky and disappear. While I can see that it's an incredible visual spectacle, all of those things are going to come down somewhere and cause such a massive mess. It's just pretty littering, and just as wrong as ugly littering.


Yeah, I kept thinking the same thing. What goes up, must come down. And someone is gonna have to clean it up.

I agree with DRM "punishing your customers". The only DRM I can tolerate is what Steam uses to encrypt files. And that's because Steam is more convenient than physical media and constantly-patching all your PC games.

Disagree with his notion of "always on" network connection solving the DRM problem. Ubisoft does this with their newer titles, and I don't like it. Even for single player games, like Assassins Creed 2, you have to be constantly connected. You lose your connection, game pauses or doesn't start. Ubi's servers went down too - no one could play AC2 for 6 hours the day after it was released. They claim it was a DOS attack, but likely it was unexpected demand. Oh, can't confirm it, but that DRM was already patched out and there are pirated versions of UBI games out there already. I won't purchase any new UBI game which uses this Always-On-DRM.

The reward system is up to the reseller, not up to the publisher. Truth is that resellers don't make much profit from selling new games. That is why Gamestop is always pushing their used titles (and have rewards program for it) - the profit margin is astoundingly higher. Although the publisher can offer some rebates, like if you own the prior title, you get a discount on the sequel. These are few and far between though.

I bought a PS3 to put linux on it. But that was when it first came out, and there aren't many games on it, so no compelling reason to own it. I only put linux on it to try out Cell programming. Honestly YDL was slooooowwwww on the PS3. Other than Cell programming, there's no compelling reason to put linux on a PS3. Sony was selling the PS3 at a loss, and could do so because of future profits from selling games. I'm not sure if the newer Slim models are profitable or not, but I understand them removing support for it. (my conspiracy theory is that IBM also twisted their arm, since a Cell-BE blade or workstation is $8000+). Now, I use my PS3 for games occasionally, but mostly for blu-ray. I don't feel ripped off. The PS3 still does quite a lot, just not Everything.

Disagree with "shuts off servers for favorite game" argument too. If they want to stop running "official servers" fine - but they should just release open-source version of a dedicated server for anyone who wants to run their own server, after they stopped caring about their old titles. id software consistently released the source for their entire games, not just the server.

I don't think I've ever heard of someone justifying piracy because there was no demo available...Did anyone pirate a game just to try it, then like it and buy the full version? I've heard of people buying the game, hating the DRM, then getting the crack for it so they could actually play what they paid for.

He left out high school and college students (bulk of game pirates) in the "I'm too poor" argument. They all got the consoles or PC's as presents from their parents, and can't budget $60/month for games because they aren't working. And if the parents are already paying for their housing and food, they don't want to buy their kids new games every month, so those kids do what's easy - pirate games.

In all though, I do agree with him - that you should pay for games because developers worked hard on them.

Also if you see a title that is older and discounted, and a new copy is $19.99 and the used one is $17.99 - please buy the new one, cause the developers get $0.00 from used game sales.

Go see it this week.

Laemmle's Sunset 5
8000 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA - (323) 848-3500

Yeardley
‎1hr 30min‎‎ - Rated R‎‎ - Drama‎
1:00 3:10 5:20 7:40 10:00pm

And might I add the cost per student is roughly $15,000 to $25,000 a year when you add up all sources of funding from Kindergarten to 12th Grade including teacher's retirement and divide it by the number of students. It's grossly more than the $8000 to $12000 government typically cites.

If there's 30 children in a single classroom, do the math. An expensive two bedroom apartment in a nice neighborhood in LA costs as much for an entire 12 month year as a single student's yearly cost of $20000++ for a complete school year minus the summer vacation.

Homeschooling is cheaper. And who cares more for their children's education than the parents? Also consider private schools as they are today, which are expensive, are cheaper than public schools and arguably better in most cases. Bring on the nay sayers.

Hey Sarah, dont quit your day job! And if you did, don't go in to real estate. Or any other industry that requires 1) Education above 6th grade andd 2) Maturity above a 4th grader. But then, did any expect Sarah Palin to be able to talk on something useful and on the topic? Real Estate people, are typically Republican, but MODERATE Republicans. The stuff her Tea Partiers enjoy will never work to real estate brokers/agents.

I recall a speech Mr. Clinton gave a few years ago, on real estate. While the speech was to help promote a Democrat, he stuck to the topic at hand. He explain the factors, the politics, and enviromental conditions from a politically-neutral stand point. Something a broker or CFP would do.

It doesn't help most Republicans/conservatives that most Americans took advantage of the $8000 tax credit on purchasing a new house last year. Certainly helped the real estate market. Which begs the question: Would you, as a real estate agent vote for the Democrat giving you more business? Or the Republican, who believes the goverment shouldn't be in the business of promoting good work ethics and policy?

last I heard its 8000 barrels a day, yesterday was 5000

they don't think they can tap it for another 60 to 90 days

which is

20.1 to 30.2 million gallons total

(10.8 million for Exxon Valdez, though the oil was more toxic)

Agreed, stunny photography and video.

But... or £4000 / €5000 / US$8000 I'd kind of hope it would be.

Why do people do these kind of shit?
One it's not funny.
Two that girl at the counter didn't tow their car. So why are they making her life miserable.
Even if she did tow the car, she was doing her job.
Three, how would they like it if some assholes came to where they worked and made them count 8000 pennies?

However going back to the Snopes article, basically it summarize that pennies are legal tender, however private businesses are perfectly within their rights to refuse payments in pennies. The 8000+ pennies are not a sensible way to make a payment because no one carries 8800 pennies therefore business is not required to post "No payments in pennies". Especially business where they do not deal in pennies.

But this does not apply, as they are paying a fee or a fine. So the towing company is required to take the payment. They can't withhold the car or try to collect payment from him beucase he did try to pay it.

However, this guy is still asshole and douche bag.

I don't see how this can possibly cost $200,000...
Maybe if it were bottom projection instead of top, or if the actual surface was of a custom transparent "slate" material, I would be impressed.

Here's some way-overboard estimates:
pool table - $3500
high-end graphics workstation - $4000
high-end (8000 lumen+) projector - $10,000
IR LED array - $100
high speed CCD cameras - $400
mounting hardware/wiring - $2000
full custom software (programming time) - $10,000

so that's $30k, not $200k.

1. What data do you have that shows that the 40 million people without insurance have full-times jobs, or jobs at all? If the cost is covered by employers, how does this help those working part time, or those who are unemployed?

2. Assume somehow it covers those 40 million people. Medicare/Medicaid insures how many people for $700 billion? Use this number to multiply by the 40 million insured to find the cost per person insured. How many hundreds of billions of dollars is this?

3. What data do you have to suggest that national employers can sustain a hit of hundreds of billions of dollars in increased healthcare payouts to their bottom line?

4. What data do you have that suggests that they won't layoff people, or reduce salaries to cope with the billions in increases healthcare payouts?

5. Social security is healthcare, what else do you call money thats used for food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and disabilities?

If you don't have this data off the top of your head, how could you possibly be arguing for this bill? Increasing the costs of employers necessarily increases layoffs and salary cuts. You aren't thinking of any consequences. Second of all, you have some nerve sending a link for me to read a 1000 page bill. Theres no possible way you read the entire bill straight through; even if I was the Highlander I wouldn't take the time to read that giant piece of crap.

None of any of what you are talking about the fact that we presently spend (at least) $700 billion on healthcare, and will be (at least) doubling that to $1500 billion a year - whether its employeers, employees, or the federal deficit who will foot the bill.

Current, historically proven figures
$700 billion / 300 million = $2,500 average across everyone
(by the way the number of Medicare + Medicaid recipients is about 90 million, so:)
$700 billion / 90 million = $7,888 actual amount per person treated!

This is what government healthcare looks like. $8000 per person! Nothing you have said so far has justified the $7,888 a year you want to spend per year on every single person in america.

I know you won't (can't) answer half of my questions, so why don't you answer just these two:

Why does every man, woman, and child need $7,888 worth of healthcare a year?????

Why do you want to extend that insane figure to another 40 million people?????

I call bullshit. I read about this on yahoo news earlier, she says these permanent scars are now etched onto her face so she's filing an action for £8000 or equivalent. So i've had my face ruined and all i want is £8000.

Tattooist said he knew exactly what she wanted, said she went home happy with it. I read her father and boyfriend threatened to disown her whereupon she suddenly changed her story? Sounds believable to me.

More likely than a tattoo artist intentional tattooing 56 stars onto someone's face who only wanted 3, knowing that he'd lose his job/reputation/get fined/shut down/potentially jailed(?)

It is all 26 parts in ONE PLAYLIST. Not one video.

All you 8000 year old Earth JudeoChrist freaks are complete idiots.

as mentioned in the video, apparently by -complete- pre-heating vaporization of the fuel before intake.

this link
http://www.opel-p1.nl/custom/testcar/Shell%20Opel.htm
states

The chemically correct air/fuel mixture for total burning of gasoline has been determined to be 15 parts air to one part gasoline or 15/1 by weight. Changing this to a volume ratio yields 8000 parts air to one part gasoline or 8,000/1 by volume. The system of the present invention vaporizes liquid fuel before the fuel enters the engine. Theoretically, a homogenous mixture can yield gas mileage in excess of 300 miles per gallon.

also interesting is the .pdf of the book written by Shell engineers

149.95 MPG with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949; 244.35 MPG with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968; 376.59 MPG with a 1959 Opel in 1973

With this new old knowledge revealed the big 3 automakers should be forced to build it before they get any more Billions in Bailout money!

>> ^volumptuous:

Yes he will.
His plan will, for the first time ever in this country, make your health care premiums a taxable income.


It's true, they become taxable, and he gives you a tax credit for $2500 or $5000. For 99.9% of people who receive insurance from their work, this is way more than enough. Our local (Premera) Blue Cross insurance offers a family 80/20, $500 deduct, $8000 Max OOP plan for $452 per month. If a family were to go directly to Premera, they could get this plan and get a tax credit for this. BUT, that family would have been taxed anyways. The new taxable item is the premiums that you pay from work, but considering that his plan completely covers a very comprehensive plan without *any* group rate, I have no problem believing that it will pay for a vast majority of americans' employer-provided plans. (My premiums are $70/month, for a plan very similar to the mentioned plan)

Here's the kicker. McCains plan is a TAX CREDIT. The previous system you purchased with pre-tax dollars, but you still paid outright. In the new system, people who HAD been paying their employer $450/month for insurance will now pay $450 taxed dollars (about $585 of pre-tax dollars). They'll end up spending $5000 ($7000 pre-tax dollars), but get a $5000 tax credit ($7000 pre-tax dollars). In order to actually have to pay more for insurance than you were before, you'd have to be paying $15000/year.



Now, personally, I like Obama's plan better, but saying that McCain is raising taxes because of this is rather disingenuous. The only people whose taxes will be raised are those getting insurance from their current employer and paying more than $1250/month... A quick survey of people on my IM list says they all pay less than $200/month for group-rate health care. The change from today is that citizens who purchase their health care independently get a tax break as well.

Look, I'm voting for Obama, I want him to win, but spouting off Mathews talking points makes it sound like you're terribly ill-informed. Now granted, *you* may end up getting taxed more, but most will not. I really like Obama's state-sponsored health care better, but either one will bring much-needed relief to those living paycheck-to-paycheck. Obama soundly trounces McCains' tax relief for those making under $40k, and is still reasonably better for those making less than $85. Neither tax plan is sustainable, and both will have to raise taxes if they EVER hope to have a balanced budget.