champu

For reference, I have an Anthem Blue Cross group plan through my employer... I've made no changes to it since the end of 2010, the only difference in the plan has been the mandated removal of the lifetime cap (which was $2M for my plan iirc.) From 2011 to 2012 my contribution went up 3.56% (*4.86%) From 2012 to 2013 my contribution went up 10.39% (*7.06%) From 2013 to 2014 my contribution went up 15.64% (*24.39%) (*parenthetical numbers are if I include the sum total of medical, dental, and vision coverage in the calculations) I only have one data point so far for the "DD" code in box 12 of my W-2 so I'm unable to make a similar comparison of the total plan cost.

I appreciate you taking the time to post, fwiw.

Did you have a lot of kids or are they just really foolish with your money?

Can't mom and pop farms be passed down to their children with just a little estate planning, such as a living trust? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4359028#4359028

What I am concerned about is the idea that there are "white standards" and standards for everyone else. Back in the day, it used to be the idea that minorities lacked the innate talent and capability to do a lot of things to the standard of a white male. So they were not considered for work or other opportunities. Now it seems as though you are suggesting that minorities lack the innate talent and capability to do a lot of things to the standard of a white male. I cannot help but interpret the statement as being that minorities cannot meet standards that whites can meet. This is one of the things I was trying to address with this post in the other thread. There's a difference between performance against a particular standard being inherent in ethnicity and being emergent from culture and current socioeconomic status which may merely be correlated with ethnicity. (Note: this also goes for the ability to correctly define standards to measure against for the purpose of determining competency.) And this was the other major thing I was trying to address with that other post, recalling an exchange four years ago with everyone's favorite speaker's corner member...

I'll explain why your challenge is misguided. "Conservative philosophy" really just means being a traditionalist, or the belief that "the old fashioned way" has merit to it. But how far the supported tradition extends back (and in some cases, the memory of what it entailed) varies from topic to topic and from person to person. So depending on whether you want "conservatives" to be a group you hate or that you like, you can point to a tradition of unequal rights for women and minorities and suggest people espouse that, or you can point to a tradition of things like free speech and an emphasis on privacy from the government. A "liberal philosophy" can mean a whole mess of things before you even try to put a timeline on it. If you want to wear it like a badge of honor you'll probably associate it with "liberty" meaning freedom from restriction and from oppression. But look no further than the gun control debate to see what bullshit that is. More or less it really has just come to mean "freedom from tradition" or just a philosophy that is open to change. Like being a traditionalist, there's nothing inherently good or bad about that. And so back to your challenge... You've buried in your statement, "anything positive that has happened" to mean any positive changes that have come about. By definition, changes are going to have come from a liberal mindset. So you can go back and say "Hey, remember when we desegregated schools? Hell yeah! Go liberals!" But you're glossing over things like, "Hey, remember small town stores that all got wiped out by Walmarts? Traditionalists certainly didn't win that battle, what should we call the people that did?"

And you know this, how? Well... So 30 seconds before a woman gives birth, you are ok with a doctor invading her womb with a pair of scissors and snipping the babies spinal cord?" ...there's that exchange.

Nguyenning!

it "encourages" a minor to talk to their parents and get their permission before getting an abortion in the same way that 36 CFR 2.17 "encourages" someone to talk to a park ranger and get a permit before jumping half dome.

You have to understand that newer jumpers that buy gear and assemble it or have it assembled for them can be counted on to start jumping it shortly thereafter regardless of any plans they may have had or that they announced to the world to let it sit in their closet "until they were ready for it." This goes for people asking about cameras, wingsuits, rigs, canopies, you name it. So what you're saying might be all well and good but people who seem to be ignoring your stated plans are pretty safe in doing so. Don't take it personally. You're going to want to jump it. You're going to be able to find someone to tell you you'll be fine. Most dropzones aren't going to stop you. None of that makes it a good idea. That said... I have a couple reserve rides on PDRs, a reserve ride on an OPM, and a couple demo jumps on OPMs used as a main... all the same size canopies. In my opinion they do not open or fly substantially different as to trump the old addage of "more is better" when it comes to reserves.

Notwithstanding statements that are simply incorrect, many of the more controversial examples of bigotry and (something many lament being overlooked) errant cries thereof boil down to the familiar problem of mistaking correlation for causation. There are cultural and socioeconomic influences that have been different from region to region, ethnicity to ethnicity, and sex to sex. You can't demand that people pretend that is not the case. One way to go wrong is by attributing the results of those past influences directly to the ethnicity or sex in question. Another way to go wrong is to attribute the results to the ongoing bigotry of another ethnicity or sex. Doing either defines any issue you're trying to solve as an inherent problem with a group of people, and that sets yourself up for failure.

You know you have a drinking problem when: a sixty mile round trip is a 'short drive' for a bottle of hooch I've made a 50-mile round trip to the nearest Portillos. I may have an Italian Beef Sandwich problem.

Indeed, it's why we end up with crap like this snaking its way through the California legislature. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB396 So you'd not be allowed to have anything that even looked like it held more than 10 rounds, regardless of whether it does or even could. Except, of course, if you wanted to go on making shoot-em-ups. This bill is so misguided it's maddening. There're over a dozen bills that have passed one house and will be going to the other in the next couple months. I've written everyone I can and I got "thanks for your input" automated replies but so far they've voted "aye" for everything. Al Muratsuchi actually has the balls to send me spam now asking me to sign petitions for things he supports.

Each of my ex-girlfriends got married to (to the best of my knowledge) the next guy that they dated. At least one has a child. I'm engaged now as well, so the above is just kinda funny more than anything else.

Which one did he break? Why do you care? What fuck do you give why I care? ... why do you care? I don't. Why should I? ... So again, why do you care? Why do you care if or why I care? How long have you been posting here? Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room.

Which one did he break? Not that I care, and never mind that such an open-ended interpretation of this rule would result in tons of people getting warned/banned because it basically prohibits scathing sarcasm, but here's the language in the rules... He's mocking people that have argued in other situations that more people with concealed carry permits carrying firearms would help reduce gun violence. Whether it's specifically to provoke a negative response or just incidentally to provoke a negative response is always debatable though.

What do they mean, "football match ends..." the match was clearly not over. Mind the stoppage time and get on with it.

No, no, you misunderstood. They literally knew the eleventh day of September would occur months in advance. It was on their calendars. Codename: Tuesday.

What can you really do about it? You can shut the main engines down and let it impact with less kenetic energy or you can send a self-destruct command. As I said a couple posts ago when the rocket wigs out 4-5 seconds off the pad it's a tough call because you're not going to get high enough for at least most of the fuel to burn up if you send a self-destruct command. I just thought it was strange to see the engines going all the way to when the vehicle started breaking up. In this case I wouldn't have thought the impact speed would make too much of a difference given the inevitable explosion, and any sort of self destruct might just rain debris and burning fuel over a wider area. Maybe. Yeah, in the states we launch over water so a destruct command dumps the flaming debris into an ocean. In Baikonur I'm guessing that would just start that many more brush fires this time of year. Once the rocket was clear of the pad, though, and it appeared it was going to land somewhere reasonably safe I would quit while I'm ahead and shut the engines down. Letting them continue to run after they are above the pointy end evokes images of the aftermath of Intelsat 708 for me. This is all stupid Monday morning quarterbacking on my part, I'm glad no one got hurt, and I feel bad for the satellite engineers.

What can you really do about it? You can shut the main engines down and let it impact with less kenetic energy or you can send a self-destruct command. As I said a couple posts ago when the rocket wigs out 4-5 seconds off the pad it's a tough call because you're not going to get high enough for at least most of the fuel to burn up if you send a self-destruct command. I just thought it was strange to see the engines going all the way to when the vehicle started breaking up.

Watching the YouTube video, the vehicle had violated control law by about T+4 or T+5. That's a really difficult situation to be in, and it's a tough call to make. I suppose, though, Baikonur is in the middle of nowhere so you can write the pad off in your head and then think, "Well, it's only gonna get better from here."

"People who hate jihadists" are simply not comparable to "people who hate Jews or blacks." Key word: Jihadists (in case italics was too subtle.) The basic problem here is that you are assuming that anyone who is trying to find an outlet for their frustration with radical Islamists is indiscriminate in their feelings towards Muslims in general. When a media outlet picks up a story like this with a headline of "Racism against Arabs alive and well in the US." or you go on tilt decrying "bigotry against an entire religion." You are putting words in the mouths of people who simply don't like radicals. I like to think enough of most Muslims to assume they wouldn't necessarily find it funny, but they probably wouldn't pay much attention to it at all if they could read about it without the "helpful" apologist commentary. I understand it is intentionally offensive. You need to understand that you are interpreting a group of people's intentions in your own way and then reacting under that interpretation on behalf of 1.6 billion people. Well, congratulations, you just equated an entire religion to monsters. Bravo. /golf clap. Look... There are two relatively small groups of people in this dispute that need to be recognized and isolated/marginalized. Religious zealots that choose a radical path of violence, and people that can't tell the difference between a moderate/peaceful religious person and a dangerous fundamentalist. You can go wrong by incorrectly including people into either of these groups.

Yipes! Sounds like they have an interesting set of range safety protocols allowing the vehicle to impact like that. Glad no one was hurt.

Responding to a dumb joke about, "making jihadists think twice with pork ammo" with "Yeah, being a bigot is so fucking hilarious." Is even more unhelpful. You're exercising the same level of judgement in your fight for improved cultural relations as the principal that wants to reduce gun violence by suspending a child for chewing a pop-tart into an L shape. And posts full of accusatory three word sentences is what I consider going on tilt.

Yeah, being a bigot is so fucking hilarious. Selling and buying pork bullets at a 100% markup (I've revised my number because I realzed they are selling reloads) is silly. Pouring bacon fat into hollow point bullets "when the time comes" is silly. Going on tilt when you feel you've caught a faint whiff of bigotry is silly. A sense of humor is one of the most important things that separates those of us who are rational and those of us who are religious zealots. Don't throw that away.