Also, many brick-and-mortar merchants encode whether a price has been marked down or not in the final digit. X.99 may represent a normal price, and X.98 or X.97 may represent a temporary sale price or a final markdown, usually to clue the register operator that other coupons or discounts may not apply. Most shoppers don't even notice, but the staff can tell.

Because that was the law under which the sensitive information was collected. The average US life expectancy in 1935 was 61.7 years, so 72 years would mean that the privacy issues would be moot for most of the folks enumerated in the Census -- they weren't expected to be around to complain 72 years later. The laws that established the Census go way back -- I don't know when the 72 years criterion was established. Life expectancy was even shorter the farther back you go.

Every US-issued bill in my leather wallet contains this statement: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE", over the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury. It doesn't mention any exclusions for second hand sales.

They meant to say "...for sufficiently large values of instantly"

Curiously enough, Ann Arbor is in Michigan, not Wisconsin. Wisconsin is sorta near Michigan, though...

The actual, functional process that USED to be followed for many years is as follows. Assume for definiteness that we are planning for the FY2011 budget which covers the period from Oct 1, 2010 through Sept 30, 2011.

By Law, the president must prepare and submit his proposed budget by integrating and prioritizing inputs from all the cabinet agencies. He starts this in Sept-Dec of 2009, and sends it to Congress in Jan 2010.

Congress receives the President's budget proposal, then holds lots of hearings to review, adjust and agree on an overall budget. They pass the resulting budget resolution, sometime in late spring or summer of 2010. This establishes the levels of money that agencies can plan for. They are now 1/3 of the way done. No money can be spent yet.

For discretionary programs (not entitlements) Congress then passes legislation authorizing expenditures for various programs up to the agreed budget limits, providing the legal basis for the Government to spend the Public treasure. They must then pass appropriations bills (usually about 20, separated out by Agency, such as DoD, Interior, etc.). The appropriation (which can be less than the authorization amount) actually gives the money to the Agency to spend. This is supposed to happen in Aug or Sept of 2010, so that the funds have been budgeted, authorized, and appropriated in advance of the start of the 2011 FY on Oct 1, 2010.

I left out the parts about reconciliation between House and Senate versions, Presidential vetoes, and other gotchas, but the process is specified by Public Law passed in 1921, and has been mostly followed for most of our modern history. The continuing resolution is supposed to be an emergency measure only used for short periods when some emergency delays the completion of the process by the Oct 1 start date of a FY.

The current mess we are suffering through now regarding FY 2011 spending is the result of the complete abdication by the Democrats in control at the time, of the fundamental requirements of our federal government expenditure system. This began in early 2010 and continued throughout the campaign season, out of Democratic fear of public scrutiny of their spending plans in advance of the Nov 2010 elections. Shameful.

You are absolutely correct. I would love to see the proponents of solar and wind "solutions" provide a quantitative model showing how they would be able to provide a large fraction of total US electrical capacity -- say 50% or even 25%, and what it would cost, including transmission infrastructure.

Worse yet, the NIMBYs block almost every project to erect even simple power distribution trunk lines.

In the real world, it is necessary to choose among the feasible solutions that offer the best benefit-cost prospects. None is without risks, including all the fossil, nuclear, and "green" technologies. It is completely irresponsible to simply say "we shouldn't do nuclear, because it's dangerous". The real problem for nuclear is that only a tiny fraction of the populace understands the physics of nuclear power, and even fewer understand the engineering that controls it, but everybody reacts to the hysteria and fear that is propagated by the media.

Liquid hydrogen has a very high energy density - makes for light weight and long endurance in an aircraft. That's also why it's a great rocket fuel.

Except for all those green plants that prodigiously convert it into carbon compounds and return oxygen back to the air....

I agree. When you view the video, you see that there is no characteristic rocket exhaust plume, which would be extremely bright. There appears to be sunlight reflecting directly from the underside of the object, but not the extended roman candle effect you see from rocket motors. Nor is it accelerating rapidly as it would if it were a solid fueled missile -- the velocity is pretty slow and constant. Just because the helicopter reporter called it a missile doesn't make it one.

You are right on the money. Despite the noble intentions, this expensive experiment will not turn out well.

Me too. Discovered it during a grad course in numerical analysis. With the CRC Handbook in one hand and the HBMF in the other, you had a great deal of summarized practical math at your disposal. Throw in Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN (later released in C) -- icing on the cake.