Y2HH

If you use margin accounts, it means your gambling, because you're playing with money that isn't yours. It's a fools game.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 04:46 PM) Uhm. Actually, I'd say every female in my family the last three generations is a teacher. Yeah, they take some "enrichment courses" that come with a nice bump in pay (you should see these people flock to get their 5th masters in some totally unrelated field as well to get that bump in pay too, oh boy!). The clean-up process for the room (and it cannot be worse than my mother's room, since she teaches kindergarten) is one week of going in at 10 and leaving at 2. Lesson plans are not thought about until two weeks prior to school starting, and are often recycled. You seem to be very ill-informed on the amount of work a teacher does during the summer. My friend is a teacher. He does not work summers, ever. He sat around playing video games 24/7 and partying all summer. He says he looks forward to his paid vacation every year... Oh, and he makes a lot, to boot.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:45 AM) What relation does Chernobyl have to AGW? You've yet to explain that. You've got an isolated incident that caused a lot of damage but has slowly recovered thanks to influx from outside ecological areas (though the reactor area itself is still barren). How is this similar to AGW? What is your point? I have none, you're right, I'm wrong. ^^ I actually dislike when people do this, so I apologize for it, but I don't have time for this discussion, and it's not a very good online discussion IMO, too much back and fourth is necessary.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:42 AM) Well, wait - see my post about cows versus nukes. Its not as simple as saying a nuclear event is the worst that can be done. Its probably the worst we can do (especially if you add the cobalt jackets - see Novaya Zemlya) for immediate impact, but some ongoing things are more devastating over time. That's entirely possible. I don't really care for these discussions, because humankind has made GREAT strides in just the past 10 years to be cleaner (I don't like the term greener, it's a stupid marketing phrase), and we are starting to do what we can...it will get better...we just have to be patient. The world isn't ending tomorrow (hopefully)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:35 AM) No, it doesn't. Can you show claims that the area would be a barren wasteland or incapable of recovery after a few decades? That would be pretty crucial to your analogy. edit: If anything, it illustrates the chain "Humans do terrible, destructive things to the environment-->Environment destroyed, humans leave-->Environment recovers, eventually." Two differences with respect to AGW: we need to actually stop doing Step 1, and there's no outside environment to repopulate or cleanse. It's the whole planet, all at once. Seriously? A nuclear meltdown is about as devastating as humans can get. The fact you're ignoring that is borderline ignorant. So I'm leaving this be, since you've made it obvious there is no point in having this discussion with you.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:35 AM) Enron did something very different. They had a traditional 401k with choices, but they required employees to sit down with a rep to discuss their "options". They were then encouraged to buy a whole bunch of Enron stock with their 401k's, which is just stupid and incredibly inappropriate. In this case, he is saying he doesn't get any choice at all. And I agree, I wouldn't like it either, that seems very sketchy to me. Why would a company even want to control that? Seems fishy. For all we know, they're on the level...but I don't like it because its very non-standard. I've never heard of a 401k that doesn't give the end user a choice of a few different funds/indexes, in which they can choose to be risky or very conservative.

Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon. IE. I will run over your s***ty little economical cars.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:29 AM) Radiation levels in and around the area are still abnormally high, as are cancer rates. No one expected it to be a barren wasteland of thousands of years, anyway. The problem with analogies is that they can only be used to help illustrate an argument, not support or approve it. Even if scientists were spectacularly wrong about Chernobyl and the long-term impacts, it doesn't say anything about climate science or the conclusions in that field. It just goes to show you that as devastating as we love to believe we are...we aren't.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:03 AM) You're kidding. I've never heard of that. I mean, I've heard of stock purchase plans (which obviously have only one choice), and partnership shares in a single entity... but a 401k where you can't decide which funds to buy into? Did they at least tell you what they plan to put the money in? What do you mean you've never heard of that? It's almost exactly what Enron/Worldcom did, only they invested all the 401k money into their own stocks to pump up it's price. I don't like this idea at all. Give us your money and trust us? How about f*** you. You will tell me exactly what you're investing in or you won't be doing it with my money.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:09 AM) I have a hard time with people on either extreme on this. On the one hand, I think you'd have to be blind or in denial to not look around and realize that humanity has a significant impact on the environment. That combined with the great, great, great majority of science agreeing that there is at least some anthropogenic component, makes it quite clear to me. On the other hand, how anyone can point to a system so incredibly complex as climate and the atmosphere and say with 100% certainty (or even 98% certainty) that the changes can only be human-caused, seems incredibly arrogant and narrow-minded. There are just so many variables at play, and we can't possibly understand all of it at the same time to make a truly complete judgment. That all said, we can only control our part, and I find it obvious that we should work on that part, to help protect ourselves in the ways we can. While I agree our impact is of some cause, of that there is no doubt, I think we love to pat ourselves on the back as to how much cause that is, not to even mention "lasting" cause. Look at Chernobyl. Just a few decades ago it went through a nuclear f***ing meltdown and it's already WELL into natural recovery with plant life, etc. In the grand scheme of things, the few decades that passed are mere milliseconds to the Earth, and it didn't even blink at a nuclear disaster. As a matter of fact, it laughed...and I heard it laugh, while saying..."Wow...these arrogant pieces of garbage REALLY think they're powerful, don't they?" We're not. We just wish we were.

I have a problem with this 401k plan he's talking about. What do you mean you have no control over it? What are they investing it in? This is important, just as important as how much they match and how long it takes to vest. It's not usual for modern 401k's to give the individual investors no control over what it's going into...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 02:54 PM) Thank you. People who think we're destroying the earth, or think we're fine because the earth will be fine, are missing the point. Its not about protecting a rock in space, its about protecting ourselves from the backlash of our own actions. I think everyone knows this is all about saving ourselves. But I don't believe our "actions" are creating the devastating consequences many of you seem too. I DO think our contribution to climate change is having an effect/has had an effect, however, it's of my opinion that said effect is minimal at best, and it's our ego's that require and create the belief we are doing much more damage than we actually are. Also, I think the steps we've taken (or have begun to take), albeit baby steps, are steps in the right direction to undo what little damage we've done. I also understand that the reality of modern life is that some destruction will be left in our wake, but again, aside from absolute nuclear devastation, I don't think what we've done thus far is the major factor for "modern climate change", I think most of it's natural, has happened before, and will happen again. That being said, if we can minimize our footprint, I'm all for it...unless it makes living modern life unbearable...I'm not interested in living as they did in the early 1900's just to be green. I want my electricity, and I want it now...and I want as much of it as I want.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 11:59 AM) NOAA: 2010 ties 2005 as warmest year on record Nothing to see here, there is no such thing as global warming, move along people, move along... Nobody said there is no such thing as global warming...well, nobody with half a brain, anyway. The argument is that there are some that attribute it to industry/humans more so than any other factor, and then there are those that believe it happens in cycles whether humans interfere or not. Truth is probably a mixture of both, to what degree, I have no idea, and don't really care. In the end, I'm not the least bit worried about it. I'm an "Earther", which is nothing like being a "Birther". What we "Earthers" understand is that the Earth will be here long after we are...and it'll be fine without us. Nay, nay. It'll be even better off without us.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 01:26 PM) That would be the opposite of what was needed, so no way that would have happened. The only good news is, the step-downs are written in law, so they'd have to specifically pass legislation to change them. Bad news is that they did this at all, and at the scale they did. And that's exactly what they'll do, quite easily.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 11:36 AM) dude, the traffic verizon has handled from their smart phones is not even close. They are going to slow quite a bit. This is good for everyone. But yeah i'd wait for 4g and LTE iphones. Supposedly, Verizon handles even more data than AT&T from Android phones, however, I find these studies dubious, at best. While Android as a whole may use more bandwidth, it's distributed across a wide range of American cell networks, where every iPhone is concentrated on one, and often in dense city areas, such as San Fran, Manhattan, etc. While I have no doubt there are high bandwidth users of Android, (LittleSqwert as one example), most people I know with Android devices barely use data other than email. TXT messages are not sent over data networks, BTW, they're sent over the voice net. Granted the only "evidence" I have that Verizon will run into trouble is that upon Verizon announcing the iPhone, their website was down periodically due to stress...imagine that. What's interesting about it is that it was merely a website showing the data/time they were getting the iPhone (next month), which brought their entire website to it's knees...it wasn't taking pre-orders or orders...just announcing it. If they were actually taking orders yesterday...it would have been down hard. All that said. AT&T sucks. Hard.

I oppose it.

To put it on the record, I don't care if this guy was right leaning, left leaning, straight or gay, or better than everyone here at everything they do. He was a mentally deranged individual and that, as they say, is that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 01:16 PM) No, you actually specifically said...regarding this case..."I would say it makes a strong case for better parenting." in response to a post where I said I could spell out explicitly how better gun regulations would have saved lives here. Let me spell out exactly how stronger gun regulations would have saved lives in this situation. The shooter used a high capacity magazine that was banned under the Assault weapons ban. He didn't have the means or ability to go far out of his way to arm himself. He took the first shot at the Congresswoman, then emptied 30+ rounds into the crowd of assembled people. The moment he stopped to reload, either he struggled to reload correctly or the bystanders just jumped him first. Someone hit him in the head with a chair, and they were able to wrestle him to the ground before he was able to start shooting his second clip. Had he been unable to legally purchase that expanded magazine, he would have only been able to fire 10 shots, rather than 30+. The Assault weapons ban would have saved lives in this case. You can argue with my interpretation if you want, but there is a specific argument as to how a policy change could have affected the shooting spree. I don't think it's unfair to say that if you're going to state that improved parenting could have prevented this shooting, I ask what exactly you're basing that on, and what exactly the parents did wrong? It's entirely possible that in 2 weeks, we'll have a 19 item bullet point list of things they did wrong, but I don't think we have that yet. Just because assault weapons are banned doesn't mean you can't still get them. As a matter of fact, if you know anyone on the streets, they're easier to get than an actual registered handgun...and there is no wait list.

Any of you posting anything in this forum, or any other forum that disagrees with my opinions or views should stop posting, because you are disturbing my twisted mind...and who knows what might happen. But you will be to blame, that's for sure...because it was YOU who set me off. Just saying. This is how f***ing silly/ridiculous you all have become. You've officially jumped the shark.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:21 AM) See, this is just so perfect. A woman has been shot by a lunatic. Both sides are tripping over one another to see who can feel worse about it....for 30 minutes or so...then they immediately revert back to blaming the other for who spews the vitriol more, thereby being somehow responsible for this mess. The system is just out of control. It's not violent imagery or metaphors that are to blame for this, BUT THE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES that are. The lack of common sense and decency in order to maintain "party ideals" or whatever the hell republicans and democrats are claiming they are fighting for these days is what is responsible for this. This is why I despise both parties. The very idea of party politics plays into the ignorance of people. I mean, you HAVE to be ignorant to be a party player in politics, because there is no way, given the number of issues that exist, that you can side with one or the other 100% of the time.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:10 AM) I blame Reagan for eliminating the Fairness Doctrine in news media for creating this cesspool of vitriol on the air. I blame someone else who did it even better than Reagan did.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:08 AM) indeed IF she can make a solid recovery, it's good news. If she has to live 1/4th of a life, it may not be.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:07 AM) Don't get me wrong, I am NOT trying to defend some of the ridiculous things that woman does and says. But we are never going to be able to use a target metaphor anymore? I can never say "I have him in my sights" or "within the crosshairs"? Honestly, those metaphors are so commonplace people rarely even associate them with guns anymore. I've never shot a gun in my life, and yet, I think the metaphor is a quite valuable one. I'm not advocating the use of symbols the way she used them in the map; I am willing to admit that was a bit vitriolic and morbid. But at what point do you draw the line then? Where does the censorship stop? What metaphors are ok to use and which are not, and how and who draws that line? That's the problem, it doesn't stop. After these metaphors are no longer usable, they'll move on to video games, movies, and anything else that might plant bad ideas in a psycho paths head. It's silly silly silly...and many of you are expounding on that silliness in that you actually believe that metaphors like this are causal...meh.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 10:41 AM) I want to make this perfectly clear: No. One. Is. Blaming. Palin. Hope that helped. It would help greatly if they didn't say they weren't blaming Palin yet pointing to her very specific target map on a constant basis. That's the same as this: The sky is NOT gray when it rains! It's a mix of black and white! Look, if you want t blame her, man the f*** up and say it...because I KNOW some of you want too. You may not be saying it here, but you know that a small part of you, deep down, WISHES that this ends up pointing to that map and Palin in specific when all is said an done.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 10:32 AM) I've assigned blame to Palin or violent right-wing rhetoric? You're trying to draw the line without actually drawing it. Anyone with half a brain can see that.