Depending on the day of the week, the US is -currently- either the #1 or the #2 producer of convention oil in the world. It's actually why oil prices have been crashing - we don't give a fuck about OPEC, and we're producing it as fast as we can frack it out of the ground. We produce, domestically, about half of the petroleum that we consume, and import half of the rest from Canada & Mexico and the rest from nations that arguably don't like us but love our dollars.

There is a CO2 sequestration, "Air Mining" operation that just opened up in San Antonio (which has pretty shitty air quality due to a variety of factors, not limited to the large number of very large quarries that are littered in and around the city). It will be interesting to see how that project goes and if it is long-term successful.

Agree in principle, but your representative counts are way, way off. The 435 limit was set in 1911 for the 63rd Congress, and followed that up in 1929 with the "Permanent Apportionment Act", because they couldn't get their shit together and fulfill one of their obligations (which was to properly re-apportion, including ADDING OR SUBTRACTING seats based on the census results). Kinda like today - you had members of Congress playing the anti-immigrant card as hard as they could, and in the process, really broke things for us a hundred years later.

Anyway, the US population after the 1910 census was a bit over 92 million (92,228,496) giving a population to representative of ~212k. If we were to maintain even a remotely similar representation, we would be looking at a HoR with ~1456 members, with the least populous state (Wyoming) having 2 representatives - which is, interestingly enough, directly in line with Madison's original Bill of Rights proposal for Article the First, which explicitly set the minimum number of reps per state at 2 after crossing the 30k per rep line, and setting 30k per rep as the hard line for the number of representatives in the HoR (which would have today's HoR be 10,300 and change)

Hell - I'd be okay with setting the reps per population to, on average, be roughly equivalent to smallest state population divided by 2, until such time as that's back up to, say, 350k, after which it becomes divisible by +1. That would mean that, should Wyoming's population reach 700k, we would, instead of dividing their population by 2 to get the population per rep (and the total number of reps from there). This would allow for the HoR to increase in membership still relatively infrequently, but unlikely to stay static for a century as it has, largely due to incompetence.

Except YOU ARE WRONG.

That was almost precisely the intention of the proponents of the New Jersey Plan prior to its combination, in modified form, with the Virginia Plan, also modified, to form the Great Compromise. The entire point of the Senate was to provide a check against large population state representation, and force the rest of the Congress to actually listen to the needs of the smaller states.

You, and everyone else bitching about the makeup of the US Congress and specifically the senate, need to go back and retake middle school civics.

The Senate, at the country's inception, WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE POPULARLY ELECTED.

You have a bicameral legislature - the House of Representatives, who's members are popularly elected by the residents of the states, and the Senate - who's membership was, until the horrific fuck up that is the 17th Amendment was passed shortly after the turn of the 20th century, selected by the legislatures of the states to represent their interests in crafting national law - and SPECIFICALLY to prevent large states, like California, New York, Florida, and Texas today; New York and Pennsylvania in 1789, from running roughshod over the interests and needs of the smaller states. So yes, the Senate makeup IS DELIBERATELY set up to fuck over the large population states, because they are able to fuck over the small states in the House of Representatives.

Welcome to basic civics.

If you want to fix the Senate, repeal the 17th.

The digital front in Portland, ME is about 110 miles south of you in Boston. Might be able to find something in Concord or Manchester (NH), but those are also pretty hefty commutes from Portland.

Honestly - if you can bootstrap it, start something up. Write apps, do SOMETHING in addition to pounding pavement. A year 'vacation' can be overlooked if you took the effort to keep your skills up to date, and can prove it.

Yes, really. You're not their target employee.

Former military enlistees getting out after the enlistment are their target demographic. That, or you get into a company on the commercial side and talk them into dealing with getting you a clearance so you can work on the good stuff.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, or trolling or whatever, BUT...

The Big Bang Theory (a theory of how the universe in its present state came into being) is not the same as the theory of abiogenesis (the theory of life arising from non-living matter)

Neither the Big Bang theory nor abiogenesis have anything do with the theory of evolution, as evolution has nothing to do with how life or the universe got started. It simply details how life develops once it exists. That you confuse these three theories, and apparently think that they are all the same theory, indicates to me that you really don't understand any of them.

The story of Darwin recanting his theory on his deathbed is false, and was made up by someone who was not even in the room when he passed away. Even if that story were true, that would be no reason to discard the theory, as evidence for it comes from many different sources, and not just from Charles Darwin. He was a scientist, not a prophet.

You don't know that God created man, in his image or not. Assuming there is a God, we could be an unintended by-product of the initial creation of the universe. You simply don't know, and can't know. That it says so in the Bible isn't enough. The contents Bible can't be proven to be true by it simply stating that it's true in those same contents.

I have no problem with you believing whatever you want if it makes you happy. Don't expect me to buy into it as well, though. I certainly don't expect you to believe all the things that I believe, and that includes evolution. It's just a pity that you can't hold on to your faith AND accept that there may be things that the Bible doesn't cover, and that evolution may be one of them. You might lead a happier life that way.

Not from me, no. I tend to heavily invest in things that I like, if I sense that the company or producer behind it appreciates me as a customer and not as a wallet. I buy books from and donate to webcomics I like, I buy games after playing demos (if I like the game, naturally), and when I really get into something, I'll buy associated works like posters, toys, etc. just to fling more cash their way.

I view it as positive reinforcement towards a company that displays correct behavior. I've got enough money that I can afford to support the things that I like, in the hopes that the companies that make those things will be encouraged to make more things that I like.

If i'm getting screwed somehow, then i'm pretty fucking happy about it.

That's because you're not getting screwed. You're getting made sweet, passionate love to :P

Which is actually kind of the point. Treat your customers well, and the will (on average) treat you well back.

Playing D&D isn't what makes you a cool dad (though it definitely helps). Interacting with your teenage son on a regular basis is what makes you a cool dad. Being involved in his life, and in his friend's lives, that's what makes you a cool dad. Congratulations, you cracked the code! :)

When I first saw that sketch, I just thought it was typical (meaning: very funny) Python humor. But I've had several instances of "laughing so hard I almost passed out" in my life, which makes me wonder if a "killing joke" is actually possible.

One such incident involved an intentional outtake from the movie Serenity. If you've seen those, then you likely know which one I mean. I was left gasping for breath and my vision was graying out before I started to recover.

Actually... that made me curious enough to check Wikipedia while writing this. There are, apparently, a few known deaths attributed to heart failure brought on by excessive laughing. So much for laughter being the best medicine!

As a US citizen, I also find these practices unacceptable. The current mentality of complete control by our government has gotten entirely too far out of hand in this country. I vote my conscience in every election, and I write letters and am as politically active as I can be while still holding down a job, but there's only so much I can do when so many of my fellow Americans are bound and determined to allow our own government to undermine everything that our country is supposed to stand for.

Actions like this by the EU are pretty much the last hope I have of something may give the US the wake up call that we so desperately need. Unfortunately, with the US's current extremely confrontational attitude, the only reaction that I can see is a bunch of angry griping about how the rest of the world just better shut up and stay out of our business. Still, I applaud the EU and anyone else that refuses to tow the US-mandated line.

This is pretty much =exactly= what I did.

I pointed out that this law will have a negative impact on millions of IT workers in the US, at a time when we can least afford to be fucking the one major industry that seems to be doing well.

I'm waiting on a response, but essentially told them that if they vote for this law, I will actively engage in getting them voted out of office.

Fuckers.

is Captain Mike Yates.

Seriously, though... a movie could be great, or it could be terrible, and I would be ok with either result. If it's good, then huzzah! I'll watch it and enjoy it. If it's terrible, then yay! We can ignore it as far as canon goes (like that terrible 80's thing... Paul McGann made a good Doctor, the Tardis set was awesome, the reinvented theme was ok... the rest sucked goat ass).

My big fear is that it will be kind of decent. Too good to ignore, but too bad to really energize the franchise.

But if this is going to be it's own continuity, then I guess do whatever you want, Hollywood. If I don't like it, I'll ignore it. Though, the influx of new Who fans who are only familiar with the movie(s) will be annoying to deal with. But that's life.