taks

got mine two weeks ago. i try to keep it low, since i don't like giving the government an interest free loan. however, when you itemize, there's no hope of keeping it really low. particularly when you have a munchkin. taks

hate to tell you but by definition, social security is known as a pyramid scheme. funny how pyramid schemes are illegal for normal citizens to run, yet somehow a necessity for the government. get real. the "drain" is social security itself. it's a 14% tax on our payroll to pay for current retirees that don't have brains enough to save a few bucks while working. taks

funny, but how is paying for somebody else's "goods" all about taking what we want and giving nothing in return? why is your child's education my concern. why is your retirement my concern. why is your inability to work my concern? we aren't about "taking what you want," at all... we're about "doing for yourself." get that through your narrowminded view and maybe you'll have a better understanding of what it is that truly drives us. taks

it was used as a rather derogatory reference during WW2, though i do not know if it had origins prior to that. sometimes, racial/ethnic slurs lose their potency, and nobody cares anymore... other times, that is not the case. taks

okie... military dictatorship, btw. oh, and the elite in communist russia were really not all that wealthy. at least not by western standards. gorbachev lived in a two bedroom apartment... in just about any system, there will eventually be a division of wealth. the difference lies in the ability to be on one side of that dividing line or the other. in a socialist system, you're stuck. in a capitalist system, it may be hard to cross over, but it is always possible. taks

in your statement, you stated that it wasn't socialism, but a dictatorship. the two are not mutually exclusive. socialism is socio-economic policy, dictatorship refers to political policy. taks

i'd also like to see pigs fly, but there's no benefit to it, either. if history has proven anything, it is that socialist systems bankrupt themselves eventually. always. once you take the market out of any system, it begins to fail. every social system in the US is either failing, or has failed. let's look at the list... education: private schools spend half as much as public schools per student, yet manage to provide equal or better education. gov't mandated youth camps just plain don't work. health-care: the more gov't controls we put in place, the higher costs go. as it stands, the US is supporting many of the social democracies in the world with regards to healthcare. why do you think drugs are so much cheaper abroad? (hint: somebody has to pay research costs, and it isn't coming out of euro-pockets). medicare/medicaid: can you say "shambles?" social security: uh, duh. air travel: most of you don't remember, but the gov't used to regulate it heavily. back then, flights were ridiculously expensive. certainly, the industry is in a mess now, but that's mostly because the giants were all used to the gov't dole, and now the weaker companies are falling like mad (the upstarts, frontier, SW, etc. are doing well, btw). telephone service: same as the airlines. it used to cost a couple bucks a minute to call across town. infrastructure in general: the above two examples actually extend to nearly all utilities. water is a mess here (CO) due to a drought. market forces would normally drive prices up in order to curb demand. however, lil' ol' socialist policies that are in place keep the price down, and demand high. as a result, we have restrictions and my grass dies twice a year. summer and winter. the energy mess in CA is indicative of what happens when the gov't messes with electricity. socialism, even the so-called social democracy, looks good on paper. it doesn't work in practice simply because there is no way for a socialist economy to adjust for varying demand. even them there scandinavian countries will fail if they keep the government dole high. unemployment in europe puts the US situation to shame. double digits are the norm in most every socialist country. it's a failure, and those that don't recognize that will fail right along with it... taks

that has nothing to do with the mechanics of a socio-economic system. in capitalism, you have a choice. in socialism, you do not. period. the form of government is not a requirement in socialism, though some tyranny is helpful. as such, just about any socio-economic system can exist with just about any government. don't confuse the two. taks

it would take more than that... it needs an ideal situation, where consumers only demand what they need and all consumers would somehow magically need exactly the same things. the only way communism can succeed is if the law of supply and demand (present in any economic system) were to go away. taks

? what about traci lords? taks

hmm... here's an odd one that probably only seems odd to people like me (i understand why it works): PCS phones (CDMA) transmit their signals so that they arrive at the cell tower below the noise floor. taks

gotcha... i figured as much (i was being silly, of course). what you actually saw with the CRT, however, is beyond my expertise. photons, OTOH, actually are waves and particles simultaneously. light is a strange beast. photons are also massless, whereas electrons have measurable mass. taks

if this one isn't hype, i don't know what is... agenda driven article, maybe? just maybe? (yes, i read it)... given the author (well, study chair), Robert Watson, i'd say the report is rather suspect. he's about as reputable as michael mann. the earth is not a sphere. i had never considered a football shape, but maybe... taks

well, you can't really "see" the electrons... hehe... waaay too small taks

i believe you are referring to photons... the particle/wave theory of light is well documented. electrons are particles, and their apparent ability to exist in more than one place is not due to wave nature. it is due more to statistical probabilities, akin to schroedinger's cat. taks

why ain't none of your numbers prime? i like large primes. and saying ain't in a double negative contraction sort of way. taks

a clear demonstration of a lack of understanding of capitalism. not a surprise. capitalism works in every instance that it is implemented, failing only due to outside interference (typically government) which, by definition, makes it no longer capitalism. the reason game prices have stagnated over the years is that supply has far outstripped demand. 20 years ago, games were a little cheaper, but not in inflation adjusted dollars. however, 20 years ago, the only people that had computers used them for gaming (C64 had one purpose, as did the atari 2600). today, however, the industry (publishers and developers, etc.) somehow assumed that the exponential increase in PC purchases had a one-to-one correspondence with game purchasing. they assumed everybody that has a PC wants to buy games. as a result, thousands of little upstart developers (and publishers) sprung up offering a better mousetrap. as we have seen, this is not the case. most people that have a PC don't buy games. most of the better mousetraps, as well, aren't really any better, either. of course, everybody that has a console buys games, but there are literally hundreds of developers out there competing for marketshare. as a result of these things, margins have gotten slimmer and slimmer. the paradigm shift (imo) will come when publishers and developers start going to more online distribution methods, which will cut costs significantly allowing margins to creep back up. at least, i hope so... in the mean time, capitalism is working as expected, with weaker companies falling by the wayside (interplay, troika). if obsidian is not careful, it will suffer the same fate. taks

thugs in lighthouse: i've heard level 20, 25 for sure. orcs: i was killing them at level 10??? of course, only one at a time. taks

the 3rd, thief of fate, sucked bad. at least, it was not comparable to the 2nd on any level. coincidentally, it was not done by michael cranford, either. taks

i personally kind of like it. once you get used to the G2 controls, and gain some levels, it is actually quite fun to engage in combat. i have not encountered groups larger than about 2 or 3, however, and i've heard they are much more difficult. i'll get back to it shortly and find out first hand i suppose. taks

that's intentional in the beginning, kaftan. the controls increase in responsiveness as your skill increases. the game is designed to actually be difficult to manage early on, however, after 10th level or so, most controls are really fluid. taks

the difference is most notable from the far north (new england states) to the deep south (georgia, louisiana, alabama)... oddly, however, florida is not considered deep south as most of its residents are from somewhere else, 75% actually. either way, the differences there are mostly just accentual (word?). there's an actual language difference between american and english versions of english, not just accent. taks

"american" english is mostly just a different dialect of "english" english - e.g. there are literally hundreds of variants of indian or chinese, but they are all still referred to as their respective toungues. the biggest differences arose from the fact that we were several thousand miles removed from our original "mainland" (notably, england). of course, the fact that our language evolved from several hundred different languages didn't hurt, either (though primarily german, french, english and spanish). not my fault. i find it quite beautiful, actually. at one point, i could actually speak it. gone are those days... taks

noise... performed by various office gadgets. some sort of strange ringing in my ears, too. performed by my brain in a covert attempt to distract my thoughts with psychotic audio hallucinations. taks

what the sleepless dude said... taks