unixknight

Glad to hear it. The problem is it takes a LONG time to build such a facility, so its effect on fuel prices won't be felt for years.

Typically anything with sensitive circuitry is vulnerable to EMP. I don't think a 12V motor and solenoid would be vulnerable, so that would be good to go. A good rule of thumb is that if it contains transistors, it's vulnerable, especially anything with a microchip... Though nice big transistors have a better chance of surviving. So if you have an electronic ignition system, it's toast. Most (if not all) later carbureted engines also had computers controlling the carburetor, and those modules would be dead too. On the upside, if you know a thing or two about carburetors you can still get it to run, provided your ignition system still works. I used to have a 1987 Jeep Wrangler with a carburetor that had a computer controlled solenoid that would adjust the idle as it ran. For about the first two years I owned it, one of the wires controlling that solenoid had a short to ground and so the solenoid did absolutely nothing. Even in that state, I could drive it but it wouldn't idle without stalling.

(Sorry to nitpick... closer to 800 years.) I suspect that will be the case, if the stone façade can stand without the structure holding it up. The problem isn't just the wooden timbers, but the iron in the structure losing its strength from the heat. This is a loss for us too. I once heard a story in which one of the Apostles commented that one day (during the Millenium?) all such structures would be converted into Temples. This was always the one I pictured. I don't know if that story is true, but it was a comforting thought.

As of now they're still hoping to save parts of the structure, as well as artifacts form within.

Heh I dunno I kinda see a sort of dark humor to it that may have landed on the contemporary audience. Hopefully there's a lot of exaggeration, though I suspect it's not as much as we'd like...

Full disclosure: I'm not very thrilled about Abrams' Star Trek efforts either.

Maybe it's a bit of both. Isn't that what satire is all about?

I don't have all the answers, but a really great start would be to start getting Government out of healthcare, as @anatess2 suggests. And that tells you nothing about the state of healthcare where they're coming from? We already discussed why people would go from the U.S. to other places, which you used to defend the idea that the U.S. has a problem that single payer healthcare would fix. Yet we still see people going out of the country from places where there already is a single payer system. So why is that? "It's for sale" isn't an answer. I work next door to a shopping mall with hundreds of thousands of items for sale. That alone doesn't make me want to go buy even one. Such as? Incorrect. While the insurance companies may have a lot of influence over the medical options they'll cover, that doesn't outright force the parents into any particular treatment, or into no treatment at all. Don't you think you should, if you're going to defend the system that made that call? They can only say no to what they'll pay for, not to what the parents can do given other options. See above. I'm going to assume you've explored other options so I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting a few, but I find it hard to believe that an insurance company can legally withhold coverage for a condition that is life threatening. Still, it's a symptom of our public perception of what insurance companies do that this is viewed as them having power. Are you aware of state funded healthcare options that provide for those who can't afford it on their own? Since we're using personal experiences, when I was a young man with a new, pregnant wife, I wasn't working at the kind of job that offered health insurance. So, we went through the state, which funded an HMO plan for those who were unable to pay for their healthcare. Thus, the birth of my first child was covered, as was all the prenatal care and postnatal care for both mother and child. Not even a life threatening situation, and still all was covered. Later, when I was able to cover health insurance through my job, I was able to take over. Start by pulling the Government out.

Now THAT is something I'd go see in the theater.

One of the things that kinda ruins it for me is knowing that the story we've seen wasn't planned out in a unified narrative. One of the things that made Babylon 5 such a great show was that the entire story was mapped out ahead of time, so it really felt like it was working intelligently toward something. Battlestar Galactica was ruined for me when I learned that it wasn't. All they knew was how it would end, but none of the details along the way. So I don't have the same desire to see how it ends, because I know it to be completely arbitrary. I mean, I assume I'll watch it eventually. I just won't go see it in the theater, nor will I pay for the Disney streaming service they're coming out with.

As a direct descendant of West Virginian stock (on my mom's side), I feel I must respond to this. I'll be calling my cousins down off the mountain.

I have no plans to see it in the theater. If my daughter asks to be taken to it, my wife, @Dollfacekilla has offered. Maybe it'll be good. Maybe. Problem is Episode 7 only looks good when compared to 8. It still wan't a great movie, and now here's the same director who made that one back to do it again, only with his vision all screwed up and broken by Rian "Subverting Expectations" Johnson. I'd rather watch Episode 1 in an all-day loop than to pay to go see one more Disney Star Wars movie. **SPOILERS** As for the trailer... yeah, it's Jedi porn followed by some images and audio that seem to be aimed at going back to the Original Trilogy well yet again. "Come see it, you older guys! Look, Billy Dee Williams is back! Look, we're robbing the Emperor's Grave to convince you that there'll be something worth seeing in this film! DIDJA NOTICE THE WRECKAGE OF THE DEATH STAR IN THE BACKGROUND??? DON'T YA WANNA KNOW HOW IT GOT THERE?!?!?!?!?!?" No, Disney. I really don't care to know. Thus far you have not failed to take a steaming dump on just about every single element of the Original Trilogy that you've used to bait me into your garbage Star Wars films. You killed Han Solo in the most anticlimactic and predictable sci-fantasy death since Kirk got a bridge dropped on him. You turned Leia into Mary Poppins, you spaced Ackbar, you turned Lando Calrissian into a robosexual, and you turned the greatest sci-fantasy character of all time into a bitter, crusty old hermit and then killed him in an apparent crowning moment of awesome that turned out to be entirely illusory. So no, Disney, I'm not the least little bit interested in what you plan to do with the old Death Star, Luke's Voice, Lando or Palpatine. If that really is a hunk of the Death Star, why don't you just take it and cram it where the sun don't shine.

Finally got the bike out of the shed and ready to go. I think I may add some grease but it's okay for now. Since it was kept out of the weather all it needed was some air in the tires. My bike rack wasn't in there, and I think it's in the basement… under a mountain of clutter. Ugh...

Over the weekend we got the family bikes out of the shed and got 'em ready. Though we did decide to get new bikes for the kids. They'd outgrown the old ones.

Of particular note is item #1... Losing refineries is HIGE, because the U.S. hasn't build a new oil refinery since the '70s. This is a problem.

For an individual, the only objective, non-spiritual answer is: For any individual, to do otherwise would create social difficulties that would result in a net loss. I agree with the sentiments here, but it's important to keep in mind that these are subjective reasons. 1) is subjective. Ethics imposes its own rules that some find to be a burden. 2) is also subjective on its face. 3) is only relevant to the religious, in which case it answers the question on its own. I think this question is readily answerable from a religious standpoint, and utterly unanswerable from a secular standpoint. The best one can do from a secular perspective is to talk about a vague notion about the benefit to humanity as a whole of having a system of ethics, but it says nothing at all about the individual.

-Machiavelli,"The Prince" (sort of) His actual quote was more along the lines of it being better to have both, but if it must be one or the other, it is better to be feared. Worth noting is a very convincing view that "The Prince" was meant to be satire.

Fixed 😊

Know what I learned the other day? Alligators can climb trees. That is not a joke.

The hair-splitting in this thread is getting aggravating. It really is.

Well yeah that too, but IIRC that was the second of the 3 incidents. I might be remembering wrong though.

Good starting point, but if I were going to tweak them I'd say: Don’t compare yourself to other people except when picking a good role model Work with & around the imperfection in yourself and others. See vulnerability as a strength if you know how to make the most of it. Don't let self-doubt stop you from reaching your goals, but be realistic about your capacity. Don't overthink everything, but know how to consider a problem with due dilligence Take on tough challenges. (I'd merge this with 4.) Every once in a while, break the right rules, in the right way. Don't put others down to lift yourself up. Ever. Recognize that you have infinite potential, but work to make the most utility of it. Accept responsibility for failure, without focusing on blame. Speak up, but know when is the time and place. Go ahead and reinvent yourself but keep the good parts. Own your success but don't let it go to your head..

I don't know too many conservatives who sing the praises of Trump as a "good guy." Good President, yes. Would I want to leave him alone with my 19-year-old daughter? No. The reason you'll see conservatives wanting to go after Al Franken is because we too see a double standard. What Trump has done is really prettymuch par for the course when it comes to powerful people in general, but people who hate Trump (whether liberal or neverTrump conservatives) make a huge deal out of his behavior but Al Franken (or whoever else in politics with a (D) after their name) gets a solid "meh." Why did Anthony Weiner get nailed to the wall? Because you can make a solid argument that he cost Clinton the election.

These links don't say what you seem to think they say, my friend. Think link says the U.S. ranks last... in a survey of 6 countries. (Spoiler alert: There are 195 countries on Earth.) It goes on to say "While sicker patients in all countries reported safety risks, poor care coordination, and inadequate chronic care treatment, with no country deemed best or worst overall, the United States stood out for high error rates, inefficient coordination of care, and high out-of-pocket costs resulting in forgone care." So if you're saying "according to a survey the U.S. is more error prone than 5 other countries out of a pool of 195." Then... okay sure. This article isn't much better. The Atlantic leans heavy lefty and that bias is evident in its own text. It too takes a pool of just enough countries (11 in this case) to rank the U.S. last, but is at least honest enough to admit that "And notably, both the U.K. and U.S. ranked low on the "Healthy lives" scale, which considers infant mortality, healthy life expectancy at age 60, and mortality from preventable conditions, such as high blood pressure." even as it sings the praises of the UK which it ranks first. Of course, The Atlantic attributes problems in U.S. healthcare to its lack of a single payer system, but fails to explain exactly why that is, nor does it account for the UK's performance in certain areas as mentioned above. This article doesn't prove your point either, and it answers the question you asked me. 'Thakrar and his team suggest America's higher mortality rates are linked to its "persistently high poverty rates, poor educational outcomes, and a relatively weak social safety net."' There. That's how we account for it. The metric I'm using is a history of medical innovation, technology, research and pharmaceuticals. I do agree that our system needs improvement, and we can certainly have a conversation about the areas that need attention (like cost being chief among them) and how to address those, but I do not agree that giving Government control over healthcare is the solution. Yeah, and look at the reason why people do that. From your link: "The reason more Americans have become medical tourists is simply that they are seeking less expensive health care." We agree that healthcare in the U.S. is expensive. Your article goes on to say "The primary concern of Americans considering medical and surgical treatment in hospitals and clinics outside the United States is the quality of the care.... Many overseas hospitals are staffed in part by physicians and other health professionals who were trained in US hospitals. One hospital in India has 200 US-trained board-certified surgeons." So even if people are seeking better care, they're still getting it from doctors who were trained in the U.S. but what the article doesn't mention is that people also often go elsewhere to get treatments and procedures that are not approved by the FDA, and so couldn't be had in the U.S. at all. Ask yourself this: If healthcare quality is so amazing in places like the UK, why would British citizens ever come here for treatment, even having to pay huge out of pocket costs for it? How do you account for those 100,000? I don't know what that means. The article you provided above points out that medical care in other countries is becoming big business. From your article again: "Given the magnitude of income from medical tourism, it is not surprising that a number of cities and countries actively solicit medical tourism. Some examples are Dubai, Singapore, and Malaysia." It goes on to discuss how the total cost of these trips is still cheaper than the same treatment in the U.S., so it goes back to being a matter of cost, not necessarily quality. If the single payer system is so great, why would people need private insurance? Is the Government system not enough? (Funny, seems like I've heard that before somewhere...) Your links have not adequately supported these conclusions. Good to know. Let's talk solutions to those problems. That said, quality of healthcare is in how you use the technology, not where it comes from. You misunderstood what I was saying. The higher taxes I'm referring to are the ones in the countries with the single payer system. So the doctors are empowered to make decisions for the child's care, and not the parents? If the parents wanted to try, and there was a doctor willing to try, why do the UK docs and the UK courts get to say no? This is what happens when you give Government all the power. And why wasn't it worth trying the experimental treatment? (Assuming he didn't just wake up that morning and think of it, then yes.. I count that as being in place.) Nobody in the United States dies from a lack of medical care. Even before Obamacare came along, Medicaid and Medicare meant that, by law, anyone could get treated at a hospital if they couldn't afford to pay for it and it would be subsidized by the state. Yes, being able to afford better care meant having access to more options, but the idea the people (including children) were just dying because they couldn't afford a hospital is untrue. These issues are addressed above. That isn't what your links showed. Falling behind I'll grant you, but that is an issue we can address without giving it all to a Government... because when you give Government the responsibility for something, you also have to give it a lot of power. Not a good idea.

Then what's the relevance? Sure, but haven't you noticed how often a group of conservatives discuss immoral behavior, and somebody trots out Trump's antics as if somehow they're always relevant? Has there been a new development in Trump's personal life that merits discussing it again?