sees_all1

Generally for class speeches and presentations, I know that I don't care about what I have to say and everyone around me doesn't care what I have to say. While I might become a little nervous before a presentation, generally when things get going the nervousness goes away. This was true for the interviews I had a week ago, and a couple years ago. Also when it came to my college speech class and I gave a presentation about something I did care about, halfway through my introduction my throat and mouth dried out and I had to force myself through that. Looking back it was amusing; unfortunately my speech was capped to 7 minutes and I was right at that mark three fourths of the way through. Because of that I had to just say my conclusion and end the speech. The TA said I gave an excellent speech and handled everything very well.

According to the talking heads on the news, the east coast is denser and colder so the earthquake waves propagate further and can be more intense. Also, buildings on the east coast aren't constructed with earthquakes in mind, so even a small to medium sized one can be devastating. That said, I didn't feel anything in West Lafayette, IN. I was watching the news when it happened, was pretty interesting.

Just to let you know (if you're too slow to figure it out), you're on my ignore list. It's posts like this where you take everything I write as a personal insult to you and your beliefs. I'll debate issues and ideas, but I refuse to argue at a personal level, something you haven't quite figured out how to do yet. I can agree to disagree, you may have noticed in other threads that I disagree with others all the time; we're not at each other's throats. In case you've missed it, I don't encompass everything the GOP stands for in the past 100 years; I disagree with quite a few of their policies. The fact that you can't separate me and the RNC is particularly frustrating, and it's part of the reason why I'm not going to respond to you. I can't stand how you repeatedly attack me. Each time you call me a hack only goes to show that you can't separate your emotion from an intellectual discussion. Have a nice life, -sees_all1

working on a couple iphone apps right now... One is a nutrition calculator, the other is a game, still in the early stages of development.

I think I've got more than 2000 YGO cards in my closet... played with my roommate a lot last summer. Was trying to build a decent zombie deck, which was very weak to his dragon deck. Now I'm not sure what to do with them. :D

I agree that for the most part, republican financial policy is garbage. But how long can we keep increasing spending for? I can't see it having a big enough effect on the economy. The President does not write the budget, the House of Representatives does. During Reagan's, Bush Sr's, and the first half of Clinton's administration, democrats controlled the house. During the second half of Clinton's administration, republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. More detail here: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

As far as the theoretical goes, this isn't necessarily the case. [hide=Laffer curve] This is actually a pretty interesting concept. While the theoretical does nothing to predict where the "best rate" might be, it does show that higher doesn't necessarily raise more revenue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve [/hide] Two images below - highest marginal rate, and tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. [hide] [/hide] As far as tax policy goes, I think we'd have a whole lot of good if the tax code was simplified, all rates reduced, and all loopholes were eliminated. Given D.C.'s group-think and doublespeak, I doubt we'll see it happen in the near future.

I wouldn't have assessed it that way... Anyhow, there's three things that people are probably missing: 1. The U.S.'s problem isn't a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. Yes, revenue is down, but spending is up nearly 100% from 10 years ago. 2. The "cuts" that the Republicans weren't actually cuts by a reasonable definition. The Congressional Budget Office scores budgets on a ten year basis, with an assumption that the federal government will grow by 3-10% per year. The "cuts" that the Republicans got were actually reductions in the amount the federal government will increase, instead of spending less from one year to the next. If the budget was frozen at its current level for 10 years, the CBO would have said they planned on cutting something like 9.4 trillion dollars. 3. Congress can't bind future Congresses with their budget projections. The real amount the budget was reduced this year was about a billion dollars, and that's all that is guaranteed.

Good Refer a Friend Program - Receive 10% off your next month's subscription, or 10% more days if you use cards. Bad Refer a Friend Program - gain something in game. Good Referred Program - Receive access to some new and exciting crap that is useful to no-one but new accounts Bad Referred Program - Receive double experience to cheapen your time here. Anyone else feel like this'll make the bots happen faster? Seriously, it's cutting the time they spend in anything but addy in half.

Laws aren't retroactive, as per the US Constitution. I wouldn't expect this to be the case either.

How about Bob? Bob is a wonderful name, easy to remember and short to type. ARrghhh I was gonna say that this morning but then I said "nah... I shouldn't goof around in this thread". I spent like a good 10 minutes considering saying it or not. I HATE YOU! :twss:

When people on Woot! don't buy crap in a woot off so I can't get a bag of crap... I want a diet mountain dew right now, but the next item is coming up... Bleh.

How about Bob? Bob is a wonderful name, easy to remember and short to type. So is Omar. Nice 5000th post. Yeah, I like Omar. I think it gets my vote.

I've been blessed enough to not have to worry about money. It's my hope that I never will. When I graduate, if I want to enter the workforce, I'll be earning somewhere around $60k/year. I might just stick around and get a better degree. Who knows, it's two years out.

How about Bob? Bob is a wonderful name, easy to remember and short to type.

Because the Arabs lost the bloody war. ;-) Or they could just call it Palestisreal.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to have people pay the difference (call it a fine or a tax) in their risk categories. Or just have the tax built into the product that puts them at a higher risk...

I don't view it as whether they get treated or not, it's who pays for it afterwards. The concept of classifying individuals based on risk might seem foreign to people with government provided healthcare, but if you're a smoker in America you'll pay significantly more for health insurance than if you're a non-smoker.

I think it's unfair if insurance companies aren't allowed to assess risk. Given the nature of insurance, it only makes sense that they do.

What are you guys talking about... I'm still buying and building LEGO bricks. Age of Empires, Roller Coaster Tycoon. Windows 3.1. Math blaster. Oregon Trail.

You WBM :P

corporations and governments are not people, they have no rights, only privleges and responibilities Why is this? Because they're a collective entity of people? If that's the case, your family should have no rights, only you individually; except that's not the case. I'd argue that government only has the rights that its people give it, but I'm guessing that isn't what you're taking issue with. :P

Starting Fall 2011 - anyone want to share their damages? So far I've bought 3 textbooks for $322, I expect to have to buy another for $130 plus an electronics kit for $63, so I'm in for $515 this semester. Bleh.