It depends on the buyer....but a used car is generally cheaper than a new car in every aspect. Purchase price is lower, registration is less, and insurance will be less. If you can do basic maintenance yourself, like a changing an alternate, you can take care of most of the problems you will have. As long as you don't get a "lemon", in the long run you will save enough to cover a few larger problems that require a mechanic.

But if you are willing to get your hands dirty than you can still save money even if extra maintenance is required. I owned an '83 Toyota for 5 years. Bought it for $2,000 and dropped maybe $5,000 in tools and parts for maintenance and fun (a lot of things broke because I beat on the car). I re-built the front brakes, changed all the brake lines, replaced the alternator (twice), brake master cylinder, water pump, oil pump, engine hoses, dicked up the engine timing, new timing chain & sprockets, engine gaskets (including head gasket), new rear suspension arms, springs, suspension bushings, and repainted the oil pan and timing cover myself. There are dozens of other things but nevertheless $7,000 across 5 years is still less than half of what my wife's brand new Honda cost (at purchase). The funny thing is before I had bought that car I had never even changed my own oil before and didn't even own a tool box, so if I can do all that anyone can given they are willing to invest some of their time.

It was only $23 dollars/year to register and only needed liability insurance because it wasn't worth insuring the car. A bit of an extreme case maybe... someone could find something in between brand new and 30 years old that would save money in the long run. Especially if you don't have to take out a loan because $200-300/mo in car payments equals a lot of parts and/or labor.

So is that why the rich are taxed at higher rate....to dissuade people from becoming wealthy? Has that become socially undesirable?

Why are the only alternatives either to ban behavior you don't agree with or that they must pay more for the same service? Maybe people have different priorities and needs than you. Maybe it is best to allow people to find their own path, rather than be told like children what is best for themselves.

You do understand that it is already more expensive to buy a Hummer? It has a larger sticker price, it is subject to a federal gas guzzle tax during purchase, and because it has poor mileage it costs more per mile. Let us not forget that registration and insurance are also probably more expensive as well. So it is ALREADY more expensive to own a hummer. The people who drive them are the people who are willing to pay more. The problem is that everyone else wont be happy until they are off the road, increased fuel taxes are just an excuse to justify one point of view.

By your line of reasoning I think it is the people who buy new cars that are really environmentally irresponsible. There are plenty of used cars that would meet most peoples needs. Why buy a brand new car that requires so many resources to not only build but also develop. I mean think about the thousands of people that commute to work everyday to develop that vehicle. Keeping the lights and computers on for years, moving and assembling the raw materials and tooling, shipping the assembled vehicle across the country/globe. Just so you can get that new car smell, how fucking selfish. I think there should be a significant "new car tax" to dissuade this behavior, otherwise we may be forced to ban purchasing of new vehicles.

It can be done on an LCD TV, as there are commercially available pattern retarders that can be bonded on to an LCD that will alternatively circularly polarize each row of pixels. However, the process is expensive and it cuts the 3D vertical resolution in half. Nevertheless, the result is passive 3D with an OK viewing envelop.

Google xpol for more information

I don't agree, raising taxes will just exacerbate the problem. Not because it wouldn't balance the budget, but because it just 'enables' more of the same behavior. Federal spending is out of control because the federal government is out of control. The federal government has taken on far more than was ever intended when the country was established.

The federal government as essentially usurped power that should have been reserved to the states. Our financial problems are fundamentally due to size of government (spending) and not insufficient revenue (taxation). As a conservative I understand the need for taxation but it is the size and number of services that I take issue with and therefore don't want to pay the additional taxes required to support those programs.

Damaging to the local retail economy maybe, but I am guessing businesses that offer a local service are doing OK. Also, if partial taxation is damaging to the economy why is the answer more taxation, why not consider dropping the required taxation from local stores so they can compete fairly?

Are you talking at a federal level or a state level, because as of 2010 just over 60% of the federal budget is comprised of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Unemployment/Welfare and interest on the debt. The rest covers defense and all the other shit most people think of when they think of federal programs (education, transportation, EPA, etc).

Government services have become a lot more expensive, SPECIFICALLY the welfare services which interestingly enough are usually required by those who have lesser incomes and therefore pay little or nothing in taxes. Personally, I would be happy with just paying to the state what I pay to the federal government and vice verse so I might actually see the benefit from my taxes./P

You need competency to do well no matter how you play, but you don't need to be skilled at 'frags' to win a round as support roles are equally rewarding. The first match in which I received an MVP ribbon I was 0:4 (K:D), not because I can't kill anyone but because I never fired my weapon. In fact half-way through the round I didn't even bother to draw my weapon, I just kept the 'defibs' out since I was reviving someone every couple of seconds.

In addition to police vehicles, it would be nice to know if I can stick them on politician's vehicles, judge's vehicles, and my neighbor's vehicle. I think if you really wanted to make waves you could argue that no one has any expectation of privacy in the air, so why not leave one of these devices in/on a commercial airplane. The possibilities are endless...I bet challenges would arise where people try to get a device on the most obscure vehicles possible (presidential limo anyone?), and then have them trackable via publicly accessible websites.

The GP specifically stated; You have to ask what is the purpose of taxes to begin with. If you think the propose of a tax is to change behavior then maybe he missed the point. But for those who see raising taxes as the means by which government services are supported then I don't think it is the GP who is missing the point.

If it is as necessary as you stated to eliminate HFT, then the government should have a legitimate means by which to stop the transactions. Since they don't have that authority the government just resorts to taxation which will give them either control and/or increased revenues (at end of the day they are one in the same). I believe Charlie Sheen would call this 'winning'.

Who are you to judge whether someone has earned their wealth or not? If it is ill-gotten gains then there should be legal recourse, if not then mind your fucking business (pun intended).

Also how the fuck do you figure that inheritance isn't earned? Do you understand what inheritance is? It represents the estate of someone who is deceased? For the majority of people their estate represents a LIFE TIME of work. Their will or testament indicates who they want their estate to pass to when (NOT IF) they die, it represents their last wishes after spending the better part of their life working. You want to shit all over their last wishes by giving most of their estate to the government (THE ACTUAL ENTITY THAT HASN'T FUCKING EARNED IT) and in that process nullify all their hard work. I suggest YOU think about this sort of thing.

I have been a member for about 6 years. My price has been going up slowly over that time for various reasons, but the recent jump due to streaming forced me to re-evaluate my monthly bill. To my surprise if I dropped streaming and blu-ray my monthly bill would almost be the same as when I first started (back before streaming or blu-ray).

That lead me to believe that their pricing has just been changed to reflect the cost of streaming, they took the initial approach of giving it away for free and now feel they have enough of a user base to start building a business. I can understand they are business and need to charge for the service they provide. So I reduced by DVD plan and kept the streaming plan so there was no monthly impact for me.

However, moving to two independent services is entirely different. As the email from the CEO stated by doing this they are breaking the integration between the DVD and Streaming services. As you stated it is now necessarily to manage both separately, meaning duplicated effort on two different websites. Not only does that waste the customers time it provides less incentive to use both systems. Integration is often what separates a good system from a great system, and that applies to many things we use in daily life and Netflix is no exception.

I can't believe that the Netflix team doesn't understand the value of integration, as much of their past work involved integrating both Steaming and DVD on the current website. I also know that the CEOs long term goal has always been online delivery (hence the name), so maybe this is that first step. But it sure doesn't feel like a step in the right direction, perhaps because the primary differentiator between Netflix and everyone else was the option for both streaming AND physical media in one service.

Really? I am not going to defend any particular political party, but wtf do you think more federal taxes is the solution? Why should I give a shit about educational problems in another state? Better yet, why should I have to PAY for education in another state? Why can't I just pay taxes to the state/city that I live in? How about the liberty to put my money where my mouth is, instead of someone just taking my money and then telling me to shut my mouth?

Why can't the people in South Dakota figure this out, why must it be a federal issue?

Really? Did you miss last week? You know where the US signed up for the single largest increase of the debt limit in it's history, and the debt surpassed the GDP, and our credit rating was derated for the first in US history.

So you think all that happened because we are 'pegged slightly to the right', you think that is what being slightly conservative looks like?

That is an interesting take, and it is also interesting that everyone responding to your comment was quick to address the efficacy of government spending. But have you ever stopped to ask yourself what is the real role of government, specifically the role of the federal government? I think for some people when they look at waste in government spending it goes beyond efficacy and is the fact that the overreaching federal government under takes projects it should have no authority over.

Well personal responsibility is hard. Performing a lot of research on different vehicles and evaluating the pro's and con's of different options and performance characteristics is a lot of work. It is a lot easier just to go to the dealership and buy whatever they say you will look good in. So I can see how someone might be surprised when the price of gas suddenly rises after they have purchased a gas guzzling vehicle, because that hasn’t ever really happened before.

Thank goodness there are people like you and the government to help me make decision I would otherwise have to make for myself.