Andrewwhyte

You're mixing your apples and oranges scientifically. Weight is measure of mass in a gravitational field. Vacuum is the absence of atmosphere. People often confuse those points because they equate weightlessness with being in orbit around the Earth. According to your logic, the astronauts would have been weightless on the moon, not just much lighter. An object in an evacuated bell jar on Earth would drift around weightlessly, mindless of the gravity affecting every other object on the planet. As usual, Happythoughts logic was impeccable. A mass accelerated by a gravitational field (unimpeded by externally applied forces like air or a scale or thrusters, etc.) has no weight at all, hence the term "weightlessness". Weight appears only when the mass is not allowed to accelerate naturally in the field. Weight = mass of the object X acceleration of gravity and is related to F=ma. Weight is really a measure of the force applied by a massive object accelerating in one reference frame to another massive object accelerating in another frame. A ball can weigh 3 pounds when weighed on a scale resting on the surface of the earth.......or the earth can weigh 3 pounds on a scale resting on the surface of the ball. No difference. The same ball weighs approximately 1/2lb on the moon, in a vacuum.

I believe that if you started 100,000 miles out or so you'd be close to escape velocity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity when you hit. Seems to me that if you have reached escape velocity you would not hit, that's the point. If you were going the same speed on a different vector you may achieve escape velocity, but since velocity contains vector, I don't believe it is achievable in the direction of the planet. The other problem with your idea is that the only force involved to accelerate your smaller mass is gravity. That is precisely the force you are trying to overcome with escape velocity. Using force F1 to overcome force F1 would violate the second law of thermodynamics

Nice.

Selection AND price!

Go to Walmart and pick up a welfare mom.

Maximum two groups on a pass.

I would be surprised. Don't professional athletes have clauses in their contracts that bar them from engaging in dangerous activities? Maybe he went once in College.

tell me about it... I'll live, I'm way too stubborn to let that beat me down. she was trying to cut into my skydiving time... had to go anyways Send her a not promising to buy her a present if the marriage lasts 36 months, 'cause you know it won't.

Last spring I talked to a fisherman from Chaisson, New Brunswick who got a parachute addressed to Edmonton. What's 4500km between neighbours?

Do you remember the 70's? inflation is a very real concern. Maybe people will buy them to live in them rather than to get rich from them.

you clearly have a nicer car than me. I use the indicator to signal my intentions, not ask permission; they move.

The malfunction rate for most rounds was much higher than it is for a modern rectangular canopy. The real reason they are out of fashion is they are generally larger, bulkier, heavier and land worse.

The problem with that is that goods make up a decreasing portion of our economy. This is why Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc. went to Goods and Services Taxes. This better captures the concept of consumption you are describing. The problem with it is you have to capture the value added all along the way, this becomes a very expensive process as every business in the country is conscripted into the tax collector business. Although I agree with you that it is a good policy, it tends to be very unpopular. Canada brought it in in the 80s and the ruling Tories were reduced from 169/295 seats to 2/295. In 1993 the Australian Liberal-National (right of centre) coalition lost an "unloseable election" largely due to their unpopular proposal for a GST. I just cannot see any congress implementing it. Certainly this congress will not because it is flat; it taxes the rich at the same rate as the poor.

That was true of Japanese goods in the sixties and seventies, and Korean goods in the eighties and nineties. Mexico may be an example of an emerging economy that doesn't make the second step; notice their standard of living has been surpassed by the Koreans as well. I am not sure this is a peculiarity to centrally planned economies. First compete on price, then on quality.

The buy American clause, if fully implemented will result in a trade war with Canada and Europe. Have a look at the "Smoot-Hawley" act and how stimulative that was for the US. The US is a trading nation. It became the richest nation on the earth by being a trading nation. Retreating behind trade walls that reward inefficiency and mediocrity will not help America.

I've seen packer Reggie in Eloy fire a customer for being too picky.

That notion says that latter spending is more guilty than prior spending. It didn't take a seer to predict that the deficit spending during the better days would make it harder to respond now. That trillion and this trillion are equally bad, depending on how you measure the success of each spending. It's too early to tell for Iraq still, and the other hasn't happened yet. I was being tongue in cheek.

I think Iraq cost you more than $1T but in fact it was not overly inflationary. What it did was rob you of the financial latitude to deal with the stimulus/TARP packages without mid-long term inflationary pressures.

And in the long term, that is exactly why inflation is coming. All the liquidity (money printing) that is being pumped into the economy is not inflationary because the velocity (multiplier effect) of money is very low with the lack of confidence. The goal of the program is to restore the confidence and thus the velocity of the money. At that time the fed will need to retract the liquidity from the system in order to forestall an inflationary cycle. Unfortunately the mechanics of that consist of the Fed selling treasury bonds that they have previously bought (and the treasury has already spent) either back to the treasury (budget surplus) or on the market, increasing the public debt and putting upward pressure on interest rates. Inflation is coming.

You clearly missed the point of hiring a car.

+1

I doubt that it is a question of the 'rights' of either party. It might be that the settlement was sealed by the court at the request of one or both parties. JerryBaumchen I realize that. My point was that the court should not seal it. If the parties want it private they could have hired a private adjudicator. Since it was done in the taxpayers court the results should, "be known to all men." Just my opinion.

Ridiculous! They dragged their dispute into the public arena, they should have no right to remove it.

Firefighter training? I was a smoke jumper in Yukon at the time.

i don't know what you have been reading, but Obama has not spoken about disengaging from Afghanistan. Rather he wants to disengage Iraq so US and her allies can focus on Afghanistan.