kgambit

If the king is the only piece that can move, and it has no safe avenue of escape (ie it has no legal move), then only two situations exist: (1) the king is not currently in check it is a stalemate and is considered a draw, not a win; or (2) the king is under check (and no safe avenue of escape exists) in which case it is checkmate. If all the other pieces taken or locked with no possible move, there are no other variations possible (assuming it is the king's turn to move). I have no clue where the term Patt comes from - I couldn't find it any chess glossary.

Sadly Hoyer's done for the year - torn ACL. Not sure if it's an upgrade or stopgap, but the Browns can pick up Freeman for nothing now.

Yes, according to the wiki it's an unnamed detective – a Hearth Orlan cipher I'm going to withhold judgment on the class until I can see all of its abilities; on the surface it looks interesting though

Have a great time and good luck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3t7MAwaaM

You can choose not to own a car, but if you do you have to at least demonstrate that you have sufficient resources to cover costs of an accident. There is almost no way the average person can fulfill that requirement for health care. Plus you don't have a choice to avoid situations where you require health care. Illnesses happen even when you don't want them. Why should the rest of us be forced to pay for someone else's treatment when that person could have gotten coverage on their own? At the very least people should be forced to get catastrophic coverage. The legal wrangling over the commerce clause issues and taxes have been handled by the Supreme court. I don't like the decision, but I'm not qualified to speak on the legal issues, so I'm going to suck it up and live with it.

Graphene - 2D graphite http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/tech/innovation/graphene-quest-for-first-ever-2d-material/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

Every time oby posts, this keeps coming to mind http://www.moviesounds.com/redoct/crazyivan.mp3

About time we totally derailed this thread ........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOrRWw07F7k

With copious apologies to Jonathan Swift ..... I like children, yes I do .... boiled, broiled or in a stew You may now resume your regularly scheduled programming .......

Very nice summary. Thanks.

Ah ha, at last the true value of the prison in your stronghold is revealed!

My favourite comment is about this being consistent with the creationist historical view. Who knew creationism could be so sexy? LOL And dangerous too .... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/dinosaur-sex-study_n_2949464.html

Weather here is great. High 70s with a low in the mid-50's, sunny Meatloaf tonight with scalloped potatoes and some sort of veggie (not sure what we have) Tomorrow night we have to start tonight Chicken breasts marinade overnight with red wine vinegar / apple cider / honey / mustard then stuffed with mushrooms, carmelized apples, bing cherries and Fontina cheese Fresh spinach on the side

ROTFL Do we get to use the Loria model for ownership?

I need a fix .....

Except you'll have every team make the playoffs, and some teams will get bigger rosters and there will be interminable delays over whether to play night or day games. In the end, the players will just throw up their hands and go out and shag the cutest groupies they can find. Oh and the fans won't get refunds for the money they prepaid for game tickets.

Pretty freaking sad state of affairs if you ask me.

I can't decide who to root for now that the Rangers are out. You know I posted a guide for that! ROTFL Yeah and I read it and I still can't decide. Moore versus Lester for Sox / TB Colon versus Scherzer for Oak / Det Wainwright versus Burnett for St Louis / Pittsburgh Kershaw vs Medlen for LAD / Atl

Just finished my semi-annual dental exam and teeth cleaning. At least the dental assistant was cute.

The two party system has long been confrontational - I would much prefer a multiparty system that relied on coaltion to actually get something done on occasion without listening to the self aggrandizing monkeys we currently have. Maybe we should have some one-on-one faceoffs like Preston Brooks vs. Charles Sumner circa 1856. Just to make sure I'm clear on this - I am not against Universal Health Care. It's long overdue in the US. But so is controlling the cost of health care in this country. The sad truth is the Obama's Affordable care act achieves neither of those goals. An aside: @Guard Dog - The individual mandate on health insurance isn't that much different from the requirement that drivers maintain automobile insurance in order to operate a vehicle. AFAIK New Hampshire is the only state that does not have compulsory auto insurance liability laws, as of June 2010. Last time I checked it did have a personal financial responsibility laws in place. The major difference is that not everyone drives whereas everyone requires health care in some fashion even if it's only yearly check-ups or routine dental exams. As much as I disagree with it, the Supreme Courts decision has basically settle the issue on the individual mandate (for the present at least). So unless the house can repeal the law we're stuck with it. Sorry for the double post guys.

The last election was not a one issue election and this isn't just about the Republicans. The latest poll shows a clear majority (57%) of Americans are opposed to Obamacare. And if you track the history you will find that Obamacare has rarely had a popular majority supporting it and that's been clear from multiple polls even before Obama's re-election. So this isn't just a Republican thing. Check out the link below - it tracks the approval rating over the course of the last 4.5 years. Winning an election does not allow a government the right to say "Oh you voted for us now shut up for the next four years". Winning an election does not automatically disenfranchise the losing party from having it's voice heard. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html I really enjoy and appreciate your posts Kgambit but I think you missing my point. Obama is Obamacare and Obamacare is Obama. The two are inextricably linked. Obama's presidency will be defined by the failure or success of the new proposed healthcare system. IMO despite all the other important and relevant things he has done this is what will endure and what people will remember. No, I didn't miss your point Bruce. I just do not agree with it completely. I repeat my earlier premise that an election victory does not imply that the victors have a universal mandate to enact any legislation they see fit. 57% disapproval means that opposition is coming from more than just Republicans. Obama won In spite of the opposition to Obamacare - his victory was not an electorate mandate in support of it. As for history, it's a bit too early to judge him on that basis yet. Frankly I think he I going to be judged as an extremely weak and ineffective leader when all is said and done. If an overpriced piece of legislation that does little to curb costs and falls far short of providing its desired goal of universal health care is the singular crown jewel of his presidency then he is not going to be viewed favorably in the future. True, not to mention the average person doesn't actually know what the act does. Well since the "average" person is roughly half republican and half democrat that doesn't speak well for the electorate on either side now does it?

Sorry for the confusion. It is a fairly routine practice in the US to have yearly exams; not universal, but reasonably widespread. I totally agree with you about the lack of cost control on drugs in the US. Your system would work as well, but I don't see any difference in the end result. As long as patients are consistently given access to the cheaper alternative, costs should go down. I agree which was the whole point of posting that link. The last election was not a one issue election and this isn't just about the Republicans. The latest poll shows a clear majority (57%) of Americans are opposed to Obamacare. And if you track the history you will find that Obamacare has rarely had a popular majority supporting it and that's been clear from multiple polls even before Obama's re-election. So this isn't just a Republican thing. Check out the link below - it tracks the approval rating over the course of the last 4.5 years. Winning an election does not allow a government the right to say "Oh you voted for us now shut up for the next four years". Winning an election does not automatically disenfranchise the losing party from having it's voice heard. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

I think you grossly overestimate the amount of emergency room usage and the effect it has on health care costs. Estimates for the amount of un-reimbursed emergency room health care (the amount the feds pay the hospitals for treating people with no insurance) ranges between 1 and 4 billion dollars a year. Given that total US health care expenditures amounted to 2.7 Trillion dollars, those costs are a drop in the bucket. Even if the estimates are off by a factor of 10, that's still less than 1% of the total. The free market comment is valid however and it certainly does add a premium to costs across the board - by about 17% which is the net ROI that most pharmaceutical companies earn. Drug pricing differentials are not bull**** in the least. The problem is that this typically applies to brand name drugs and generics are not always available. The Lipitor example stood out for me because the quoted price of 124$ is actually higher than Pfizer's retail price for the drug (76$). Here's a link which talks about some of the pricing. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/10/us-usa-health-drugs-analysis-idUSBRE9490MH20130510 Most drug prescriptions in the US are written as generics. e.g. Coumadin is a brand name blood thinner. If a Rx is written for Coumadin, the pharmacists can automatically substitute a generic (Warfarin) unless the prescription is written solely for the brand name version or the patient demands the brand name. A couple of reasons I can think of why a doctor would not allow generics is if specific drug interactions could take place OR there was a specific side effect from a generic he wanted to avoid. Some of the problem in drug pricing is that some consumers do not have the benefit of price leveraging that is available thru mail order services like Caremark.