Messages

If you think Budweiser is bad, try Bud Light. It's absolutely terrible (but still a favorite around here, for some reason). It still tastes like piss, ball sweat, and water but for some reason there's way too much water. Also, my state only allows low-point beer (3.2% alcohol by volume) except for in liquor stores so all of the beer tastes terrible anyway.

I've only drank a few times, and I had to make myself do it. Beer tastes terrible.

I thought isolationists didn't participate in any foreign affairs, including war?

Except for several presidents along the way, America doesn't have that bad of a reputation. Especially when you compare it to other world powers, and consider how well the people inside get along. The pursuit of happiness isn't lost except for a minority.

Until the current president, I never heard so much America-bashing. I don't think we're ruined, just through a bad spell because of inadequate leadership.

There are no polar bears in Alaska...

You know, a quick google would keep you from looking so clueless, unless they're giving fake polar bear viewing tours in Alaska to ignorant tourists.

Life doesn't just stop when you finish one job or career.  It finishes when you've had enough of working.  If they just want to quit work altogether after a few years, then they seem pretty lazy people, which is surprising for an athelete.

I don't think anyone who quit working after being an athelete should be considered lazy. It's not like retirement requires you to sit in your house all day on a couch. They could be travelling to see the world, mountain climbing, spending more time with their kids, or whatever suits their personality.

Giving examples is kind of pointless, of course some people are going to want to keep working. My point isn't that they all do, but that they've earned the right and taking away their money just because they make a lot for a few years is taking away the reward they are entitled to for all of the hard work they already went through. In other words, that would be punishing them for their success.

Is it in 3d or is that rendered?

Your previous post about alternative fuels was really great by the way (not sure if I mentioned that or not). I found it entertaining that Bush mentioned Ethanol and Biodiesel in the debate. If I'm not mistaken didn't Bush push for Hydrogen research that involved refining Hydrogen with Petroleum, but not other, cleaner means? Being Captain Cowboy Oil Man I highly doubt that he is intrested in alternative fuels in any way that could solve our "energy crisis".

He didn't mention it in the first debate.. I haven't watched the second yet, because I was in my night class and couldn't.

I typed all of that out because someone said something about it being impossible for Kerry to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It isn't, because of alternative fuels. It's just not widely known and everyone is stuck on hydrogen. Hydrogen has too many problems to be feasible in ten years, while ethanol and biodiesel are fairly widespread now and with some industrial tooling-up we'd be using it instead (and because the fuel is so clean, engines and the oil inside would last a lot longer). It's a major part of what I intend to accomplish as an engineer, among other things.

Thanks for that link, that's really interesting. As much as the writer likes it, I'm rather attached to my machines and so my goal is to find a different renewable means to power them rather than get rid of them. You might be interested in Journey to forever because that site is largely dedicated to ways to help 3rd world countries.

Luckily, I have a financial hardship deferment on my loans. So, I have some time to get that money together. I still won't have to pay until after graduation so long as I get back in school soon.

I really think that student loans fall into the same category as other debt though. It's based on the same ideas. I agree with most of what you say if you remove the student loan factor. However, I think the mentality of many Americans is more like: "now that I'm so far in debt, what's a few more thousand dollars?" I know I've felt that way at times.

Good to know. The only reason I regard student loans as different is because they are intended to be easily paid back.. they have low interest rates, you can often get a subsidized loan and it won't gain interest until graduation, and you can consolodate them all when you graduate so that you won't be paying several different lenders. On the other hand, the bad loans will be geared toward extending your debt as long as possible in order to accumulate the most interest. Those TV ads for auto loans with no credit check required are a good example.

Junc -
Notice I didn't mention student loans though? I'm talking the endless cycles of debt that people let them selves get into whereis you have a manufactured home that people somehow end up owing $100,000 on. Credit cards as well, but not student loans. Student loans aren't exploitative if you look for the right ones. I got subsidized loans from the government and won't have any interest until graduation or if I drop out. I have one other loan at only 4% interest. All of which I'll be able to pay off with even a mediocre job once I graduate (or even if I don't).

In your present situation you're pretty much screwed though because student loans work against you once you make the decision to leave school. You can hardly pay off your loans and go to school at the same time, which is what you have to do once you leave and come back (so far as I understand). In that case, getting romantically involved like that isn't such a great idea and I've tried to avoid it until I can afford to. In a way though, that's depriving me of happiness, so I guess you lose either way. I'm personally for government paid higher education (if the students are worth it), I'm just against taxing success.

I don't know how anyone could read and understand Ayn Rand's better works (Atlas, Fountainhead) and think they're bunk, but I guess that's life. You either get it or you don't. She grew up in Russia during the revolution so she saw all of the people who really would have made a good difference get crushed into nothing as an "equal" firsthand.

Chris, I'd continue to argue but you're saying a lot of things I agree with anyway. Basically I think it's fine to have deductions for the poor (from a flat tax rate) but there should be limits to that, and the rich shouldn't be obligated to feed the country. They're people too.

I've seen far too many manufactured homes with a new boat in the rear, a hummer and satellite dish in front. All paid for courtesy of the US government and possibly drugs.

Look, even if they still make over a million, think about it.

A major fooball player (any kind, it's irrelevant) can make millions in a single year, but their useful time span is fairly small and the risks are huge for their health and well-being. Many will play for some years and retire for the rest of their life.

Now, are you telling me that even though they made this their life for decades, focusing on nothing else and risking so much, they don't deserve to be able to make all of the money they'll need for their entire life in a period of 3-10 years and then retire? Training/working for 12 hours a day every day, eating only the healthiest foods, getting injured, and then getting taxed 70% because they make too much?

I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to give it their all and get paid for it. You probably scoff at entertainers, but the money they make will only allow them to live lavishly for as long as they're popular, most will need to spread those millions over their lifetime. High incomes are almost always involved with high risks or sacrifices.

And once again, if people will give it to them it's not their fault for getting it (if they're honest).

Furthermore, the government wastes more money than any rich person ever will. I trust myself to do the right thing with my money multitudes more than I'd trust any elected official.

If one person pays 30% of their income to the government, the next should pay exactly the same. If you tax the rich 90% just because they're rich, that is punishing people for being successful.

But you're equating success with money, and that's not the case at all. Why would people who graduate with a degree become a teacher, when they could earn much more as an engineer? There's far more to being a success than how much cash you earn.

Usually that is exactly the case though. Teachers are govt. employees and unfortunately subject to govt. pay cuts. Why should a bricklayer who could barely handle public schooling make as much as the doctor who suffered through debt and poverty for 8 years to get through medical school? If you're going to say the bricklayer works harder, you need to check your pretenses because doctors are subject to call 24 hours of the day oftentimes, and they subject themselves to potential lawsuits and disease daily. As someone who has went to college to learn something that most people in the world aren't willing to even think about, you don't feel you deserve higher pay than a truck driver or a janitor? I think you do. You have more skills and you should be rewarded likewise. Your skills are more in demand and thus get more pay. They're more in demand because in modern times I find people want someone else to do their thinking for them, especially here in America. That's why people who are willing to think get paid more, and people who aren't but can do physical work do that. Supply and demand, which is perfectly fair. If your skills aren't in demand, you should help society by getting different skills, it's not society's responsibility to fund people with no or little use.

What will motivate people to be doctors, engineers, scientists, and etc?

Not everybody picks their career based on how much money they can earn, and nor should they -- really, what you're saying is the problem with capitalism. People should choose a career that gives them the most satisfaction in their job.

Money can still be used as a way of promoting people and so on, but only to a certain point. Personally, I believe that nobody deserves to be paid more than $100,000 unless they've contributed something absolutely amazing to the world, such as curing cancer.

I agree. I didn't pick my potential career based on how much money I will/can earn. The problem is that I'm subjecting myself to 4-5 years of hell trying to pay for college and keep good grades at the same time, and when that's over with I still want my due compensation. If I don't get it anyway I'm not going to quit but I would sure as hell be pissed about it.

If you can sucker someone out of $100,000 it's their fault for losing it, not your fault for getting it (unless you did it unfairly). There are a lot of things that a single person could do in a year that are well worth $100,000 beside curing cancer.

The only problem with capitalism is that exploiters gain power exponentially as they exploit - which is why there are a lot of laws in place trying to prevent that. Today people are willfully exploited through loans, credit cards, and entertainment because they are ignorant of the consequences and choose to remain ignorant. There is a load of information in place to prevent that from  happening and people don't even want to see it. They just want a new Dodge Ram with a Hemi. I rarely hear of people being exploited through their job (in the USA). Mostly it's through massive debt which they incurred by trying to live above their means and blame on the creditors. Who is really at fault, is it the creditors for giving them the money at an interest rate, or is it the loaner who couldn't pay for it and knew it but did it anyway? That is the root of most people's financial problems in the US and I give them no sympathy for it. If loaners can get hundreds of thousands of dollars through loaning people who will sign those contracts without even reading them, I don't blame the loaner. I blame the idiot who let himself be exploited.

If a person earning $40,000 a year pays 20% in tax, they're left with $32,000. If a person earning $200,000 pays 50% in tax, they're left with $100,000. That means they still have three times as much money left after taxes, which is a pretty good motivation to be a doctor or stockbroker (I doubt many engineers or scientists make anything like 200 grand a year).

I agree that all people should be taxed equally, but not in dollar terms. You see, if a waitress is taxed 30%, it may mean having to take another job. If someone earning more than $200,000 a year is taxed 30%, it may mean having to wait another six months to buy that new beachhouse. Who does taxation hurt more? (Hint: It's the waitress) The personal cost of taxation is not the same, even if the percentage rate is.

Don't think of it in terms of money, think of it in terms of what you're giving up because of that money.

A progressive tax rate (one that charges a higher percentage for people earning more money) is necessary to ensure that the tax burden in terms of personal cost is the same for everyone, as far as possible.

That's what a fair tax system means.

The problem isn't that the taxes are too high for the waitress with a flat tax rate, the problem is that the waitress's wages are too low. Raise min. wage and give a flat tax and the employer will be able to afford it because of the de-strangulation on his income.

Last night, a thought occured to me: Bush keeps saying that lower taxes are good for the economy. But isn't the opposite true? If you can work less and be less productive to earn the same amount of money, because you're not paying so much in taxes, what's the motivation to be more productive? Wasn't that the big argument against communism? So lets have really high taxes so that people are properly motivated to be productive and get the economy going again!

Okay, I'm not 100% serious about that... 

Kidding or not, that's the way I feel this conversation is headed. Communism isn't good even in concept. Everyone could benefit from reading some Ayn Rand.

I don't like what you guys are saying about taxing the rich. If one person pays 30% of their income to the government, the next should pay exactly the same. If you tax the rich 90% just because they're rich, that is punishing people for being successful. That isn't fair and it reminds me more of communism than anything. What will motivate people to be doctors, engineers, scientists, and etc? Do you think the satisfaction they get from going to college for eight years to get paid as much as a common laborer would make it worthwhile? I don't.

I'm my hero.

I'm always there for me when I have a problem.

In a game you have a framerate, right? Usually a minimum of 30 frames per second if you have a good computer. Even though your Unreal level had a million polys, you don't see them all at once because that would bog down the computer. There are culling functions so that whatever isn't on the screen isn't rendered (like polys totally concealed by other objects and those not in the view of the camera). Depending on the engine and the scene, my computer can handle about 50 fps (as a modest figure). So lets say there are about 20,000 polys on my screen after culling. 20,000 polys x 50 fps = 1,000,000 polys per second.

Get it now?

It's also important to take into regard the CPU usage of sound effects/music mixing and large texture maps, but that's not often done.

B - you're not interpreting what I wrote correctly, I expected that so I typed it out as clearly as I could.. read again.

N. Korea spends over 30% of its GDP on its military - more than any other country in the world (as a percentage, not as a whole number).

GDP stands for gross domestic product.

I don't have time to check to see if Kim Jong Il has actually threatened the US yet (though I'm sure he has) but there is an obvious implied threat in his violation of the nonproliferation treaty and huge military budget for a country of that size. There is a demilitarized zone between North and South Korea that he's just itching to get rid of. Countries that build up the military tend to use the military.. I was saying that to everyone I knew when Bush campaigned on military improvements and a missile wall around the USA. Then we had a suspiciously un-necessary war sometime in 2003...

Yes, but follow the logic.  If pre-emptive war is an unsupportable action then it is unsupportable period.  I don't think the North Korea example is a very good one in general.   The more we use it, the more people will think, "Yeah, they ARE a threat!"

Not that I don't think Bust was hypocritical, I just think that it's dangerous to tell people to invade other countries.  They could easily argue "Yeah, you're right.  North Korea is a bigger threat.  Now that Bush has beat Saddam, he's the only one with the gonads to bomb North Korea"

N. Korea spends over 30% of its GDP on its military - more than any other country in the world (as a percentage, not as a whole number). They made threats and really do have nukes. They really ARE a threat, whether it's convenient or not. Bush doesn't have the gonads to bomb N. Korea or he would have done it before Iraq, which was clearly the better choice, which is why I don't think it matters. Besides, I'm all for giving him a chance anyway or it wouldn't be a fair comparison. Really though, once you do give him a chance, there IS no comparison, he's done badly at nearly everything he put his hands on.


In other news, did anyone watch the vice-president debate? I didn't, but I think everyone will get a kick out of this.

Cheney Drops a Dot-Bomb in Debate

After Democratic nominee John Edwards raised some nasty allegations about Halliburton Corp., the company Cheney once ran, Cheney angrily responded to the "false" charges. "If you go, for example, to FactCheck.com, an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton," he said.

But when people followed Cheney's instructions, they wound up at a site sponsored by administration antagonist George Soros. "Why we must not re-elect President Bush," the site blared. "President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values."

furthermore..

Gradually, people became aware of Cheney's mistake, and the White House transcript of the debate was annotated with the correct address. But, unfortunately for Cheney, FactCheck.org was not much more helpful than Soros in knocking down Edwards's charges.

Cheney "wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton," the Annenberg site wrote in a posting today. "In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right."

In your face, Dick!

Or rather, North Korea SAID that they had nukes, while Iraq said that they didn't and proved it through the inspections.. and Bush invaded Iraq. North Korea was on his axis of evil too, so it wasn't like he didn't know about it (nor did anyone else not notice an over-zealous dictator waving around nukes).

I feel Kerry is wrong on North Korean policy though, with tri-part talks.. Bush has a good point about keeping China and Russia in there. If you drop their most powerful bordering countries from the talks, how the hell are you going to pressure them?

Yes and yes.

Try renaming the tmp file.

Lost - so do I, that's why I asked in a post slightly above Colossal's. I was responding to Las.

I'm watching the debate right now and Bush mentioned right away that great progress is being made in Afghanistan because 10 million people registered to vote, "a phenominal statistic." My history professor mentioned this the other day - there are 9.8 million eligible voters in Afghanistan. Just guess how many actually registered.

They love voting so much that some of them registered twice! Freedom is awesome.

So he had experience before the eight hours that he was president? You still make no point..