No it’s not.
End of line

When I walked out of the theater I said, that’s Oscar worthy. It was not only superbly written and acted but also managed to be a great monster movie too. When a Godzilla movie makes me tear up, you know you’re on to something.

Did everyone forget we basically conducted a nuclear war in the Pacific Ocean from the late 40s to the 60s? The US alone denoted hundreds of bombs not to mention the Soviets and the French. I’m willing to bet the tritium from the Hydrogen bombs far exceeds what will come from Fukushima.

They had better be prepared for adjacent neighborhoods to be randomly set on fire.

I'm running El Capitan on a late 2008 MBP with no problems. After seven years of daily use this thing just keeps running. I think too much is made of these kind of announcements.

The difference is that the article frames the situation as taking money from someone and giving it directly to someone else, implicitly welfare when the truth is that the government is taking money and spending it on behalf of someone else. Quite frankly all government spending is on behalf of someone, DOT spending on behalf of travelers, DOE spending on behalf of students, etc. If you don't like the concept of government spending tax dollars on behalf of someone, you need to reexamine the concept of government.

These stories pop-up every year around tax time in order to rile people up about how much taxes they pay. They're passed around a repeated without critical comment and then disappear for another year. A better metric would be to examine the efficiency of our government vis-a-vis comparable developed governments. Is our government spending more efficient or less than Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and Japan? That's the real scandal.

The problem is the article conflates payments on behalf of individuals like medicare payments and payments to individuals. There's a difference.

Except that this fact isn't correct, which makes me wonder if anyone bothered to fact check the original article. The article states that 38.6% of 2.6 trillion is transfer payments in the form of medicare and medicaid, that's about 1 trillion for the mathematically challenged. That encompasses basically all medicare and medicaid outlays. The problem is medicare and medicaid outlays are not payments to individuals. For example 26% of medicare outlays are to hospitals, 23% to insurance companies for medicare advantage, 13% to physicians and so on. So the article is factually wrong, a fact that I think will be overlooked by everyone.

Well most statutes contain definitions of key terms, in fact this bill contains some definitions but not of this critical term. So you might define substantial reproduction of results as "results that have been reproduced at least ___% of the time by ____" That would take rid the bill of a considerable amount of ambiguity. And for the record yes I am a lawyer licensed in the not so great state of Tennessee.

On that point you're 100% wrong. In general the shorter and more vaguely written a law is, the easier it is to twist it into something completely unrecognizable. For example the bill prohibits regulations unless based on scientific and technical information that allows "substantial reproduction of results." So what does substantial reproduction of results means, if 50 studies reproduce the results and 10 studies do not, is that substantial? Who will decide? How many lawsuits will be filed over the definition of substantial reproduction. This law really is about stopping the EPA from regulating CO2 but if passed it would essentially prevent new environmental regulations by providing a sure fire basis for challenging any regulation in court. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

People will always disagree with each other. Learning how to work with those whom you disagree is a fundamental skill often lacking in American's today. Larger states would be able to better balance power vis-a-vie the federal government. Witness that Canada's federalism started off weak and grew stronger, while in the US federalism started off strong and grew weaker.

The US already has too many political subdivisions. We need to combine states into larger political entities (12-15 large states) rather than split the existing ones up.

Let's see the iMac was 1998, OSX Server 1999, the iBook 1999, OSX Developer Preview 2000, iPod 2001, Win-compatiable iPod 2004, then of course the transition to intel. There are plenty of things to criticize Jobs over, his stewardship of Apple from 1997- isn't one of them.

No there simply aren't enough. The Occupational Outlook Handbook estimates a demand for 7,000 new lawyers a year for the next ten years. Every year about 40,000 people graduate from law school.

Here's the thing: Drones are fine until the EM spectrum goes to hell in a hand basket which will happen almost instantly when you're fighting an sophisticated enemy. An designed in the 60s EA-6 could probably bring down a whole squadron of drones or at least render them useless. But drones are the flavor of the month so lets waste a few billion on them.