champu

The headline... ...and then from the article... Every time you read a news article that covers anything more technical than drooling, just remember what it feels like to read an article about a skydiving fatality. There's not a lot of good news in Paul Martin's testimony, but algorithms != "command codes."

I'll let the screenshot speak for itself.

Can I get a him?

I like the juggling...

Look, whatever, I'm just here for the jokes about spilled milk. Anyone heard any lately?

...from the link... ...from that link... Well, that takes a lot of fucking gall.

The dust hasn't settled, so to speak, but on the back of the envelope my "effective" (that's kind of a crap term, but whatever) 2011 federal tax rate will be around 9.5%. To be fair you can throw in FICA and it would be around 15%... ...better string me up.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/11-1 The Salala incident had nothing to do with drones. Commondreams is an idiotic website with the journalistic integrity of the National Enquirer.

Because Sen. Coburn (R) has (R) after his name. Just pointing out hypocrisy. Probably too subtle for this forum, though. I originally typed out a lengthly reply to this but I just don't care anymore. (R) or (D) it really doesn't matter, it's all about jobs in their constituency and what appropriations sub-comittee they can get themselves on. People who complain about the "military industrial complex" and who actually think defense contractors or the pentagon have a say in spending or acquisitions have their heads in their asses. I'm sick of arguing with people who think they know what the problems are on capital hill.

How do you feel about expensive military projects that the pentagon doesn't want but were forced on it by non-GOP politicians? Why make the qualification?

That's the "beauty" of people issuing reports like these. While they deal with numbers far beyond the comprehension of the average citizen, they focus on the minutiae while ignoring the obvious. The person that makes the report appears as if he's a conscientious public servant, but in reality he's not looking at the big picture. $6.5 billion is a LOT of money. I could probably retire on it. However, it's a piss in the ocean compared to something like military procurements. Did you actually mean military procurements or did you mean all defense and defense-related spending again? Because "military procurements" actually means something. When you said that it got my hopes up that the conversation might actually go somewhere interesting, but then out came the $964.8B number... ho hum. Why do you people (that's my transition into admonishing the whole thread and not just you quade) insist on trying to lump as much stuff, good and bad, into a defense bucket with the words "unjust wars" scrawled across it or an entitlements bucket labeled "free money for bums"? The more stuff you amalgamate into one target of disgust, the more difficult and ill-defined a problem it becomes to make substantial cuts to it. I think it's funny that you're (back to you now) so critical of the report for focusing on the minutiae when that's really the only way to tackle bloated budgets in a political environment. You can't take on the whole herd no matter what species of spending your talking about. You have to spook one gazelle into making a wrong turn away from the pack and pounce. Then you rinse and repeat.

Just casually walk up to security... ...put your carry on up on the table... ...take out your keys, phone, take off your belt... put them in a gray bin... ...take off your shoes, put them up on the table... ...all very routine... ...take off your pants, shirt, put them in the bin... ...start taking off your socks- "Sir!"

Only a chick would say that! They can not have sex and be exclusive. Think of it this way, can you envision someone who is seeing someone but hasn't had sex with said someone being let down or hurt by a breakup with that someone?

Given Iran's history, I would have to assume that anything obscured by the banners and not explicitly visible in the video was destroyed in the crash. I can't blame them for playing up the good condition of the aircraft though, it's good political posturing... ...and when they sell it on eBay to the Chinese they'll get more money for it.

In their defense, there's plenty of flamboyant heterosexuality in society to counterbalance even the most flaming displays imaginable. In essence you're right though, ideally it wouldn't be an issue and we could all do what we choose to do with whomever we choose to do it with. If only we could convince those who would vote otherwise...

Well, they did inadvertantly publish a screening manual online a couple years ago so that's somewhere to start I suppose.

Sounds like she wasn't his girlfriend.

troll-lol-lol

Simpler explanation: troll-lol-lol

I've always thought the best solution would be to always perform a backup prior to going to sleep after a period of inactivity. Although I haven't seen any third party tools to set this up and I'm too lazy to tinker around and write one myself.

...and for the sake of argument let's say you had $500 cash in addition to credit cards, ids, lipstick print on a napkin with a phone number, etc... ...what do you offer as a reward?

I would recommend against having automatic backups on when using time machine, particularly if you use [hilariously enough, apple] programs that have large library objects like aperture, etc. or if you have your computer go to sleep in less than an hour, and routinely come back to your computer to perform brief tasks. You'll find yourself constantly frustrated with your computer trying to back up while you're in the middle of using it and creating huge redundant copies of information on your backup drive. I don't understand why apple was/is so proud of their "one setting" program when that one setting is so completely unworkable. If, however, you leave automatic backups off and just hit "Back Up Now" when you're done with what you're doing and you've closed the big library programs it does work fairly well and is not too dissimilar to what it sounds like you're used to doing.

Pfft. Reminds me of the good ole daze modifying Estes rocket motors to launch frogstronauts. Sometimes you just have to sacrifice a fingertip or two for good, clean fun. Reminds me of the PEPCON explosion in Nevada back in the 80s except it looks like they got off lighter in terms of damage but came out worse in terms of loss of life.

Also, the number of technologies (and in some cases entire industries) that are taken for granted today that have come out of companies, research universities, and national labs over the last sixty years is staggering. Most of the funding for the work came from buckets of money labeled, "Categories of spending that people hate these days." And most are things that private enterprise would never have shouldered the risk to pursue. Note that pretty much every explosion in development and technological advancements prior to the 1960's was secured against risk by the rampant expenditure of plentiful natural resources: Mineable deposits, dense forests, fertile land, populous oceans, fossil fuels, etc. Those days are over, at least on this rock. Every dollar the government spends today will have one of three fates many years from now. It will be remembered as a visionary investment, it will be remembered as purchasing our own misery, or it will be completely forgotten (i.e. non-durable). Space exploration, medical research, etc. are of the first category, pounding sand in the middle east for too long seems to fit the second, and most entitlement and income security programs fall into the third. While the federal government needs to curtail spending so as to avoid every dollar leaving only the legacy of an insurmountable debt, it's not a good idea to focus too hard on non-durable spending.

It's not good at all, it's poor logic. To find one's self in such a complex universe devoid of meaning is highly illogical. Again, the number of possible states in the universe does not speak to it being "complex."