cj001f

If it's got a megalomaniac temper I suggest "Reilly". Steens?

The only Ice Screw testing I can think of was the Leuben/Harmston testing of almost a decade ago: http://www.needlesports.com/advice/placingscrews.htm They found screw held better when placed perpendicular because there was less of a lever effect from the screw itself, not the hanger, on the first several cm of ice.

Occum's Razor suggests the difference stems from eccentric motion on the part of the Ice Screw. It's possible the 360s design would work better if the wire handle were coaxial with the screw. Really this just sounds like a BS rep test like the Oakley laser beam test of a couple years ago

My greatgrandfathers quote, after volunteering for WW1, was "never trust the government". Maybe that was because he had to issue orders as medical officer reminding soldiers "soldiers are not to defecate while standing on the latrine seat"

You bring up prodigal spending by the government as a problem. Under the current system the incentive will always be to expand benefits to the point where the system is bound to collapse. (see medicare and the recent drug benefit as a related instance of this) Privatisation will, by making the system fully funded, be a real "lockbox" for Social Security by keeping Congress from raising benefits or spending any funds in the "Trust Fund." As for transition costs, check out the Chilean exmple (link above) and remember that from an economic point of view the US Gov borrowing money explicitly to finance cash flow changes brought about by a transition to privatisation would likely be of zero cost and perhaps a benefit as it is merely the trading of a real defined liability for an off balance sheet liability. You brought up Enron earler certainly then you should know about off balance sheet items! 1. Seperating accounts isn't fiction. I have seperate accounts for seperate spending; I'm not sure why the government can't. 2. Imagine that! In any mutualization scheme someone has to receive less than they pay in. Insurance works the same way. 3. The market for US debt is so large worldwide we don't particularly need Social Security to fund our deficit spending. The Chinese central bank is more than happy to do so. 4. Any plan that has a fixed retirement date irrespective of life expectancy is a transfer scheme. Any plan that allows the average outlay to exceed the average income is a transfer scheme. Politicians have refused to be caretakers of Social Security - held captive by the AARP 5. Truth. Swede's have 18.5% of their paycheck withheld by the government for retirement. They get to invest 13.5% of that in a private account. The average American doesn't have the time to manage their portfolio well; the management costs for a professional manager at $1k/year are a substantial portion of the equity growth for many funds. I'm sure Wall Street loves the idea though. Private Accounts are well and good for the middle & upper classes; they aren't who Social Security is for.

As usual the PP spin game: 1. Only because lawmakers want it to be. The tax revenue for Social Security is drawn from a single source (payroll taxes), there's no reason it need be lumped with the rest of government revenue, except it provides a convenient way to cover for prodigal spending. 2. US government obligations are the most secure investment in the world. Would you prefer we invest in Enron stock? Argentine national debt? If you'd prefer that - is the government going to cover your losses? 3. Easily changed. 75 year predictions of that sort are economists taking hits from the bong. 4. Any defined benefit pension scheme without a teired age/benefit relationship is necessarily so. 5. Gee, can we be like Sweden? It'll make me feel so much better when I can choose how 10% of my retirement account is invested

Y'all do know our great war mongering President cut Veterans benefits at the same time he decided to go to war?

Orange Alert! Number 6 approaching the Northern Perimeter. Orange Alert!

He said subaru.

That article's minor league gaperdom compared to the Washington Post's and NY Time's coverage of "Backcountry" skiing lately. Barf!

Anyone to the left of you is a radical extremist

Article in the Bend Bulletin

Havocs & Crossbows, hailing from the same factory, also come concave.

It's all about the MILF

Too true. Having dated an incredible woman w/Spina Bifida (people are now aborting fetuses w/SB) I have to say this is crap. Sometimes life deals you a farmer's hand. You can't fold, face up.

so ride a bike in beaverton. Of course they are out to kill you .....

"Bring some home to the wives"

In most of medicine (and life) there's a statistic governing how often a given operation, transaction, treatment, diagnosis, etc. will be succesful. If you fall on the wrong side of that because of fate, not negligence, too fucking bad. Unfortunately our judicial system doesn't take the same view, negligence is too easy to infer, because benefit of doubt rests with the plaintiff.

Except in medical malpractive it isn't big corps who change. They fuck us over every chance they get.

No snow, no beer (too much beer?), too much work

That's only a part of the problem - the increase in malpractice insurance premiums also correlates nicely to the shape of the insurance industry as a whole.

Trader Joe's has it cheap.

yup. you have 3 quarters a year

-

Says the guy with the Elizabethan dog avatar