Grrr.

Sure if thing A is inexpensive, then thing B which costs a fraction of that price might indeed be said to cost X times less. Implying that thing A is already less than some other option, and thing B is even MORE less.

But if thing A is very expensive (as in the example cited in TFA), thing B would be better described as being not a hundred times less ... but one hundredth the cost.

If you haven't known Christ, you haven't known liberty. Would that you knew what you're missing.

Your non-command of simple explanations is my fault? Well, lop off my head and call me a journalist!

More like "The North Remembers!".

"Direfox! King in the North!"

vs

"Steve Ballmer sends his regards"

Opera did the same thing. I still like Opera 12.x. But I prefer Chrome to the newer, Chromium based, versions of Opera. And the problem is that Opera 12.x is doomed in the long run.

They have? I haven't gotten any free books. I think you're making shit up.

All the goggles are accomplishing is wrapping an image around your face. Until touch, movement, smell, and sound are also adequately reproduced, it's not virtual reality anymore than the Hard Drivin' arcade machine from the 90s was. And replication of those elements are not coming in our life time; likely won't come until we've figured out a way to trick the brain into doing the work for us.

Also -- holy shit, the pink eye this is going to cause. Gross.

. . .stay for the Bond Villain who, knowing what he's up against, reads "Dorsai!" and comes with a completely off the grid attack.

Liberty is only hell to the carefully indoctrinated Commie sheeple. For those with a knowledge of History and Economics there never was any hell. You whinge on about ME spewing memes, and look at you in all your glory, splendid one.

I would that it was not your job to offer ersatz Zen.

Was that your "just randomize it" call? I never understood in what way it was "better".

You privilege yourself with flair and panache, sir.

Oh, that my gruel were half as grueling as yours, sir!

So, let's see ... the administration publishes a written interpretation of a law they don't like, and you think it's crazy to report that fact?

Obviously it's nothing new for the Obama administration to simply ignore statutory requirements (see his unilateral re-writing of features of the ACA entirely for political expediency), and this is simply another case of it. But what's interesting is that you are obviously either ignorant of their specific language in the new "interpretation" of the law in question, or you're well aware of the implications and are just doing your best to wish it away through childish ad hominem. Classic lefty sycophantism. Or, I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt, and tell you to go read their published intention to twist the law into an implementation that is 180 degrees opposite to its plain, so you can come back here and argue the details instead of stamping your feet like an eight year old girl.

Indeed, every heart beats its last. Therefore, the path taken between conception and demise is the interesting part.

And I replied by showing you the previous procedure by which strategy moves from public to private, which seemed to stagger along semi-coherently until this Administration.

OK, ya got me. Nothing 'exists'. It's all so much illusion. Closer to the truth (without touching it) I am a leprechaun seated on the back of a unicorn that is currently grazing about in the pleasant fields of Atlantis, strummin' me magic harp, which produces this post via the WAIWMTCWTBW (Why Am I Wasting My Time Conversing With This Brick Wall) protocol.

I've tried to talk you out of an authoritarian hell, but, hey: Progress!

OK, so you're playing the "All have sinned, and come short of he glory of God" card. And you're dissatisfied with my efforts at improving the situation. Sure. And you're privileged such that you don't have to offer anything other that bits of ersatz Zen in response. You're kind of a yawn, you know?