I haven't had cable since 2006. I had Netflix but watched everything interesting to me over the course of a couple years and finally cancelled it this month. The only things my TV gets used for anymore are games and streaming services such as youtube and justin.tv.

Second grade. There was a regional contest to draw an anti-smoking poster with many schools involved.

I came up with a great idea, another kid in my class saw what I was doing and copied it exactly. He won the contest. I had to watch him get an award and receive praise from teachers and administrators while I alone knew he was a fraud and a thief and that there was nothing I could do about it.

A friend of mine here in CA has a medical marijuana license. He's uses a vaporizer on an hourly basis, every single day, often while driving. He's never been in an accident as far as I know.

I don't advocate using weed that often or anything, but once someone becomes accustomed to it, it has no significant impact on one's driving ability. A total novice would probably be another story.

It didn't sell well because it was a rerelease of a very old game with a small fanbase. A brand new, high quality game with good marketing might have been be a different story, but much like the rest of the industry, Capcom is extremely reluctant to take risks. I'm sure the huge glut of new fighting games on the market as well as middling sales for SFxT also played a role.

It's unfortunate because Darkstalkers was an extremely creative and awesome game.

As a competitive fighting game KI is pretty bad.

I'm not knowledgable about 3D fighters but greatest 2D fighter would probably be a tie between SSFII:Turbo, King of Fighters 98/2002, Vampire Savior, Guilty Gear XX Accent Core, and SSF4:AE.

Fiscal conservatives, however, point out that raising taxes on the only people with enough disposable income to invest necessarily hurts the creation of new jobs, regardless of consumer demand.

espoac

Equally simplistic counterargument: "with low consumer demand, the only people with enough disposable income to invest wouldn't bother, and if they did for some illogical reason, their investments would go nowhere."

The guy in the video wasn't discussing whether we should tax rich people out of existence, he was trying to destroy the popular concept that rich people create jobs out of thin air. They aren't job creators any more than middle class consumers are. There's an appropriate level of taxation and social benefits that will result in the most job creation, which in his view we are nowhere close to.

This man doesn't seem to even understand the fiscal conservative argument. I can't think of a single economist who has ever argued that the rich create jobs through their own consumption. The argument is rather that they create jobs by investing their money, thus allowing for R&D and general growth. And less importantly, by depositing their fortunes and thereby increasing bank reserves so that loans are easier to come by for new businesses. 

espoac

The whole point is that such investments go nowhere or are never taken on without consumption, and that a few rich people hoarding cash doesn't result in very much consumption.

I'm primarily a PC user but I plan to get a Macbook Air to replace my old laptop soon for work (heard there may be a refresh in June). My main considerations were the ease of hauling it around, battery life, and the fact that I dislike Windows 8. I also think the trackpad is much better than that on any Windows machine I've seen, which is a big plus because I don't intend to carry a mouse around.

For a work laptop, I don't think there's any compelling reason to buy a PC unless there's specific software you need to run.

The farther you go back the less sure we can be that the information is accurate in large part because the amount of sources for happenings decreases to the point where sometimes the only thing you have to go on is a single persons scribblings. Ace6301

Or no recorded history at all, where archaeology is the only source.

It's actually fairly amazing how much information can be derived from digging stuff up. For example, a lot of our knowledge about population movement and interaction thousands of years ago comes from pottery.

I can see what he says, but i also think people are entitled to their money and that taxes could help a little but dont help that much because the government spends irresponsibly and the most inefficient business to date. Is it really right to take more because someone has more of something? 

edinsftw

It comes down to values. What is more right, that a rich person gets to keep an extra million, or that janitors can afford health care? That's really the core question in my opinion.