I'd like to see some evidence of that, unless you mean that the economic options for women at the bottom are so bad that they're forced to resort to prostitution to make ends meet. My guess would be that most prostitutes are doing it by choice, but in light of their economic environment.

Yes, but that's because of the budgetary issues as reported in the link above, or at least it presumably is because there doesn't seem to be another explanation out there. The Federal Times article doesn't cover why it is that this shutdown is different than the last.

At least the cinder block industry will benefit from all this.

I don't know, it sounds like that's the case. Nothing from the past few days have indicated the two sides are very far apart monetarily - it's the riders like Planned Parenthood funding that's been the issue.

Pathetic human being eh? You should run for congress. You'd fit in well. As to why the military was paid in 1996? Here's a choice quote from NavyTimes

@mashu009: You're thinking of the alternative engine project for it. The plug was pulled on THAT because it was deemed expensive and unnecessary. The F-35 itself was never considered for cancellation.

Winning.

Problem with the above summarized: *BOOM*

I don't go to a baseball game with the intent of buying anything either. Doesn't mean I don't end up paying hand over fist for a hotdog. But really, WTF? I didn't realize BUYING an Android phone meant I don't want to buy apps for it. Thanks MLB for getting me.

BTWs I wouldn't post a dropbox referral link here. You're baiting the warninghammer.

I like that you told them there are numbers out there, then proceeded to do essentially what they were complaining about.

They're not protecting anybody. It's total fear mongering. Where is the proof that any of this is dangerous, or that there is even the slightest chance that it could be dangerous?

This fight is making everyone look stupid. Tesla should shut up because they made an electric car, and that has drawbacks. Top Gear can cram it because it's moronic to consider the roadster a failure when they ignore why anyone would buy a high-end electric car in the first place (hello environment). Ugh.

Yeah, they're stupid for being limited by the cost of materials/manufacturing and chose to go for a segment of the market that supports 100k+ vehicles so that they can later bring down the costs of a future vehicle exactly like you described.

It'd be a lot better than the free one if I could beat the boss at the end of chapter 1 *grumble* *grumble*

"a company with a good product doesn't need government subsidies to stay in business"

Because they last a lot longer than implied when you watched it in the first place?

It sounds like that's what Tesla tried to do. They didn't sue immediately and they asked for a retraction. If the BBC and Top Gear wanted to do something like that, I'm sure it would have happened.

Uh, they didn't get government money for "failing." They got LOANS from a big pile o' money that had been sitting around expressly for the purpose of developing electric cars. Which they are doing.

This. Personally I don't think that the "death grip" is an issue, but the idea that they're being biased against the iPhone 4 is a misreading of how their rating system works. The number itself IS very important to getting a CR recommendation, but how those points are distributed matters as well. For better or worse…