As the two people exited the elevator, they started to talk about kids and graduation, who was in college and who in high school, one mentioned that she still had a son in high school (iirc): "Why did i space out the kids like that? If i only knew then what i know now."
That much-obituaried Tea Party strikes again. Standing by for fustakrakich to scoff at attempts to oust the incumbent deadwood in 3. .
I was listening to LoTR in the car while going around town, and made some progress during a Sunday drive to Cleveland. Moving along, i finally finished, with just the Appendix left.
With the ring destroyed, the cheap mp3 player died, having served its purpose for less than five bucks, who can complain? But now i want more. I want to listen to more books in the car.
MP3 players abound and so do FM transmitters of varying quality. Some MP3 players are also FM transmitters (or is that the other way around?), but none seem to include the simple feature of remembering playback position automatically. Finding that in MP3 players alone seems to be hard enough.
So, it seemed to me i should purchase the mp3 player and transmitter separately. After some searching, i found the Sandisk Sansa Clip+ amongst their other players which has this sought after feature, and includes a nifty speed option. That can be gotten for $30 or so, especially if going refurbished (and not for the plus?), but then there's the transmitter cost and quality.
Some more searching found someone recommending to simply install a receiver to play MP3s, if the need is just for the car. Good idea. Amazon has a cheap player (or another) in which the comments express its cheapness but usefulness as an mp3 player. Some questions and comments mentioned the need of a harness. Another pointed to a cheap one on ebay.
And that is where i am right now. I wonder how hard is it to install a receiver and if this is a good idea.
A single DNA tweak leads to blond hair. Talk about dumb ideas. Maybe i can forget that, sort of.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0EJ-0019-00005
over 120 reviews i remeber using computers slower than this one but wow it sucks
When Congress threw ethanol producers a gigantic bone by expanding the Renewable Fuel Standard through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 by annually increasing the amount of ethanol that fuel refiners are required to blend into the nation's gasoline supply, they blithely made the crucial assumption that Americans' gasoline consumption would continue to increase indefinitely. Thanks to heightened fuel efficiency and slackened driving habits, however, Americans' demand for gasoline has actually decreased, meaning that refiners would have to blend gasoline with ethanol well above the E10 level that is considered safe for most of the older cars and trucks on the road today in order to comply properly.
The GOP can just take all its pious capitalistic talk and cram it someplace useful. Ethanol is to the GOP what all these crappy green energy and global warming scams are to Democrats.
What a pile of crap.
The charges are devastating, and there is plenty to back them up. And again, let's be abundantly clear: The Financial Times is accusing Thomas Piketty of dishonesty, of making up his arguments, of actively trying to mislead readers and actively trying to mischaracterize inequality trends. This mischaracterization leads to policy prescriptions on Piketty's part that are both entirely unrealistic in their design and implementation, and, more importantly, are wholly unsupported by the actual data on inequality . The main thrust of Thomas Piketty's book is entirely undermined, and his arguments and conclusions are annihilated. It is hard to imagine a more comprehensive refutation.
. .
The second thing we ought to note is that neither Giles, nor Giugliano, nor the Financial Times would have discovered that Piketty's books is fundamentally flawed if they listened to Paul Krugman, who famously said on his blog that "if you think you've found an obvious hole, empirical or logical, in Piketty, you're very probably wrong. He's done his homework!" Yes, that was a real statement by Paul Krugman, and yes, it ought to haunt him for the rest of his lifeâ"and beyond. We now know that it is more accurate to say that Piketty fudged his homework. I doubt that Krugman knew that Piketty's conclusions were pretty much made up out of thin air-if he did, there is truly something rotten in the state of economics-but the point is that Krugman tried his damnedest to ensure that no one would take a critical eye to Piketty's data and conclusions.
And this is the same parade of no-talent rodeo clowns that embrace anthropogenic global warming (or whatever the term of the week is), abortion, ObamaCare, and pretty much every other intellectual cock-up going today. May God require of these idiots their idiocy.
A failure will not appear until a unit has passed final inspection.
