Soback

You know that letter from Social Security that shows up once a year? The one that details how much you have contributed and estimates what you can collect when you retire. Well, the one that showed up this year, told me how social security wouldn't be around when I retire. However, if it is around, it would only be able to pay out 70% of those who will be retiring. So, what am I paying for right now? Instead of having the government spend my money right now, for MAYBE a crumb of it when I am 65 (that's if they don't raise the retirement age), I would rather take that same percentage and invest it in CD's. Not only would I make out better with CD's, BUT it's 100% payout, with no guessing whatsoever, when I retire. Social Security is nothing more than another tax. Just like disability, medicare, and all those federal and local "fees". Have you ever looked on your cell phone bill? 10 to 15% of it is taxes. You do know that you are still paying the telecomunications tax that was instituted for the Spanish war, over 100 years ago. Bush spending, Clinton spending. It doesn't matter. Instead of nitpicking between Democrats or Republicans, get them ALL out of office. Prosecute them for crimes against their country, violating the Constitution, execute them, that will send a message to politicians, "If you run for office because you want to manipulate and abuse the USA, you will pay with your life" Only then will you get some real politicians in there.

Movie AI comes to mind.

Aha, and the money that company pays out it toll taxes, lease, income (profits) taxes, ALL have to come from you, the citizen. The company can not have more going out than it brings it, otherwise the whole venture would fail. So YOU are paying for all those taxes, + other costs which go to the company for oversight and profits. Oh, and don't forget, your DMV fees, property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, ALL those don't decrease. The citizen is getting taxes TWICE. It's aking to buying a new car for $20,000 and paying 8.5% sales tax. Money to car = $20,000, Money to government = $1,700 Then selling that car for $15,000 and the other person pays 8.5% sales tax. Remember, the car didn't miracuously build value, it's not an investment, NOBODY but the manufacturer and the dealer made money on it, AND the taxes on the item have already been paid. At second sale, money to the government = $2,975 The second owner sells it for $10,000. Same deal, he didn't make any money, he just spend $5,000 grand of his own money for a couple of years ownership. The item is taxed AGAIN, for the third time. Money to government = $3,825 Oh, and don't forget. The registration fees. Every new owner, has to re-register it. And then register it once a year there after. The registration fees are based on what the car cost. Why? Is a car that is worth $100,000 costs more to register than a car that is worth $20,000? Yeah, it's like that. At fourth sale for $5,000 the government would've collected a total of $4,250. Taxed the same item which value was $20,000 a total of 4 times, and raked in a tax that is 21.25%. How about the estate tax. What right does the government have to tax the family of a person that died. Every little thing that person owned has already been taxed. Same thing is happening here. Everyone is already taxed for those roads. Now they are imposing an additional tax on users of those roads. But not just an additional tax, a tax at the PREMIUM, allowing a private company to profit off of public property. Take a read about Air traffic control services being privatized in Canada and Australia. You will notice how that turned out. The taxes the citizens had to pay didn't decrease. The users (passengers) had to pay an increase in ticket prices because airliners now have to pay the cost of ATC services. But that's only half the story, EVERYONE pays higher costs, from mail stamps (remember, mail is tranported by aircraft), to the products you buy at the store (the ones that had to be shipped by air). That's what happens when you privatize something that has been build with public money. All it is, is a second tax. If not third when you count that you are paying the original tax, and the fee which is calculated to recoup the lease/maintenance/profits. But hey, we can have a group hug. As long as everyone in that group agrees that I am right. lol

Look, enough. Stop trying to confuse the people and muddy the issue with rethoric about "recouping taxes" and "Capitalism" The taxes are NOT recouped, and it doesn't just "seem" (as you put it) that the taxpayer is getting charged twice. The taxpayer IS getting charged twice. Here's a simple, layman explanation. All it relies on is a bit of logic and math that a 5 year old can do. 1. State decides to build a freeway that would cost $1,000,000.00 (million). (freeways are managed by states, local roads are managed by cities/towns *municipalities*). To finance that freeway the state takes money from a. DMV fees, b. Sells bonds that taxpayers will have to repay over the next 30 to 60 years (usual time span for a bond) 2. The bill comes out to $100 dollars per citizen (if there are 10,000 citizens that live in that state), to build the freeway, and $10 dollars thereafter (a year) to maintain it. Like I've already said. The people who live in that state pay out (finance) the project through a. DMV fees (those who own a car), + b. Property taxes (home/property owners), + c. Sales taxes (consumers), income taxes (working people). The money is drawn from all those sources. The bulk comes from DMV fees and bonds that the property owners will have to repay. 3. Once the road is build, I (a single taxpayer) is out $100 bucks, and then $10 bucks a year thereafter. 4. The state then decides to lease the road to a private entity. All this time the road has been building potential "value" to a scheeming private company/government. As the population around the area grew, more people travel that road, and therefore if a toll would be introduced (for a road that's already paid for, and maintenance being collected for), additional profits can be made. 5. So the state leases the road for 1.5 million. To "recoup" the costs of constrution as you put it. It would be recouped if the money went right back to the original people who PAID for that road. That's not how it works however. Once the road is leased, the private company will have to charge tolls to a. make up that 1.5 million, + b. it's administrative costs, + c. maintenance costs, + d. profits. But the citizens will NEVER see a single check in their mail. 6. Total cost per citizen? The original $100 dollars that I (plus others) have paid, PLUS additional fees (tolls) that I (and others) will be paying till that 1.5 million lease if made up by the private company that leases the road. Which means I am paying MORE than DOUBLE for that very same road. Conclusion. The money is NOT recouped. It's just a gimmick to impose additional financial charges on a citizen and funnel money to the government with the help of a private company that will split the profits. Don't try to say that it's ok becaue the additioinal money that I will be paying will benefit me, it won't. The taxes that I pay benefit me when they are spend on PUBLIC PROJECTS, something that everyone can use, to primarily benefit the taxpayer with secondary benefits for others, NOT when it's spend on any kind of social entitlement program, or special interest, when someone OTHER THAN the taxpayer derives the primary benefits, those things do not benefit the taxpayer, the primary benefit goes to selected few. So, who profits off of the citizens original investment? That private company that didn't take any risks, it just calculated how many people travel that road daily (a statistic available by request from state records), and then lease that road from the government that is corrupt enough to do so. With full knowledge that a citizen that has ALREADY paid for the road, will end up paying for it again. The deal just keeps it out of the public mind, and tangles it up so that people don't see where the money is going. But that's only HALF the story. Those same citizens are STILL being charged the same ammount for DMV fees (remember that little $10 a month portion that is supposed to go towards maintenance), and money is still being funelled for that maintenance from property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes. That's all in addition to the toll fee, which is split between the private company and government. It's plain out robbery. Does that explain the shady deal? Does that explain why the money is NOT recouped? Capitalism or criminal?

Efficiency doesn't mean squat in this case. Doesn't matter how eficient or inefficient they are, you have no choice but to take a particular road, and pay whatever tolls they charge. The facts remain. 1. Citizens paid for the road. 2. From then on, they were only supposed to pay for road upkeep. 3. Government leases the road. (You think they leased it at cost? I think they leased it at a premium.) 4. Leasing company now charges citizens to recoup the lease costs, maintenance costs, administrative costs, and profits. 5. Citizens are therefore paying TWICE for that same road. It's not capitalism. That leasing entity can't fail. If there's a road from point A to point B, and the detour will take you 20 miles out of the way, your option is pretty obvious. Subtract the costs of the toll from the costs of taking the detour + your time. There's a reason why roads are PUBLIC. Build with public money, and are supposed to be maintained with public money. The money that the company pays the government are not recouped in any way, shape or form. It's just a gimmick for the government to get a fresh cash infusion. If they don't lease it, all they are stuck with is money allocated for maintenance from DMV fees and other little sources. If they lease it out, they get a big chunk at one time, and then constant tax stream from tolls, while STILL getting their allocations from DMV and other sources. The citizen ends up paying twice. If you try to say one more time that it's just plain old Capitalism, then you don't know what Capitalism is, and can't tell the difference between what is criminal conduct and what is a bussiness deal. One of the things that go with a class in bussiness is ethics and economics. Just because there's a dollar sign with a profit attached, doesn't mean all is legitimate and well. Would your argument for the Mob be the same? That they are just making a profit, conducting bussiness deals by offering establishments extra security that they charge for. Those establishment are given the same choice that the drivers would be on the leased roads. Either pay double for the police and the mob or get out, and Either pay double for DMV and the toll or get out. The difference is, the government used to fight the mob, now they are dealing like one. With people like you defending those dealings.

Private company leases the road from the government. Pays them the fees, and then CHARGES me to use that road. However, unlike government. The private company wouldn't charge only for supposed maintenance costs. A private company would charge me maintenance costs + costs to recoup the lease + costs of running their bussiness operation + profits. How are my taxes repaid? Anything that is charged beyond maintenance costs is costing me more than it should. I paid for that road, and the government and that private company are brokering a criminal deal, double charge me in taxes + toll fees that will include private bussiness costs and profit margins, while the beurocrats and politicians get greased from both sides by my taxes and this "bussiness" deal, while the private company gets the whole set up infrastructure to make money on, build and paid for with my money, just sign the line and put in a toll booth. So, back to the original question. How are my money repaid? Remember this little sentence from the second paragraph "maintenance costs + costs to recoup the lease + costs of running their bussiness operation + profits."

How do their dollars replace the tax dollars that I paid? The money that I have paid are in that road. It's all there, from materials to labor. The only other money I should be charged is what I am already charged, the DMV fees and other taxes allocated to road maintenance. Not a fee charged by a third party, a fee that was calculated for collecting profits off of my investment. Like I said, if you are going to try and make a public road "for profit", then the profit should go to those who paid for that road, meaning the tax payers. Not that a public road that was build for public, should ever be for profit. That's a crime in itself. As far as holding the company responsible, I do. They are a party to this, not an innocent bystander. They know what kind of deal they are making. In South America, one way for their decrepid government and corrupt politicians to "collect income" is to lease public property to private entity, and then reposes it. Who suffers? First and foremost the citizens who paid for that public property, second the private entity that entered into a questionable contract, with full knowledge that they are robbing the citizens of that country with a wink and a nod of that countrys government. The private entity deserves what they get, the citizens do not. The way it looks like, is US becoming a third world country, taking it a step a day. The citizens said "No" when the port deal was going down. This is no different. It's our PUBLIC ASSETS that should NEVER be run by foreign entities. As a matter of fact, private company shouldn't be administering anything that is paid for by the tax payers. It opens the road to double taxation (like Air traffic controll system in Canada and Australia, being sold off and run by a private company, charging the users of Air traffic controll system, and still taxing the citizens on top of it), and other abuses. You know, kinda like having a portion of your federal taxes go towards federal park maintenance, and then collecting a fee for park maintenance when you actually go to that park. Kinda like taxing you to build and maintain a road, and then collecting a fee when you use that road. But when you think about it, the government is not responsible, and neither is the company that makes that deal with full knowledge of it. Capitalism? Far from it. Do not confuse criminal and unethical conduct with Capitalism.

Really Aramike? Explain to me how exactly my tax dollars are replaced when a foreign company leases the road, pays the government, and puts up a toll to charge me. 1. My money was taken by the government to build the road. 2. The government leases the road to a foreign entity. Collecting more money from them. 3. The foreign entity charges me a toll to recoup the leasing costs. How are my taxes replaced? Do I get a refund from the government? Is the DMV registration fee dropped? Do my taxes decrease? Or does a foreign bussiness operates for profit and charges me for 1. Operations costs, 2. Maintenance costs, 3. Add profit margin to top it off. Posted by Aramike: "As for the company profiting, so what? At least they would fall under the state and federal laws to prevent them from gouging, which, by the way, the government itself doesn't have to worry about. The government can fleece us, but it is okay, because it is the government. A private company cannot charge us fair amounts, though?" --- What are you trying to say? Government run maintenace crews wouldn't operate under federal and state law? As far as a private company charging us a fair ammount, it's a load of bs. You are missing the point of "For Profit". Explain to me why a private company collects profits off of what was build with my taxes. If the road was build by a private company, and they use their infrastructure for profits, that's one thing, making profits off of what was paid for by me in the first place is another. Since I and other tax payers paid for it, shouldn't I and other tax payers be getting a check for the portion of the tolls collected off that road? You catching on? The answer is, a road build with taxes shouldn't be run for profits. It should be run with taxes that are collected for that very specific purpose. If the beurocrats and politicians wouldn't be syphoning off money from DMV registration fees and the dedicated taxes that you are already paying, that are allocated for that very purpose, we wouldn't have this double taxation situation. A situation where you paid for building this road (currently paying, because the finances for roads come from sale of bonds which are repaid by YOU, over time), then government sale of the road, while still taxing you to repay the bonds AND for maintenance of that road (while allocating that money for other things), and then the leasing company charging you fees. Awesome deal for the politician, beurocrats and the leasing company, tripple bad deal for you. Still don't mind? [ 07-17-2006, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Corporations having assets and bussineses, that they have build or bought with their money is one thing. Leasing roads to foreign companies, the roads that have been build with my money, is another. Not only will there be tolls instituted on those roads, but the money collected from those tolls will leave the country, which means inflation. So to break it down, the beurocrats take my money, build a road for me to travel on, and then sell that road to a foreign entity that will put up a toll, and charge me twice as much as it would really cost to maintain that road (bussines operates for profits, not to break even or lose money). You think they are going to completly abolish DMV registration? Isn't that money plus other taxes are supposed to go towards road maintenance? Lets say people around your neighborhood got together, and everyone, including you had to put in $1,000 bucks to repair and repave the local road. Then, once it was all done, you are coming home one day and are stoped because there's a toll booth there. So not only did you shell out $1,000 bucks, now you are being asked to pay more each time you take the road that was build with your money, AND to top it off, you find out that the people who put up that toll booth are from a whole other town hundreds of miles away, just reaping the profits off of what was build and financed by you in the first place. Still got no problem with it?

You guys are not reading the articles and therefore shouldn't be speculating whether the problems are caused by Starforce or not. #1. It doesn't matter if Lost was trying to write a cd or not. ONCE the speed of the drive has been downgraded, it REMAINS as such till corrected MANUALLY. #2. Having a clean disk is no guarantee that there won't be a read error. It's a good preventor of reading errors, but it's not a 100% guarantee. A bump, a skip, a blemish, scratch, even a little internal glitch can cause an error. People shouldn't be just throwing something out there and discussing it like facts without reading up and becoming KNOWLEDGEABLE on the subject. An experiment such as "My drive was fine, then I installed a game with starforce and it becamse slow" is NOT proof that Starforce is responsible. Read those articles, one of them is from MICROSOFT, which DETAILS the error, EXPLAINS it, and gives you directions to CORRECT it. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/817472/ "After the Windows IDE/ATAPI Port driver (Atapi.sys) receives a cumulative total of six time-out or cyclical redundancy check (CRC) errors, the driver reduces the communications speed (the transfer mode) from the highest Direct Memory Access (DMA) mode to lower DMA modes in steps. If the driver continues to receive time-out or CRC errors, the driver eventually reduces the transfer mode to the slowest mode (PIO mode)." This is just ONE of a multitude of reasons why your drive might become slower. It's easy to just throw out nonsensical conclusions like "Starforce is responsible for my cd/dvd drive slowdown/breakdown". However, without the analysis and proof, those kinds of conclusions not only hurt the company that created Starforce, BUT it also prevents people with drive slow down problems from addressing the REAL isssue and actually FIXING their problems the right way. So instead of researching, learning and understanding what really caused their drive to slow down or stop working, and then spending 15 minutes fixing it. They spend 3 hours formating their drive and reinstalling Windows, only to have the problem happen again in the future, and them being ignorant of it, it starts all over again.

Like that article says. The reason it coincides with installation of some game is becaues winXP is trying to read the disk, while receiving an error, and then trying to compensate by downgrading read/write speed . Since a lot of games use Starforce as their copy protection, uninformed users blame Starforce for their cd/dvd drives becoming slow or un-usable. Since they don't know this "feature" of WinXP, and can't track it down to read/write error because of a scratched or blemished cd that windows is trying to read. And once the cd/dvd speed has been downgraded, it stays that way till manually reset. To prevent this, make sure the disk that goes in your drive is free of blemishes/scratches. If the drive does start performing at a slower speed, fix the problem by following directions here or here depending on your system , and clean your cd/dvd disk.

http://www.3000ad.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cg...c;f=37;t=000758 http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimateb...f=3;t=008079;p= http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060131-6084.html

People blame this on Starforce all the time. In fact, Windows XP does this. Whenever there's an error in cd writing/reading, the speed is downgraded by windows, so for example 48x goes to 24x, if the error persists it goes to 12x, and so forth. I think there's a way to reset the speed in the bios. Anyhow. Search for starforce threads from last year. SC explained it in one of those threads.

And by the way, Michael Wang, a scientist from the Energy Department is trying to "wang" people with this crapola: "Now, Wang says, the delivery of 1 million British thermal units (BTUs) of ethanol uses 0.74 million BTUs of fossil fuels. (That does not include the solar energy -- the sun shining -- used in growing corn.) By contrast, he finds that the delivery of 1 million BTUs of gasoline requires 1.23 million BTU of fossil fuels." Lets break it down. To generate 1 million BTU's of ethanol, we use up 0.74 million BTU's of fossil fuel. That's the same 0.74 BTU's of fossil fuel that we have spend energy on getting it out of the ground, refining it, transporting it, ect.... BUT, when you refine 1.23 million BTU's of fossil fuels to get 1 million of REFINED fuel. You basically spend some energy, PLUS the rest of that .23 goes towards rubber, asphalt, ect... It's the same premise as an electric car that you plug in every night. It's all great, till you do the math. The energy spend per mile in electrical car is many times more the ammount spend in gasoline. Power plant has to produce that energy (coal power plants in US, which pollutes more than oil), then the energy is lost transporting it through power lines. And then there's even farther loss when you charge your car. Not to mention the dissapation of that charge when the car is not in use. It's like having a constant drip in your gas tank. So, not only is the energy waste paramount, and highlight WASTE, because it's literally being wasted when it goes through the power lines AND when it sits in your car batteries, add on top of that the fact that more pollution is created when that energy is converted from coal to the power your car can use. So, the most simple thing we can all learn and take for a fact, especially those who have slept through high school chemistry, is this. Majority of the time, whenever you refine or convert one product into another, you end up with something that posesses LESS energy, not more. In this case it's not conversion, but the fact stands that you are spending the product that you already spend energy refining, to produce something that you are going to use for energy down the line. When you add it all up, it's a waste. Just like plug in electrical cars. The only way this ethanol thing is going to work, is when you will be getting that ethanol from refuse and waste, as is stated in a single sentence at the end of the article. NOT when you are wasting energy at it's second, third of fourth tier of refinement (diesel, gasoline, natural gas) to create a final product that's end use is FOR energy. Anyway. What he does not mention is instead of wasting that 0.74 BTU's of fossil fuel to make ethanol, we should be taking that 0.74 of unrefined fossils and converting it into 0.62 of refined stuff. I would really like to take a look at how he arrived at 0.74 BTU's, and what he factored in, or didn't. Also, look at the stupidity of this. "So ethanol production and distribution are also controlled by market forces, right? Only to a certain degree. In addition to heavily subsidizing the ethanol produced domestically, the U.S. government levies a 54 cent per gallon tariff on imports from other countries, such as Brazil, a lower-cost producer. This, of course, discourages the U.S. from importing cheaper ethanol. Why not eliminate the tariffs? Well, the idea behind the tariffs is to foster domestic production of ethanol. But amid the ongoing furor over high gas prices the idea of repealing the levy has gained momentum in Washington. Though it would probably annoy ethanol producers like agricultural giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), removing the tariffs could have some benefits. " So, we switch to ethanol to supposedly get cleaner burning fuel and ease our dependance on oil and the middle east. While the same idiots in office are considering to drop tariffs, which would drive domestic ethanol producers out of bussiness and increase our dependance on ethanol producing countries of South America. "Great idea", we need more moronic politicians with these awesome ideas.

What hydrogen extraction method would that be?

Wow, that's weird, and sucks. Gotta love U.S., if you want insurance, you got insurance. You will obviously pay more for a bigger bike, or if your license is new, but at least there's not a dead wall like this. R6 was the bike I learned on. My buddy had two of them. One old, one new, so he taught me on the older one. Nice bike.

You tell them that I have started on 600. Didn't even know how to drive a stick shift, didn't know how to switch gears, how to lean/turn properly, ect... What they want you to do is learn the concept on a dirt bike or an enduro, and then transfer those skills over to a sport bike. It's ok, but it's a waste of your time and money. Not only will you be getting used to a different handling bike down the line, but you will be wasting money selling the dirt bike and buying a sports bike. Get what you want, and understand that if you do get a pretty, shiney new sports bike, it will be droped, scratched, and repaired within 6 months, or a year. I know of only 2 people who haven't dropped their first bike within a year, I know of none who have never dropped any of their bikes. Hence spend good money on riding gear, and get an average priced motorcycle that you like. Most important, get the kind of bike that you want, if you are not enjoying it, then there's no point in getting it. So, don't let anyone talk you into something you don't feel like doing. When I was upgrading from 600cc's to a 1000cc's, people told me I should upgrade to 750cc first, that I will kill myself on 1000 because it's a big power jump. Did I listen, sure. Did I consider their advice, of course. I however took their advice, prepared myself for the big power jump, and got 1000cc's. Did I crash, it. Of course. LOL, crashed the very first day, doing wheelies. Repaired the bike within two weeks, and was right back on it. Less power and less torque means the bike is easier to handle. That's about it. More power doesn't automatically mean that you will crash it. It just means that there's a higher learning curve. You can get hurt just as much on 150cc bike as you would on 600cc's. So, not to mention that 600 is pretty much the smallest engine you can get on a sport bike. Anything under 600 is either a dirt bike, an enduro. You want a sports bike, get a sports bike. If you would be getting a 1200cc's sports, it would be another story. I still wouldn't tell you not to get it, the only thing I would say is "Good job" if you survive the first month, . 600 however, it's the perfect first bike, 750 is a little on a strong side, a little more torque, and your skills will outgrow anything under 600 within 2 months. Anyhow. Listen to people, listen to their advice, learn. None of that means that you should shed your opinion, dissregard what you know you want, and do what someone else says. If someone with experience tells you that 600 is too much power for the first bike, then agree that it is, take it into consideration, and when you get that 600 that you want, treat it accordingly. That's all. [ 05-05-2006, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Right. For example, I was riding the BMW 1200 RT http://www.bmwmotorcyclesdallas.com/new_ve....asp?veh=24269& this weekend. As far from the sports bike as you can get. From the sitting position and feel to the controls. After riding for an hour I wasn't even slightly tired. It's like sitting on the living room couch, watching the scenery go by. No wind noise on the freeway, no buffeting. It's still the same premise for riding, lean right, push left, go right or lean left, push right, go left, but the ride is totally different, it's build for comfort and ease. Different bike, different purpose. So, buy the bike based on what you want to use it for. If you want aggressive ride, race, manuevrability, wheelies, stoppies, lane splitting, weaving through the turns, but shorter distance rides, meaning in your locality, within 100 miles or so, buy a sports bike. If you want to take your bike off road, dirt, or where there's lots of potholes, and you want to do low speed tricks, explore off the beaten path, buy a dirt bike. If you want to cruise around, take lond distance trips, be able to pack for a camping trip on the bike, and be totally comfortable even after 3 hours of riding, buy a cruiser. Buying a dirt bike to upgrade to a sports bike later is not the answer, as you will not be using a dirt bike like you would use a sports bike, just like you wouldn't take a jet ski on a fishing trip, nor would you race around the lake in a row boat. The only suggestion, if you want something like a dirt/sports bike is get something like this: 1. http://www.buell.com/en_us/bikes_gear/ulysses/ 2. http://www.buell.com/en_us/bikes_gear/ligh...xb12s/index.asp 3. http://www.bmwmotorcycles.com/bikes/group.jsp?g=naked They are a cross between and Enduro and a Sports bike. All companies have one or two versions of them, usually called naked. The only thing though, is you have to check and make sure it's not just a Sports bike with no fairings. How? Check the riding position. On the Sports bike you lean forward, on the Endure you seat straight. On the naked bike, you are supposed to be able to sit straight or at a very slight forward angle. If you are sitting leaning forward, then it's a Sports bike design with no fairings for looks. Unlike the Enduro, naked bikes are mostly for city riding, but you can hit a dirt road or two. You wont be able to jump hills and be totally ruthless on dirt fields though. [ 05-01-2006, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

They are all alright. Difficult is good, as long as he understands that this is the bike he will be scratching, dropping, crashing and smashing, and will probably be upgrading to a new one within 3 years. The bigger the bike (engine) the more power, more difficult, and the higher the price. If you can afford it, anything up to 750cc is great, people grow out of 600cc within the first year, when 750cc would still be good. AND you will still notice the power jump when upgrading to 1000 or 1250cc bike in the future. My buddy has two older R6's. Great bikes, nice power to weight ratio, and you can get an R1 later on. R-1's are insane. The new one advertises 180hp stock, fricking rocket. The only reason I don't like the usual sport bikes is the engine sound. Engine sounds like nails on black board, and when you put an after market exhaust on, all you hear is the stupid loud exhaust. Another reason is their cornering. I've never felt comfortable racing through the corner on a Yamaha, Honda and Suzuki's, Ducatis are nice, and Buell is awesome. Anyhow, R-6s are great first bike, especially if you can get a used one that someone grew out from, and hasn't crashed it. Pretty much any 600cc bike is a great starter. 750 is better if you want to keep it longer. If getting used, crashed is usually a no no, unless repaired at the dealer, see if there's any scratches on the frame (usually by the wheel bases, means it's been laid down, dropped, crashed), and mileage is below 10,000mi, no more than 15,000 for sure. Check the tires, if worn out, they are expensive to replace, and last only about 7 to 10 thousand miles. See if the front forks are straight, super straight. The key should be held tight in the ignition, if it's not, that means he was riding around with his whole key chain attacked to the bike key, not too bad by itself, but shows his general attitude about how he cares about the bike, which means use and abuse, engine reving, redlining, ect... Most importantly, get what you like. The more you like it, the more you will ride it, and the more you will enjoy it. I am almost leaning to tell you to get all the gear first, and then get the bike, that way you won't compromise by spending more on the bike by telling yourself that you will save on the gear.

This is my baby http://www.buell.com/en_us/bikes_gear/fire.../xb9r/index.asp 385lbs dry weight, 120hp (on mine, it's far from stock), belt drive, 51.9 inches wheelbase for those wheelies and the lowest center of gravity of any other bikes on the market for cornering ability. The sound is a massive deep roar, like a Harley, it's one of the reasons I got it, hate the high pitched whine of a sports bike engine. With this one, it sounds like one pissed off dragon on a rampage when you shoot by, literally, you've never heard a bike sound like that, not even the ones with after market exhausts that just make noise. It's my third bike that I've ever owned. TONS of fun, well, maybe not tons but a couple hundred pounds worth. Seriously, the only advice I will give you, wear riding gear on your whole body. Not just a jacket, or not just the boots, EVERYTHING. Helmet, jacket, gloves, pants, boots. You can even throw in back protectors if you want to. If you have money to spend, Dainese http://www.dainese.com/pre.asp has the absolute top of the line stuff, prices too. I have their Speed Metal gloves http://www.dainese.com/img/1_Speed_metal_A77_021916_m.jpg See that shiny stuff, that's titanium, cool huh. If not, then Frank Thomas makes the best stuff for the price http://www.frank-thomas.co.uk/ukindex.html I have his jacket, pants and boots. Crashed twice, once on the freeway gonig 80+mph, the jacket performs phenominally. As far as the helmets go, I will trust nothing but Arai Signet GTR http://www.araiamericas.com/ , saved my life as far as I'm concerned, Signets GTR are up there on the price scale $400+, compared to $100 to $250 for the average, BUT this is one piece I would NOT save on. Save on the jacket, the pants, the boots, DO NOT save on the helmet. Anyhow. That's about it. Get the gear and go nuts on the bike. Don't feel bad if you drop it, everyone does, just be ready for it. LOL, and get your own bike, no matter if you feel bad or not, your buddy will if you drop his.

Oh boy. I guess you just completly skipped the part where I said that birth rates in US are barely above sustainable levels, and the ONLY reason we have population growth is due to immigration. I can give you information, I can't teach you to understand and comprehend it. www.yahoo.com , type in "sustainable birth rates" "US birth rate vs. sustainable birth rate" and as an example "Germany birth rate, sustainable" http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3072271 Here's your Europe "overpopulation". The reason Europes population is growing, is NOT because of native births, but because of poor quality uneducated labor from third world countries. Kinda like in US. Anything else you want me to take apart with facts and logic?

ROFL, so, all the problems you were talking about, like starvation, overpopulation, diseases, ect... all prevail in third world countries, the same ones that are NOT "surpassing the limits". Now, since the countries that are "surpassing the limits" are not encountering these problems. That would lead to the conclusion that "surpassing the limits" is actually good, as it solves and elliminates the problems such as starvation, overpopulation, diseases, famine, ect... Who would have thought. As far as us cloning people. Why don't you dig me up some proof about that. You do know that the Chinese scientist that claimed that he cloned a human was found out as a fraud, with no proof and faked research. Genetically mutate people? Yeah, has been happening for thousands of years. It's called evolution. Create people? Do I really need to educate you on that one? Make people live to insane ages? 70 to 80 years is insane? What about 100, is that insane? If you try to talk about the "stress" it puts on the rest of the population that is required to support it's elderly. I'll give you an answer, CUT WELLFARE. Easy enough. Make it the responsibility of the individual to save and manage for their retirement, and in the worst case, have them look for help with their family or charity. Anyhow. You are yet to provide a single fact to back up your statements, or justify your conclusions. I on the other hand, have given you proof that the conditions of starvation, overpopulation, diseases that you speak of are prevalent in poverty, third world countries, that by your own admission are far behind us in technology and advancements, and are ways away from "surpassing the limits". While every country that is advanced scientifically and technologically, that is by your claims "surpassing the limits" does not suffer those ills that you talk about. Anything else you have to present that "surpassing the limits" is bad, or even if there is such a notion. Kinda reminds me of the people in the dark ages, they had the same reaction when seeing pyramids build. Or how about the unionized wood cutters in 1700's Englad, rioting and laying destruction, protesting the implementation of the first water operated wood cutting saws. They were saying the exact same things that you are saying right now. That water operated wood cutting saw is bad technology. That the limits are being surpassed, people are going to be out of jobs, it's going to bring poverty, ect... Well, what that invention brought is more work for carpenters, more homes build, and homes became more affordable, it led to other inventions such as the drill, saved labor time, that time became available to spend on other things, therefore increased production, higher standards of living....and so on. Yeah, surpassing the limits. LOL. If Bill Gates was thinking like that, we wouldn't even be having this little chat right now.

ROFL, this ban is so ludicrous. Just the fact that it singles out and favors casinos makes the ban illegal. Watch the lawsuits pile up, the ones that all other bussinesses will be filing, claiming damages. Of course, they will be paid out from the tax revenues. Too bad the average citizen is too stupid to actually rise up. Like some people are already saying, everyone who works should all change our claims on taxes taken out to the highest number, cut off the taxes going to the government till the end of the year, and then refuse to file taxes, period. Many people forget that filing taxes is not mandatory, it's compulsory. See if they can jail 50% of US citizens, forget 50, see if they can even jail 30%. This is one of the ways to get your civil war, re-build the government that blatantly dissregards and refuses to enforce our laws.

Is there starvation in the US. No. Is there starvation in some third world countries? Yes. Why? US has better agricultural technology, knowledge, machinery. WOW. No way, there is no starvation in US because we are more advanced. Hey, lets slow down. We gotta catch up to the third world countries. Is there famine and disease in the US. No. Is there famines and diseases in third world countries. Yes. You do know that Tuberculosis was all but eliminated in the US, DUE TO MEDICAL ADVANCES. Now, the immigrants from third world countries are re-introducing TB in US, again. So, why do third world countries have famine, diseases, ect, and we don't. TECHNOLOGY and scientific advances. Water shortages? You mean those commercials you see on tv about water conservation. Has the water to your house EVER been turned off or rationed due to a shortage? Or did you mean there's water shortages in third world countries, where they don't have the technology to build water purification plants. ROFL. Lets see. So far, for every single problem that a third world country faces, we have overcome, *gasps*, with science and technological advances. Because of science and because we are "surpasing our limits", we enjoy better standards of living, better health, better food/water, longer lives, physically, emotionally and mentally happier people. Now, let me also, tell you one little fact. US population is growing, NOT because of the birth rates, but due to immigration. US's birth rates are less than a point above sustainability rates. Which means that if we had no immigration, we would barely see any population increase, if any at all. Germany for example, is below sustainability rate. German population is actually dying off. Where do you see population growth. In THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, where there is not enough scientific knowledge, technological advances, and economical resources to allow for those people to live healthy lives. We should slow down? ROFL, maybe you can talk to South American el-presidentes, African dictators, and China's Stalin, tell them your theory of surpassing limits, then point out famine, diseases and overpopulation. Or maybe you can try to do what France did when it demanded that Apple has to give it's license for i-pod technology to "disprivledged" countries for free, so that they could build and sell them, maybe you think we should solve all worlds problems, give them the patents, the inventions, forget that, why don't we just build everything for them. Or, maybe we should just stop advancements and maybe in a decade we will reach the awesome quality of third world country life, have their spiritual nirvana, and be the best third world country in the world. ROFL, sure would cut down on illegals here.

Nor common sense.