Considering many single malt scotches have a peat moss flavor (which I enjoy), I will agree on the second, but not the first. I think it strange that people in this thread who are making fun of Folgers (which sells far more regular coffee than crystal coffee, by volume) are singing the praises of Sierra Nevada.

Having spent way too much time and money drinking beers from all around the world, Sierra Nevada's products have consistently failed to impress me. They seem to favor the formula used by far too many smaller breweries in the U.S.: take every style they want to make, add a crapton more hops to it, and pretend like they did something special. Substitute with dozens of other over-hopped beers, and most people cannot tell the difference. The same is true for Sam Adams, which is wretched stuff.

Now, other breweries, especially overseas, have a far greater variety of styles that are differentiated. Fuller's has an IPA, lots of hops, and a fine ESB but also offers a much better porter than Sierra Nevada. Felinfoel has an amazing session beer (at one point sold in the US as Thames Welsh Bitter). Aventinus Weizenbock, Paulaner Salvator, and many others offer more than Sierra Nevada.

I've had many a good cup made with Folgers coffee. It's not what I use, though. Maxwell House is where it is at (though their recent change away from Arabica means I don't drink it. It screwed it up. Call them and pressure them to change it back).

Nicely done.

This behavior needs to be encouraged.

The best of capitalism is forced sterilization? I didn't believe it when I heard it recently, but there does seem to be something to it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/11372-us-uk-taxpayers-funding-forced-sterilization-in-india
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/05/us-and-uk-foreign-aid-funds-mass.html

So, as they said in China just a short while back, when they fail to educate, they will have to take direct action?

She couldn't find a more worthy cause closer to home? Catastrophic issues facing local families in her own state?

It's pretty sad how people will sell out their country so cheaply, for a few extra bucks for their state.

I talk to YECs all the time. It sounds to me like you are not talking to YECs, though. Sounds like you are actually referring to plain old "stupid" people. There are lots of them, so it's not hard to run into them. People come out with those types of statements regarding your chances of salvation don't even understand their own scriptures. Part of that is because 99.999% of them haven't actually read them. They have absorbed snippets of them over the years, but lack understanding of what information they actually convey. If they did, they would be a lot more scared of making blanket statements like that.

I always find it shocking that people get into such arguments regarding the age of the earth. For the YECs, I don't see how God could care about how old they think the earth is. It's inconsequential. For those who believe that the earth is billions of years old, I don't see how they can take themselves seriously, or care about the result. After all, the number has changed too many times to be of actual interest to anyone (exception below), and it has less than zero bearing on anyone's life. Those who spend untold amounts of time speculating on its age have another agenda. There's where the conflict with YECs comes in.

Since there is nothing to gain from the knowledge itself, the attempt has other motives behind it. First, those who want to "prove" that there is no God, or that if there was one, it certainly isn't the one depicted in the Christian faith. Lots of these people were raised as Catholics or members of other very well organized churches. They were taught from dogma, rather than the Bible. When the dogma failed, their faith was lost (often early) and they feel the need to "liberate" everyone else from the "shackles" of faith. Two, the opportunist looking to get paid for useless research. Some are self-delusional regarding the usefulness of their activity, and come up with all sorts of justifications for being a non-productive member of society. Some are just obsessed hobbyists who have found a way to fund their hobby. Three, the political operative who seeks something to use as leverage against an interest opposed to his or her own. Their lack of faith is not militant, but some other issue puts them at odds with Judeo-Christian groups, such as abortion.

The reaction of some YECs and other religious groups to "unbiased" science is a direct result of some very biased people who try to use very questionable science to undermine the foundations of their faith.

I speak with stupid people of every persuasion all of the time. We all hear them on radio and TV frequently. The trick is to associate with smart people, no matter their opinions. If you try, you will find them. I have talked with very intelligent Jehovah's Witnesses (also dumb ones). I have talked with very intelligent Atheists (also extremely stupid ones). Add Jews, Catholics, Protestants of various denominations, Buddhists, and Muslims, in about the same proportions. The smartest ones have read more of their source materials, and not relied on regurgitation of something someone told them in conversation. This includes the smart Atheists, whose source material can actually be rife with bias. It, like the faith-based material, must be read carefully to see what it says, and what it doesn't, or can't or refuses to say.

As a side note, it is interesting to learn of the many things that are misunderstood by people reading the Bible, due to a lack of cultural context. People aren't aware of underlying issues that existed thousands of years ago in foreign lands. Paul's letters are spectacular for seeing these, as he was dealing with completely different groups of people, and many had very different "problems" in the early Christian Churches.

Ah! How clever.

Stage 1: We don't want you shooting pigeons, so we will harass and intimidate you with this handy dandy camera attached to a helicopter drone. We will use this to record and display to the public your activities on the land that you own or control.

Stage 2: Law enforcement officials advise us to stop, and attorneys representing you try to assert your private property expectation of privacy. You stop your pigeon shoot, and people start to leave your "event".

Stage 3: We launch anyway, since hey, we brought this cool toy all the way here. Might as well record you not breaking any laws on your own property. We will stop when we are good and ready.

Stage 4: You have foiled our fiendish plot by destroying our precious pigeon freedom fighter robot ally. However, since we carefully placed it *over a highway* (but we managed not to crash it ourselves, you must now forfeit your right to keep and bear arms. Oh, also: "We are already making plans for a considerably upscaled action in 2013." That's right, let's escalate the situation. No duty to retreat, right?

This is why the founding fathers enshrined weapon ownership in the Bill of Rights. 200-plus years ago, they recognized that tyrants would always seek to seize the weapons of the people.

I have a better idea. All drones are to be registered licensed with with the FAA. Before flying a drone outside of a non-approved training facility, a certain quantity of flying hours must be logged under supervision by a licensed professional. Before a craft is purchased, a background check and 7 day hold is required. A statement of intended use shall be recorded, and depending on jurisdiction, a local judge or sheriff shall have final say over the issuance of the permit for any specific craft. All air traffic rules must be obeyed. Hovering or flying along places of public transit (roadways, walkways, bike paths) is strictly prohibited, to lessen risk to those individuals traveling on said routes should the craft crash or lose control.

The drone may not be used to harass or intimidate another person. Such action will result in forfeiture of craft and license, as well as possible criminal charges and jail time, depending on intent. All transfers of craft shall be effected through a Federally-licensed aircraft dealer.

That's a start. But as various abuses of these craft by individuals with strange agendas continue, we will expand the laws covering the use of them, and certainly ban their ownership in certain communities altogether.

A "normal" account not only charges the percentage, but also auxiliary fees associated with all of your "rewards".

A Square account entails the merchant agreeing that all funds over $1000 received in a given week will be held for 30 days before being released to them. This is not something many people can do (give a processing company a 30 day loan). They have also only been around for a couple of years at most, and during that time they have accrued quite a few complaints. I am not saying it's a bad service. I am saying that it is a poor fit for many retail operators.

It seems to me that you might want to ask some of your local merchants how much of the money that they "collect" actually goes to the processor/card companies. This would be a better way of seeing the actual costs, rather than relying on your own calculations. Your calculations may be logical, but the statements the merchants get are not necessarily so. You are expecting honest dealings from an industry known for shenanigans.

It's called planning ahead. I certainly don't have to rush off to find an ATM branch. I carry cash with me. Now, perhaps you live in a dangerous area. In that case, I think you are smart to use the card instead. But trying to justify passing the costs of your convenience onto others (by contributing to the price increase) is misguided.

Ask people if they feel that adding 2.75% immediately to the cost of goods and services is desirable. Sales tax in NY is 8%. What do you think people would say to a proposal to raise it to 10.75%?

You getting cash back off the deal, or points, or whatever else is actually not even part of that 2.75%. That is included in other Merchant Account processing fees. If you look at the Merchant's statement, you will see them listed. People who use those cards are in effect forcing a discount from the Merchant. The sick part is that when Merchants sign up for these accounts, they are often not told by vendor that this will happen, even if they specifically ask for a list of any possible fees. After things don't add up the first few months, they call and complain. Then they are directed to the booklet "agreement" which details such things.

Except that this cost to the merchant increases over time, and the discount rate is a percentage of the price. So every expense reflected the the store owners price increases will also increase the processing costs, which will increase the price again. Better not to feed into that loop.

Technically, there is some cost resulting from going to the bank, but it pales in comparison with the processing fees of the card company for a small business. Especially retail (as opposed to service), where the price you are selling something for includes the cost of getting the product from a distributor. Your fee includes a "discount rate", often around 2.5%. So, $2000 in sales of goods that cost you $1200 to put on the shelf (I am being conservative, here) will cost you $50 at that rate. Worth a trip to the bank, I think.

Well, except that doing this does not come for free. The credit card companies pay for those points/miles by charging the merchant extra for that card in "processing fees". So in effect, you are taking a discount from the merchant. Now, I wouldn't feel *too* bad about taking that discount from, say, a big box store. They probably have very tailored agreements that minimize the processing fees.

However, when dealing with Mom & Pop, who started taking credit cards as a result of whiny people (not you, just whiny people who are out there) complaining, it can really add up. I'm sure we have all seen that person buying the half and half, or soda, or what have you, and whipping out the card, debit or credit. Yes, sometimes we are caught with no cash. But that should train us to carry it.

I try to pay cash for as much as possible. I try to deal with reputable places that will stand behind their products, of course, so that risks of using the cash are low. I am investing in the shop's maintenance of lower prices, and trying to cut out one of the many potential middle men. I believe that it is a practice to at least consider.

Wow. What have you been *reading*? My best guess is that you had some very "dynamic" professors while going to college. There is no addressing anything you have written, as your theory of a sudden reversal of the parties is so ingrained into your belief system it would take a crisis of faith to shake it.

I could point you to various biographies of the politicians of the time, and platforms adhered to by William Jennings Bryan vs. those of McKinley in the late 1800s to early 1900s, but it won't matter. As much as you decry others as being bigoted, well, you are free to use the public domain quote and turn it right back around.

Actually, they were Republicans, and became unelectable when Democrats in the South used various schemes to prevent such an occurrence. You didn't see any quantity of Black Democrats in office, either.

From Wikipedia:

"State legislatures reduced voting by blacks by passing more restrictive electoral and voter registration rules, amending constitutions to the same ends from 1890–1910, and passing Jim Crow laws to establish racial segregation and restrict labor rights, movement and organizing by blacks. The Democratic Party essentially dominated the "Solid South" until the 1960s."

and from the same article:

"During the Great Depression, many black voters switched allegiances from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, in support of the New Deal economic, social network, and work policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration"

The Democratic party has been able, to some extent, to scam a large percentage of the Black electorate into thinking that they are on their side, and that Republicans and Conservatives and the like are bigots. That smoke screen will last only so long, and labeling every Black person who happens to be running as a Republican a stooge or Uncle Tom or what have you will start to backfire.

There is nothing of truth in your half-baked assertions.

Edward G. Walker, Republican, 1866, Massachusetts, State Legislature
Charles L. Mitchell, Republican, 1866, Massachusetts, State Legislature
John Willis Menard, Republican, 1868, Louisiana, U.S. Congressman, denied a seat due to wrangling by racists, neither candidate seated
Hiram Rhoades Revels, Republican, 1870, Mississippi, U.S. Senator
Black delegates Robert B. Elliott, Joseph H. Rainey, and John R. Lynch deliver addresses at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, 1872
John R. Lynch, Republican, 1872, Mississippi, U.S. Congressman
Blanche K. Bruce, Republican, 1874, Mississippi, U.S. Senate
Crystal Bird Fauset, Democrat turned Republican, 1936, Pennsylvania, State Legislature. "In 1944, disappointed by the Democratic Party’s failure to advance civil rights, Fauset switched to the Republican Party", from http://www.blackpast.org/
J.C. Watts, Republican, 1994, Oklahoma, U.S. Congressman

There are actually quite a few others. Start your research here, maybe, and take a breather from Slashdot. Trust me, you aren't adding any value to the conversation anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress