Monkeypox

My life isn't the same. I'm going to be a bit poorer. Enough to hurt, but not enough to hurt so bad that it'll change how I do a whole bunch of things. I'll just have to find more ways to earn money to cover insurance or taxes, er... penalties, er... fees, er... taxes. I'm a fairly young guy and this kinda screws me. Here I've been taking care of myself on my own dime, and my two options appear to be: 1) Pay out of pocket as I do now AND pay extra in taxes for the privilege of taking care of myself 2) Pay a ridiculous premium for a qualified insurance plan The problem with this tax is that it doesn't provide me with anything. It's simply a gouge.

Yes, the first mandate came in 1996. I don't know what "wheels" were in motion in 1993, but that still lags far behind the development of LED/LCD/flatscreens. If anything, the development of those technologies led to the mandates, not the other way around. And you forgot to highlight first LARGE flatscreen tv or the size of 42". That was the pertinent information in the sentence. Point is, it wasn't a government mandate. That's still just simply NOT TRUE. Home entertainment drove that technology. Commerce did it. It's not about imperfect TECHNOLOGY. It's about bad science. If you want the government involved in throwing money into black holes, then just be prepared to cut things like healthcare, jobs, education, and infrastructure.

No... home video meaning people watching movies at home (not home movies), and yes, that's exactly what happened. Refresh rates, glare, pixelated imagery... computers, video games, and people watching movies at home led to the flatscreen revolution. The mandates to digital signals had absolutely zero to do with driving the technology, if only for the fact that that mandate had zero impact on the original markets for them - games/computers. It brought prices down, absolutely, but the bulk of the technology to make it work and almost all the R&D had already been paid for. None of it was developed due to the mandate. It was driven by market needs. Government has the ability to do that, sure. They also have the ability to cripple the economy. Flatscreens were ubiquitous well before the government mandate (go to any computer lab in the early 2000s?) And the biggest failure in the analogy is that the foundation of the technologies in plasma/led/lcd televisions and digital broadcasting all WORKED. All of the above were also developed and driven well before the mandate. Windfarms/windmills are horrifically inefficient and not even close to "green" technologies, and they've failed and will continue to fail to be a reliable means of delivery.

LCDs were developed in order to make computers portable. Its use in television largely started out with the same goal (lighter and MUCH more power efficient than tubes). Issues with refresh rates and resolution kept it from being a viable alternative for a number of years in larger televisions (why plasma was the drug of choice). These technologies were developed for use in the 1980s-1990s, and it had a lot more to do with the advent of home video, cable television programming, home computers, video game consoles, and the internet than it did with a change in broadcasting.

I always felt that they should've gone with the Arkansas State Dirty Red Engines, with a logo of a soot-covered, fire-engine-red locomotive.

Many people have said that while slowing of the AMOC (which undoubtedly IS affected by global warming) may not be the actual cause of rising sea levels. In fact, it's hard to state that factually when the AMOC affects Florida as well, and yet that areadoesn't show the accelerated rise in sea levels. So once again, the story is: yes, the sea levels on the North East are rising, and the rate is accelerated. The question is: why? Is it slowing of the AMOC? Tectonic shifts? Melting ice caps? Sallenger says AMOC slowing. Others say differently. Hopefully more conclusive research and hard data can lead to answers. No doubt in my mind that global warming is occuring, and that a reduction in carbon emissions at this point is an appropriate step to take, if only to alleviate the problem (whether or not man is the cause or even a significant contributor). Still, it doesn't make bad science into good science. We need to reduce carbon emissions. That doesn't mean that if I come up with an emissions-free air conditioning unit that works off of fairy dust and moonbeams that the US Government should subsidize my factory to make them, especially once they discover that the factory burns a mix of coal, bald eagle feathers, and blue whale blubber to manufacture the units. I don't think enough people draw the lines BETWEEN bad policy and bad economy. They'll complain about cuts to education or the increasing gap between the poor and the rich while at the same time lauding policies that throw otherwise meaningful money at proven losers. By the way, did you know that windmill blades aren't recyclable?

"They won't find a jury pool here that will convict him," Veit said.

Fact: Germany and Denmark, the European leaders in windfarms, have not reduced their carbon dioxide emissions, and have, in fact, had to build more gas and coal-fired power plants to ensure delivery of electricity that can't be reliably delivered from those windfarms.

Haven't the Germans adopted a policy to completely phase out nuclear power while also adopting policies to reduce carbon emissions? Also, I don't think you should ignore that Germany imports a significant amount of Russian gas, possibly the most import-dependent country in Europe. And they're building even more pipelines from Russia, so I don't think, when it comes to energy development, one should regard Germany as particularly efficient. Now, you also have to consider that massive delays in Germany's offshore wind farms program have resulted in them having diesel-operated generators out in the North Sea now for months (years?). And just recently, they've admitted that further delays in building infrastructure threaten the already-dubious profitability of the wind farms themselves. It will be interesting to see if Germany will get out of this without having to now IMPORT nuclear energy from somewhere like France or increasing import rates of gas from Russia.

Young also fell victim to his own athleticism. Young is the poster child for UT's well-earned reputation of signing top recruiting classes but failing to properly develop them. Some guys are able to out-athlete all the way through college. But there's a pretty hard ceiling for guys who haven't learned the nuances of football once they reach the pro level, especially at QB.

Yeahhhh..... nice defenses "Hey, I might've raped a bunch of young boys, but I did a bunch of good stuff, too!" - the "Cancels it out" defense "Look, we ALL take showers with strange, young boys as well as our nieces, am I right?" - the "Everybody does it" defense

"Be there right after the show tonight." - John Dillinger

"Not my cup of tea, but I'll send you guys a care package." - Ted Kaczynski

1) Win at football 1a) Show me the money! 2) Show potential to 1) or 1a) ............................................. ............................................. ............................................. ............................................. 11,697) Don't provide sanctuary for child rapists.

Just perusing the board and thought "If I had to surrender for something, I'd probably cut it closer than 40 minutes."

Heat will win, but I'm rooting for OKC.

absolutely

My bad. I get them confused with Texas Southern.

I think people greatly underestimate the capacity of that stadium. They have a lot of room at the end of their bench and more is added every time an APR report comes out.

You failed the bit.

I think there's probably quite a few gay comic book readers. It's odd to me that they changed a WWII Era Green Lantern, or rebooted him, or whatever the hell. I think they actually HAD to do it to an already existing superhero, because otherwise it's not going to sell enough to justify an entire new title/hero, just don't get the reasoning of using the name of the guy from the era when people actually might've given a crap about the Green Lantern. But this is really just about drumming up interest.

So then it's your opinion that Neil Patrick Harris should be sent to the electric chair?

That's what makes it so stangely out-of-place in a comic book like Green Lantern.

I just didn't want anyone to feel weird.