livendive

I agree, at least insomuch as specific regions and monthly time windows are not individually representative of climate. You have to consider them in context, which is available at the very top of the page I linked. That said, discrete regional and temporal data are important as the small bits that are consolidated to form the bigger picture. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

There are lots of options, here's one manufacturer's take. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Shocking what the more complete picture shows, right? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Care to debate his points? How is forcing people to do something they do not want to do consistent with the principals that the Country was founded on? How is SS a "good" investment? I don't have time today to get deep into details, but my basic problem with this is as follows: In order to believe his assertion that the ACA is going to massively increase the cost of everyone else's premiums, you have to assume that a) the number of currently uninsured people is a much larger fraction of the total population than the 15% reported by the Census Bureau and b) that the majority of these people are uninsured due to pre-existing conditions. Personally, every person I know who doesn’t carry insurance is lacking because they don't want to pay for it, not because they have a condition that precludes it or prices it out if their ability to pay. All of them are if average health. Additionally, it's implied that this is some new scary development, conveniently ignoring the fact that a majority of employer provided group plans already have Pre-existing conditions priced into their premiums using actuarial tables that assume some fraction of the insured population will have these expensive to treat conditions. I've had 6 different health plans over the last 20 years, and not one of them had coverage exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Yes, those plans do exist, but they're primarily privately purchased plans and represent a minority of the total. I agree that our SS program is unsustainable and needs to be reformed in some equitable manner. The people who are being forced to do something they don't want are mainly being forced to pay for the safety net they expect to be there if they need it. I'm fine with expecting them to pay their share just like the rest of us (and subsidizing it if they truly don't have the means). Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I respect Dave Ramsey, but in this piece he's using incomplete examples and faulty assumptions specifically for the purpose of fear mongering. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

If we can double [urlhttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/16/nearly-4-in-10-voters-dont-want-to-see-their-own-lawmaker-re-elected/]this[/url], I bet the rest will get the message that we, the people, are at least as important to their continued employment as their special interest puppet masters. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Yes, because sticking to the Constitution and being fiscally responsible is *so* extreme and out there. In what world are the recent actions of the teabaggers fiscally responsible? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I work for a federal contractor. We've been able to stretch through this week on carryover funds from FY13, but the bulk of our last few days has been preparing to default on our sub-contracts (paying some companies in full for work that will be abandoned incomplete and telling others that we're not sure when we'll be able to pay them for work they have in-house) We've also been trying to prepare our infrastructure for indefinite shuttering which will start Friday, and the cost of shutting down will pale in comparison to the cost of restarting (I think Friday is when we kill all the microbes in our bioremediation facilities and start winterizing them). None of us will receive back pay, and because about 400 of us were absorbed by our "client" on October first, we also have no vacation accrued that we can burn. Basically, I'm expecting to be unemployed in two days. With an abnormally expensive summer that required some heavy withdrawals from savings, I'll probably start sending out resumes on Day 1 even though I've technically only been with my current employer for less than 3 weeks (I've had the same job for 9 years, just different companies writing my checks). If something better comes along, I'll take it, and the government can pay to train someone else to take my place whenever they get their act together. If a couple months pass and I haven't found anything better, I'll take something worse. I don't begrudge anyone else for getting paid the salary they expected when they agreed to their jobs, nor do I begrudge "essential" employees who get to keep doing their jobs. Business is business, and the government isn't looking like a particularly great client right now. Sure, they need plenty of help, but that requires a payment for services received. If they can't pay me to do their work, I'll try to find someone who can. Edit to add: I don't know what my coworkers make and honestly don't care. I'd guess some make more than me and some make less, but what they get is no concern of mine. The litmus test in my book is whether I feel my services are being adequately compensated. If they are, cool, if they're not, see ya. I assume others take the same approach. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I agree with all of this. The average American is either utterly clueless as to the problems and potential solutions or they are spoonfed opinions by what passes today for "media" (pro tip...if you're primarily reading, watching, or listening to opinion pieces rather than facts, you're one of the latter). Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Truth or pure bullshit? Obamacare has divided this country more than the Civil War. Complete and utter bullshit. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Yep and everytime I hear the its is the law of the land bull shit I say so was the Bush tax cuts You mean the same Bush tax cuts that had an end date written into them? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

That's the number of jobs sacrificed by political brinkmanship in Congress since late 2009, according to a report released yesterday by the Peter J. Peterson Foundation (a non-partisan organization dedicated to fixing American fiscal policy). Additionally, this ridiculous brinkmanship has cost us about 1% of growth in GDP. Source I don't care whether you vote Democrat or Republican, your elected politicians are part of the problem, as they consider "beating" the other guys (or keeping them from doing anything good) to be more important than job creation and economic recovery. It's not a matter of "yeah, but the other guys..." Your elected leaders were hired to do a job and have proven they're not interested in doing it. Statesmanship is what they're hired to do, and it requires finding some common ground with opponents and moving forward with the best intentions for the nation. When the Senate minority leader has gone on record as stating, "Our number one priority is denying the President a second term", he should be fired. When the Senate majority leader has failed to press for an agreeable (albeit compromise) budget for 5 years, he should be fired. NOBODY in Congress has proven to be an effective statesman in the last few years and ALL OF THEM should be fired. They say we get the government we deserve, and they're right. It's time to deserve better. If you ran a business and your best friend was an employee who failed to earn his paycheck, you'd fire him because, as tough as it might be, that's the right thing to do. Our Congress is the same way. No matter how much you like your particular guy or gal, they are not doing their job, and now your job is to let them go. If their opponent is in the opposite party, so be it...perhaps they'll respect the fact that they were elected by a bipartisan majority. If there's a decent third party option, take it. If they run unopposed, write yourself in. This Congress is terrible. All of them are terrible. I will never vote for any member of the current Congress again. If you do, you're part of the problem. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Assuming your domestic partner is opposite sex, you have my sympathies. I got married last year, but paid the "gay tax" (i.e. imputed income) to the tune of around $4k/year for four years before we tied the knot. On the off chance I'm wrong about who your domestic partner is, and they're same sex, you should move to a smarter state. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Says the skydiver who is one low turn away from sticking the rest of the patients with a six figure bill. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

So fire all the Democrats and Republicans and hire people that will do the job they were elected to. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Of the poor people I know, I'd wager >70% vote Republican. If you look around a map of the US, the states requiring the most federal aid vote Republican. I don't think your argument is particularly compelling. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

This stuff is not nearly as difficult as Congress is making out to be. Increase personal income taxes mildly Increase corporate taxes mildly Cut costs of essential government services mildly Cut costs of non-essential government services moderately Require discrectionary spending be lumped together in periodic single-purpose bills (priority based rather than snuck in as riders in unrelated bills) Increase capital gain taxes moderately Quit handing out subsidies and tax breaks in exchange for votes Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

... ... in which all you fuckers die. Its so lovely. I have been born again into eternal life and yes, it is lovely. The same gift is available to you but you have to accept it. What is stopping you? Logic? Critical thinking? Rational though processes? You can pick any two. A fuck it, pick all three. I know about your evil hidden agenda. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

The publicly accessible case appears to hinge on the following points (based on today's release of a declassified portion of the investigation): Basically it sounds to me like the foundation is members of the chemical weapons teams working in the area where chemical agents are mixed in the days leading up to the attack, and wearing gas masks in the area from which rockets were launched in the hours leading up to the attack. It's also implied that the only rockets which landed in the attacked area were launched from government controlled areas, and there's an intercept of a senior government official that apparently acknowledges the use of chemical weapons, orders it to stop, and expresses concern about evidence the UN might find. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Really? What if the girl is five years old? An infant? I do agree there is a gradient of sorts, and some forms of rape are more horrible than others, but none of them are so non-injurious that they deserve "not really a rape" consideration. I could see a 30 day sentence (or less) being appropriate for an 18 year old boy having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend when both desired it. This, however, is not remotely comparable to a 49 year old teacher and his 14 year old student who eventually committed suicide to escape the other consequences. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I disagree, based on the whole "good men standing idly by" premise. If we have demonstrable proof that the government used chemical weapons against its own people despite a long-standing international ban and a much more recent warning of consequences by nations interested in upholding the ban, then I think our best (loosely used term) course of action is to make the Syrian government regret that move. Neither Russia nor China is going to intervene, and I doubt Israel would terribly mind an excuse to bloody Iran's nose. Godwin notwithstanding, I think the last century has shown some compelling examples of what can happen when spectator countries allow atrocities to occur on the premise of "not our business". While a policy of non-intervention is appealing in a general sense, NBC attacks are beyond the pale and deserving of a rigorous and convincing reaction, both to punish the perpetrators and to stand as warning to future imitators. News channels are saying that intelligence reports about the attack are to be released today. I'm curious how robust it is and will withhold judgement until I've seen it myself. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I tend to vote on candidates, not the letters next to their names, and I don't think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are used in the same way. The term "liberal" has for the most part been redefined into a de facto insult, and you can almost hear the venom surrounding it whenever it's used as a stereotype. "Conservative", by contrast, still mostly retains its original traditional meaning. Those on the left who are trying to mirror the "liberal" insults instead use "rethuglicans" or "repubicans" or some other nonsense. Both sides do the same thing, but one bastardized a meaning to accomplish this while the other just makes up quasi-words to the same end. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Meh, so she's too good for them, and both sides recognize it. No big deal. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

The primary contaminant at this point is tritium, which is, quite simply, radioactive hydrogen. It will not precipitate out or adsorb to much of anything...it goes where water goes, including through evaporation. On the plus side, it's not a particularly hazardous or long-lived isotope, and current contamination levels in seawater are quite safe. I read that the highest detected concentration to date is around 3,800 Bq/L, which is about 5 times the standard for drinking water in the US, but only half of the drinking water standard in Canada and one fifth of the WHO's standard. It also sounds like there's some Sr-90 being released, which is a bit more hazardous, but also easily removed by conventional pump & treat systems. I would place fuel removal/stabilization highest on my priority list. If no cooling water is needed, the source can be dramatically reduced. Tritium this close to the ocean? I'd go with natural attenuation. It's really not that big of a deal. I'm unaware of the strontium concentrations, but if high enough to warrant concern, a cookie cutter pump & treat system using a synthetic resin like Purolite could be operational in a very short period of time. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Barrier technologies like this can work as a temporary measure. The problem isn't the energy required to maintain the barrier, it's the fact that the source doesn't magically stop adding to the problem just because there's an artificial aquitard in place. A chemical barrier (as opposed to physical, like ice) can be more effective by restricting plume migration long enough for contaminants to be precipitated, oxidized, or otherwise rendered less hazardous or less mobile. In this particular case, I doubt either method would be sufficiently effective to justify the time and expense of installation. Those resources would be better spent on more promising technologies. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)