What is the difference? They still shoot the same. They still have capability to kill. I have even seen some semi-auto rifles that are pink and have "Hello Kitty" on them. Does that make them less threatening, or less dangerous?

I'm willing to bet you don't even know what an assault rifle is. Further, I'm also willing to bet that you're going to go look it up now and quickly realize the likelihood of being killed by someone with an assault rifle (unless you're an active criminal) is far smaller than with any other normal non-automatic weapon. Why the focus on an assault rifle? Or did you really just mean to say "any threatening-looking style of fire-arm"?

It's just "Ukraine" not "the Ukraine." (Perhaps you're thinking of "the U.K.")

What? I call bullshit. I used to be a Patent Paralegal for a prominent computer company. You can do a LOT of litigation for $50,000. So unless they are asking for an amount more than that, it's just a nuisance and that's why many of these companies have settled. And you most certainly can try to counter-sue.

Here's what a patent troll does: They go around to smaller and foreign companies, hitting them with some scary patent that *looks* like some basic technology they've been using, and threatens to sue --- or we could settle for $23,000 + future licensing fees and royalties.

The troll goes around long enough to endow their war chest, and then they go after a really big company. Which, by then, they're a little harder to defeat -- but not impossible. Just opt for litigating, then call a patent buster, and they're done. Most tech companies already have a legal team with intellectual property divisions just for this exact scenario.

Apparently my sarcasm parser was not enabled when I read your original post.

*click*

Oh.

Ok, here you go.

#1 This administration has yet to pass a budget in 4 years. I had a great job working for the government. Directly due to this, I was told that my contracting company (the people I worked for) could not get funding to continue the contract, and so I was essentially laid off. Not only that, but no new contracts could be funded, so it made it very difficult to get work elsewhere, and dumped a lot of competition in my field. I did finally get another job, but it was for about $23,000 less. Thanks Obama.

#2 We had a child last year. I work, and my wife works. My wife gets free insurance, but adding another dependent would be $550/mo. I also got free insurance, and adding to mine would be about $420/mo. I have a friend who sells insurance, and I know I can get a better rate just getting a single policy for my son that way for about $280/mo, same level of coverage. However, he couldn't sell it to me --- due to the Obamacare laws, health insurance providers cannot sell just a single policy to a child (crazy, isn't it?) -- they must sell it to at least one parent and child. So, I thought, well, I'll just get a high-deductible plan for me, and the really good plan for him. But nope, due to Obamacare laws, the coverage has to be identical. So, thank you Obama, I'm spending more than is necessary now -- just for insurance.

#3 Due to the housing crisis (which is not Obama's fault), our house is now worth about $40,000 less than what we purchased it in 2008. So it has been this way for 4 years now, and gets worth less every year for some reason. Now, under normal circumstances, the industry would crash, and then rebuild, and the market should boom, or at least come back to where we bought. But no, Obama has had a plethora of life-support stimulus programs sustaining what should have completely failed and recovered already -- which has kept the price of housing artificially low. I can't even refinance now because the house is worth so much less. Just do something different Obama, this is killing us.

#4 Of course, my wife and I still are in the highest tax bracket, we don't qualify for or take any government subsidies, and somehow even though my income went down, our income taxes went up last year -- just paid a nice tax bill (even after having reduced bill with a house and a kid and taking more out of paycheck for taxes) -- $820.

I'm sure I can think of more, but I really don't feel like getting more pissed off right now. And I don't really think you care anyway.

Sure. And Obama had both the House and Senate for the first two years, he could have passed almost anything he wanted. The only reason that the healthcare bill almost didn't pass is because they didn't have enough Democrats to pass it!

Let's see, the film caused unrest... do you actually know anyone who saw the film? That was a complete fabrication that the White House made and that has been substantiated by several news stories already (Washington Post). Not only that it wasn't the films, but that the White House KNEW it wasn't the films and covered it up for 2 weeks, and that they were given prior knowledge that this attack was going to happen and did nothing. That is a fact.

Economy.... do you think 4 years should be enough time (especially with a House and Senate on your side) to turn the economy around? I do. Two should be ample.

The banks... oky, you're uninformed here. The banks were regulated into having to create bad loans -- that they knew were bad loans at the time -- and then bundled and resold to other financial institutions, all started under Clinton. Now, I'm not saying Clinton was the cause per se, but that's where it started. The Republicans (specifically Bush) actually pointed out the problem with the banks (and the housing) (same problem), but could not get the rules changed/de-regulated. Thus, voila, the house-of-cards collapses eventually 8 years later, as it did.

The thing is, the President IS accountable for all these things, because it is his responsibility to appoint the right people to get these things done. This president has proven himself to be ineffective at it. You could argue that Bush was ineffective at some of those same things, and I'd agree. But that was then, this is now.

Hey, there was an outcry against it. I VOTED for Bush, and I was completely against the stimulus spending toward the end of his administration. But what gives Obama the right to do it 10X more?

Now hold on a minute. You're making quite a leap here. You're assuming that all members of a party collectively believe those things that you just listed. I don't. You're equating conservatism to Republicans, and it just isn't so true. I just also happen to not believe in the redistribution of wealth, the insertion of government into private sector business, the sheer crazy number of executive orders the administration has issued (to maneuver around the legislative branch), the uncontrolled spending, the blocking of mining and export our own fossil fuels, the prosecution of enemy combatants as US civilians, not to mention the way Fast and Furious and the Libya debacle have been handled. Lastly, I believe there is sufficient evidence that the man is a racist and has worked harder to divide our country than he has to unify it. And that's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head. And when I think back 4 years ago, my life (financially) is not better now than it was back then, nor does it look like it will be, and I can cite several reasons why it is DIRECTLY his doing. No, sir, I'd vote for a bag of potato chips before I'd vote for the current administration again. At least a bag of chips can do no more harm.

Forgive me for asking a basic question, if it is one. Assuming these observations are indeed correct, does this make any part of the idea of an electric sun more plausible than the current model of the sun? If string theory seems more like physics than magic, then why is even the direction of the idea toward an electric sun absurd?

OK. You're being a little short-sighted. I can't run ProTools or Adobe Audition on any tablet. Or really even any laptop for that matter. Some work just takes a nice big honkin' PC that sometimes needs special hardware put inside. Or maybe I want to buy a brand-new PC with a really expensive top-end video card. Or maybe I found out that my powersupply just isn't large enough to power an i7 and the array of harddrives I need to put in it. Or maybe I want to switch out the storage system for something really off-the-wall.

As long as there are optional components, there will need to be PCs that accommodate those options, not necessarily for upgrading Ye Olde hardware. It's about customability.

Really, I think it's hype. I cannot ever see a time in the future I would buy a system that I cannot configure and upgrade. As long as there are high-performance games, there will always be a need for new graphics cards. As long as there is a need for speed increases, there will always be some new bus technology. I really am not worried for Newegg.

uhm... say! Do you eat eggs?

That's still proper punishment.

I'm replying to your sig. I love The Princess Bride.

Well, good day! Rest well and dream of large women.