Jump to content

vipervicious

Scrimmer
  • Content Count

    169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About vipervicious

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Sacramento, CA
  1. Don't plan on buying tickets there. The shows are starting to sell out before the weekend of in recent years and you don't want to go all that way for nothing. I'm working on rooms, and as soon as we can start getting confirmed people we will have a more organized effort to organize payment for those and figure out how much. As far as anything else, I highly recommend bringing at least $60-$100 for your own food over the course of the weekend. I know that's a lot, but there are probably going to be little things here and there that you aren't expecting that will eat away your funds (like the pink godzilla [gorilla?] booth).
  2. I know! I'll take every way of public transit and vlog it online! It'll be a hit! If it was down here closer to Maryland/Virginia, then I'd be tempted. All we have is Otacon in Baltimore. You do realize that PAX east coast was just like a week or two ago and was in Boston, right?
  3. First, for anyone who isn't aware... PAX Prime 2010 I'm thinking about setting something up for us nomers down at PAX this year, and I'd like to see who is going, how many we might have, and if we can get rooms close to each other for easy nom congregation. Post and respond to the poll to let us know where you plan to be Sept. 3rd through 5th this year.
  4. Exploring the universe

  5. http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/breaking-news/oc-assemblyman-in-bed-with-lob/ There are some more great quotes in there that the TV broadcast couldn't show. "...so messy" Incidentally, he resigned the day after this story broke.
  6. vipervicious

    RL Pics

    figured this thread might be in need of a bump since I don't think it's been up front for a lot of the new people that are now coming to the server.
  7. vipervicious

    To Neh

    Ok, so if that's the origin of that meme, then what is the origin of the meme in your profile pic?
  8. I think I have an idea to get California out of the mess it's gotten itself into...
  9. I second Ratty's point. If we actually took this game seriously enough to justify competitive play we wouldn't have things like killmageddon and nom-buses.
  10. I take it that means you're there, Ratty.
  11. OK, now that I've got a chance to give some more info, Here's how the IOU's work. There are payments mandated by the constitution and by court order. The people, institutions, and businesses that fall under this category will still receive real money. I mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. So, everyone else gets their payments as "Registered Warrants." These warrants look like regular checks except that they are a different color and have "Registered Warrant" written on it. These warrants may be redeemed for payment when they "mature." This basically means that the magic date set by the state has passed that allows you to redeem the warrant for actual cash. There are two things you can do with an IOU to receive the money the state should be paying you. 1) You can wait until the IOU matures and cash it in. The date for the IOU's issued for the next two months will be October 2, 2009. The interest rate is 3.75% per year. For an individual who receives this, this interest rate is a pretty piss poor investment considering that most people don't receive checks for an especially large amount, the interest rate isn't that much larger than inflation, and the IOU's only accumulate that interest for a couple of months. In addition, most people who receive these checks depend on them to support themselves or their businesses, which means waiting could endanger the survival of their businesses or themselves. In which case it would be smarter to choose the second option... 2) Find a financial institution that will exchange the IOU's for the normal cash you would receive for the check. This is the option most people will use. Certain financial institutions (banks, credit unions, etc.) will accept the IOU's to gain the eventual pay off on the investment. It may not be much on each individual check, but when a whole bunch of people give you their IOU's in exchange for only the original amount the IOU would be worth if it were a check, you can accumulate the interest on a whole bunch of money instead of just a little. This makes it a tidy little investment for a bank to make since they are in the business of giving out shit tons of money to earn a small percentage on a large total of investment. However, there is one risk factor for a financial institution trying to employ this method. If the State doesn't have the money by October 2, 2009, no payment can be made. Normally this wouldn't be a concern on most bonds issued by any government institution. Unfortunately, the reason these are being issued is that California's government decided not to act in time to make payments, so a financial institution would be justified in worrying that this will be the case again when October rolls around. So some financial institutions might not accept them. I have heard Bank of America will accept the IOU's. I'm sure there will be a number of others, but if you find yourself one of the unlucky Californians receiving one, make sure you check with you bank. A lot of this is condensed information from here: http://www.sco.ca.gov/5935.html Now that I've told as much as I know about the IOU's and why we're to the point now where they are necessary, I'll conclude by saying that some of this is unprecedented and some is not. The state last issued IOU's in 1992, and unfortunately I don't know as much about that as our current situation. There's plenty of information out there, but I'm reluctant to spend to much time looking it up since, even though I work in the Assembly, I don't really have any input on what solutions are even considered let alone adopted. Of course don't let that stop any of you if you are interested in finding out more. I've said enough on the subject. I'm going to go over to my girlfriend's house now for dinner. If there are any other questions I'll respond to them, but I can't promise I can give answers because I think I've told you guys everything I know on the subject.
  12. (Note: this post is really long, but if you really want to know what's going on with this mess, this will explain it) OK here's what happened, and I know I'm a little biased cause I'm a democrat so if you feel like taking issue with my opinion on it, fine. The facts are still accurate. The Legislature passed a new budget in February because they were running out of money and needed to reorganize taxes and expenditures. This budget was basically way too optimistic in the amount of money the state would be pulling in. Because they needed a solution that at least worked in the short term, everyone ignored this, passed it, and declared victory. Cut to about a month ago. California started coming up short in the amount of revenue it was drawing in. There was about a $24 billion deficit. The problem this time around is that California's credit rating has dropped so much that all institutions refuse to lend California any money until they close the deficit. So they started working in Conference Committee (don't worry if you don't know what that is, it's not important) to discuss, debate, and hear testimony on what cuts we should make, and taxes we should institute. They produced a set of proposals for 3 new taxes, and a huge swath of across the board cuts. These proposals were amended into bills to be voted on by the Assembly and Senate. Cut to about a week ago. Lots of people have a lot of problems with the provisions of these bills and the Legislature starts arguing over what we should actually pass. The Republicans say they want more cuts, and most of the Democrats want the proposals the the Committee produced to be adopted, with a handful dissenting and saying the cuts are too harsh. However, looming over all this is the fact that on July 1st if no solution is reached, California runs out of money and starts issuing IOU's. This screws up our credit rating further and adds another $3 billion to the deficit in the form of interest built up on the IOU's that are issued. So the Assembly (who I work for) decides it can't let this happen. The Dems and Reps get together and pass three bills that they both agree on and, while not solving the entire problem, the bills would make enough cuts to prevent IOU's from being issued for a few more months. Everything looks hunky dory, and then the Senate Republicans come back from a meeting with Arnold. They decide they won't pass anything but a solution that solves the entire $24 billion. This is impossible because 1) no one agrees on a complete solution yet (not even Democrats) and 2) Even if they did reach an agreement it was physically impossible at this point to take the necessary steps (drafting, printing, debating, reviewing, proofreading, etc.) to pass a brand new agreement on anything before the IOU day. Cut to June 30. The Senate Republicans continue to refuse to pass the three bills that would prevent IOUs. Midnight hits, and we are $3 billion dollars poorer and issuing IOUs. Now that we're on the other side of this date, the governor makes known why he's taking the position he is on this (and allegedly convinced the Senate Republicans to allow the state to go insolvent). He wants his reforms that reduce state workers' pensions to be passed before he will sign anything. These are the reforms that he could not get through the legislature or passed by the people as measures on his special election ballot. So basically Arnold is holding a gun to the head of California's services to get his reforms passed. Everyone who's payments are not mandated by the constitution or by court order are getting IOU's instead of checks. I'll make another post later explaining how the IOU's work. Right now I'm late for getting dressed to go to lunch with Random.
  13. Oh Noes! What if Spooky's job is to make sure the snaking in the game is the snakiest snaking ever!? Seriously though, that game looks awesome. Wish I had a PS3 to play it on.
  14. If I had been protoman in that co-op clip, I would have jumped up early to kill that incoming flying enemy at the end of the video and killed my buddy. That's some sadistic shit right there.
  15. From what I can tell from the description combined with the lack of stun as described in the blog post, it looks like you won't have to charge your shots for as long, if at all, for full damage, but you don't get a scope. This would fulfill their promise of creating something that forces the sniper to get in closer in exchange for a benefit. Of course this assumes it replaces the sniper rifle, which they haven't made explicit.
×
×
  • Create New...