This misinterpretation of criticism as "shit[ting] on other people's art (figuratively)" is what leads to comments like OP's.

Real criticism isn't just taking a verbal dump on the piece and saying "I'd have been ashamed to admit creating it". It's saying why you'd be ashamed to admit you created it, explaining what's gone wrong with the piece.

This was just seagull criticism - OP swoops in from nowhere, shits all over everything, and disappears. Nobody knows why, nothing is improved by it, that's just how OP rolls.

While I would not buy a current Tesla, it may be possible in the next few years to buy a hybrid that meets my needs and costs less than 25k. ...

Teslas are PROVEN to be very good cars as long as the mileage constraint doesn't impact you.

... what the heck are you doing that you regularly need to travel more than 200 miles in a day?

Actually, it's 30 fires in under 150,000 vehicles - the 12 you're talking about are 12 that made it to consumer's hands. There were a total of 30 that caught fire due to this defect, but a lot of them were still owned by dealerships when it happened.

Actually, yes, it does have some electrolytes.

They were well do e ports, east to install and run, same price as windows games though not what we would call "new" releases.

That's exactly the problem - year old games don't sell systems.

Think about it in terms of consoles - people don't buy the PS3 or the Xbox360 because they wanted the console, they buy the console because there's a specific game they want to play. That's exactly the reason why the WiiU has done poorly so far; there's no system-selling games for it.

Basically, if Valve can release Linux-exclusive game (even if it's Linux-exclusive just for a little while) with wide appeal, it'll encourage a ton of people to actually install SteamOS or maybe buy a SteamBox. The problem is getting your foot in the door, and so far Linux hasn't had anything like that.

The worst part is that the Hastert rule isn't even a procedural trick; the Speaker for the House (currently, Boehner) has sole authority over what comes out on the floor. That's the procedural trick: Boehner doesn't want it to happen.

The Hastert rule itself is literally just something Hastert came up with in order to provide a vaguely plausible reason for fucking up other people's legislation when he felt like it. It's got almost no precedent, and there's literally zero reason to follow it; Hastert himself didn't.

That's because it's not in the Constitution, much like the Hastert rule which Boehner claims is causing the impasse. The difference is, the House holding the power of the purse is an old and established tradition, whereas the Hastert rule is just some crap that's been disowned by its namer.

Like a lot of government-in-practice, the House holding the purse strings is just something that's accrued over time. Budgets originate in the House. That's what they do, one of their major functions in modern American politics. It grants them a lever against the Senate and the Executive branch, either of which would otherwise outclass them.

The Senate could come up with their own budget and try to pass it, but that would simply never happen - no one in the House would ever vote for a budget that originated in the Senate, because it would be basically agreeing to let the Senate steal some power from them.

... if it had been a regular car, fire would have been the least of your worries.

That would be pro-business, and I'm always amazed it hasn't been promoted as such.

It wouldn't be pro-business; it would be pro-small business and pro-new business, but it wouldn't be pro-large business at all; after all, health care is one of the levers they use to press your nose to the grindstone.

Since it's made out of carbon nanotubes, there's also none blacker.

Personally, I like how people keep on referring to it as a "leak" - this particular report might not have been published yet, but usually only because it still needs revisions. The IPCC's actual published reports are freely available, and this one will end up there as well once they're sure it's right.

Once you have their trust, take them out Old Yeller style.

You mean like doing shots behind the barn?

... if you were to open an account stating with $4.50 then add a equivalent of $4.50 per day for the duration of a month (about $135 a month) every month, earning just 3% interest would give you about $38,457.00 in 18 years.

Soooo... where are you getting this mystical 3% interest account that can be opened with zero initial deposit?

Because in my experience, opening even a savings account with no initial deposit and no direct deposit means you're going to get charged *at least* $10/month in maintenance fees, and you're not getting anything even remotely like 3% per year.

The post-WWII period was really the first time in the last several centuries that women were expected to not have to bring income into the household. You probably don't realize that because most of the literature was written by the upper class, but women of the lower classes had to work for the family to get by.

These two are actually related - part of the reason why women in post-WWII middle class USA weren't expected to work is because the USA had suddenly become significantly more affluent, so the middle class started mimicking the upper class (like it always does when it can).

Seriously? Is it so difficult to imagine a device where you sit down, rest your elbows on a flat surface, then manipulate the hologram in front of you?

It would be like using a keyboard, except with a hologram where the keyboard is.