Sink more into education, especially those schools in minority/inner city districts that have the most to gain from modest improvements.
Hrm, interesting. I think it needs some modest adjustment to get bipartisan consensus though. How about this: let's cut spending on education across the board, and then target additional spending cuts based on the pre-existing achievement gap? That way poor schools get less money, and the free market will create jobs with patriotic children of freedom!
Fun part is that in Germany, such an argument would bring immediate retribution by the state - since, if they're actually employees, the companies have to copay for such things like pensions or health insurance.
Thus they'd leverage huge fines against the companies making that argument since we all know that musicians rarely see a significant dime out of their contracts - which is the reason why they're doing tours where they also sell t-shirts to make money.
You Germans are so backwards. Here in America, it is every citizen's right not to have a pension or healthcare.
No kidding. How long till the bags of money start flowing into congressional hands quietly, again?
This is the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act all over again.
Does that imply the money ever stopped? The only difference is now they don't have to tell you it's them slipping singles into Harry Reid's halter top. Money is speech after all. But it's silent speech. Like carbon monoxide.
Why can Internet service providers get away with crap like this?
Here in America we have this little thing called "campaign contributions"...plus, you know, all these corporations are "people" so their speech is protected.
Last I heard, GM and Ford were American corporations, complete with campaign contributions and protected free speech.
I say again, why can Internet service providers get away with this.
Because when a geek speaks, all anyone hears is 'blah blah star trek bit blorp blah'.
Unenforceable or redundant laws are silly, I won't hesitate to agree. If there was a way to get a Commission of Ending Stupid Laws that didn't totally circumvent the Constitution, I'd be all for it (because obviously Congress would rather crank out piles of new ones instead, and I'd better head off that digression before I start ranting about treason). The topic is large, consumer-friendly regulation of big business practices. Those are under siege by Big Money. The thing is, they use bait-and-switch to get votes by showcasing the silly ones, and then wiping out the biggies.
Common-sense weeding of many regulations ARE a good idea, but when TPTB do the weeding we get Comcast buying NBC, and AT&T buying T-Mobile, and NewsCorp buying... everything else.
Why USAians don't demand better regulation is a mystery to me.
Regulation is a four-letter word over here. It "handcuffs job-creators" and "stifles industry", and no matter what national polls show, (almost) no elected officials fight this Big Lie.
But do you actually believe that the people would buy SC2 if it allowed LAN play? The catch-22 is that when you allow it, people pirate it, and when you don't allow it they try to pretend like they would be willing to pay for it.
You can't have it both ways, and we all know that "casual LAN parties" very rarely include playing games that everybody paid for.
People will pirate it regardless, it isn't a catch 22. I can speak authoritatively that SOME people would buy it if it was more consumer-friendly - specifically myself and several people I know. Will I pirate it? Maybe, but probably not. Whether I do or not though, it is still a lost sale for Blizzard.
I know some people just writhe in self-righteous fury when someone says it, but these decisions DO result in more net lost sales than simply allowing LAN play (or true offline modes). Pirates gonna pirate. I would absolutely like to (and do!) support consumer-friendly companies, but what I do after I don't buy is irrelevant to their bottom line.
Oh, come on, you didn't like Pitfall? Everyone liked Pitfall.
Sure, but Pitfall 2 required you to drive to the store and show your receipt every time you turned on the Atari. They said they were "protecting the player experience". It did, too - I ended up having a great experience playing Dig Dug instead!
Casual LAN copyright infringement is still copyright infringement. I've done it, too, but I'm not going to try and claim it as some kind of right. I was playing games I didn't pay for. If companies come up with effective DRM that prevents me from casually pirating their game at a LAN, then guess what? I'm not going to casually pirate their game at a LAN. And if it's a particularly good game, if I want to play it at a LAN with my friends, then I will buy it.
The GP was not suggesting infringement.
Two points - first, he said his friends wouldn't buy SC2 (nor will I) because of no-LAN, always online nonsense, but that they all owned SC1. Second - and more relevant - SC1 had that AWESOME feature that let you set up a friend with their own secondary install. I forget what it was called, but you could join any LAN game as long as someone with a full copy created the game. No infringement, user-friendly design.
I like WoW, for what it is. I don't have a problem with MMOs, they're fun. Games like Diablo online, however, are like some unexplored circle of hell (if you'll pardon the expression). You couldn't pay me to play D2 on battle.net, and it has nothing to do with cheaters. It's the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. D3 is just another single player game for me (and, it seems, many others). I'm deeply disappointed with this Activisionization, and as sorry as I'll be not to play, I have better ways to spend my money than supporting schemes like this.
Of course, there *will* be a crack. Nothing is foolproof, and there's no greater collection of fools than the cracking community.
Using Republican code words undercuts any valid points you may have. I'd respectfully suggest you knock it off if you want to have a serious conversation.
TL:DR You cant anymore disprove god, than prove god, so using someone's belief in god as a basis whether you will even consider they're research(which is unrelated to religion or the beginning of the universe) makes you strongly emotionally biased, and very closed minded.Neither are traits associated with being a good scientist.
This isn't bias against a religious belief, this is a bias against a religious belief claimed as a science, something you yourself seem to take issue with.
I didn't know those numbers, interesting stuff. Cleaning up the DEA is only a tiny portion of what I suggest though.
There is a particular product used in every state of the Union, at every level of the socio-economic ladder, and in virtually all demographic groups. This product is readily accessible, totally unregulated, and has a domestic (some might say thriving) cottage industry. It is also sold by violent, criminal, foreign organizations in order to meet national demand. The Federal attitude is to pretend prohibition functions in any meaningful way - which it clearly does not.
I have to blink a little to clear the blind rage at your willful ignorance and reckless, arrogant selfishness. It isn't worth my time to rebut all of your Reagan-era talking-point bullshit. You live in a country whose ideals you spit on with your "reduce the surplus population" attitude. Fucking over the poor and padding the accounts of the mega-wealthy makes for great quarterly reports but it is tearing this nation apart.
If the only number that matters to you is Number One, go find a nice bunker somewhere and let the rest of us care for our countrymen.
For people interested in actually learning about these issues, I strongly recommend Paul Krugman's blog. He is a brilliant macroeconomist with a remarkably prescient track record. You could also spend some time reading his older articles and compare them to the present day situation. It's pretty eye-opening when things unfold in such a precisely-predicted manner.
The helmsman is unable to steer away from the iceberg till the most affluent passengers agree to pay twice as much as the passengers in steerage for their exquisite first class cabins.
Not a perfect analogy, but I think this is a little closer to the mark.
We could end prohibition of cannabis, cut the DEA budget by about 70%, license the existing cottage industry, and tax the product. This would have the added benefit of drastically reducing the required spending on Federal imprisonment, a not-insubstantial amount of cash.
Slashdot Mirror
Sink more into education, especially those schools in minority/inner city districts that have the most to gain from modest improvements.
Hrm, interesting. I think it needs some modest adjustment to get bipartisan consensus though. How about this: let's cut spending on education across the board, and then target additional spending cuts based on the pre-existing achievement gap? That way poor schools get less money, and the free market will create jobs with patriotic children of freedom!
Problem solved.
Fun part is that in Germany, such an argument would bring immediate retribution by the state - since, if they're actually employees, the companies have to copay for such things like pensions or health insurance.
Thus they'd leverage huge fines against the companies making that argument since we all know that musicians rarely see a significant dime out of their contracts - which is the reason why they're doing tours where they also sell t-shirts to make money.
You Germans are so backwards. Here in America, it is every citizen's right not to have a pension or healthcare.
No kidding. How long till the bags of money start flowing into congressional hands quietly, again?
This is the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act all over again.
Does that imply the money ever stopped? The only difference is now they don't have to tell you it's them slipping singles into Harry Reid's halter top. Money is speech after all. But it's silent speech. Like carbon monoxide.
Why can Internet service providers get away with crap like this?
Here in America we have this little thing called "campaign contributions"...plus, you know, all these corporations are "people" so their speech is protected.
Last I heard, GM and Ford were American corporations, complete with campaign contributions and protected free speech.
I say again, why can Internet service providers get away with this.
Because when a geek speaks, all anyone hears is 'blah blah star trek bit blorp blah'.
Unenforceable or redundant laws are silly, I won't hesitate to agree. If there was a way to get a Commission of Ending Stupid Laws that didn't totally circumvent the Constitution, I'd be all for it (because obviously Congress would rather crank out piles of new ones instead, and I'd better head off that digression before I start ranting about treason). The topic is large, consumer-friendly regulation of big business practices. Those are under siege by Big Money. The thing is, they use bait-and-switch to get votes by showcasing the silly ones, and then wiping out the biggies.
Common-sense weeding of many regulations ARE a good idea, but when TPTB do the weeding we get Comcast buying NBC, and AT&T buying T-Mobile, and NewsCorp buying... everything else.
Arab Spring, English Summer, and The Fall of America.
Now is the Winter of our Discontent?
I'm putting off my winter of discontent until the 2012 elections. Plan ahead!
Regulation got us into this mess
What universe are you living in? Subsidies are not regulation.
So your answer to bad politicians is to give them even more power?
The reductive reasoning of a Rome-burner.
Why USAians don't demand better regulation is a mystery to me.
Regulation is a four-letter word over here. It "handcuffs job-creators" and "stifles industry", and no matter what national polls show, (almost) no elected officials fight this Big Lie.
But do you actually believe that the people would buy SC2 if it allowed LAN play? The catch-22 is that when you allow it, people pirate it, and when you don't allow it they try to pretend like they would be willing to pay for it.
You can't have it both ways, and we all know that "casual LAN parties" very rarely include playing games that everybody paid for.
People will pirate it regardless, it isn't a catch 22. I can speak authoritatively that SOME people would buy it if it was more consumer-friendly - specifically myself and several people I know. Will I pirate it? Maybe, but probably not. Whether I do or not though, it is still a lost sale for Blizzard.
I know some people just writhe in self-righteous fury when someone says it, but these decisions DO result in more net lost sales than simply allowing LAN play (or true offline modes). Pirates gonna pirate. I would absolutely like to (and do!) support consumer-friendly companies, but what I do after I don't buy is irrelevant to their bottom line.
I think you're being naive.
It isn't naivete, it's reading.
Quoting: "Starcraft II is not on the game list. Starcraft: Brood War is. I own Starcraft II, but not everyone coming does."
I think the implication is that while they don't all own SC2, they do all own BW. I think you're inferring what is not implied ;-)
"Buildings on this site are certified to run Diablo 4!"
Great. I already have a mortgage on Diablo II though, and it is a buyer's market.
those shitheaded SOB's at Activision
Oh, come on, you didn't like Pitfall? Everyone liked Pitfall.
Sure, but Pitfall 2 required you to drive to the store and show your receipt every time you turned on the Atari. They said they were "protecting the player experience". It did, too - I ended up having a great experience playing Dig Dug instead!
I loved a woman on the northern tip of cape cod once.
Having been to the northern tip of Cape Cod on many occasions, I find that highly improbable.
I'm a chronic altitis sufferer
My name is Alemedastone, and I am an altaholic. I just can't get enough altohol.
When will WoW allow additional character slots? WHEN!? I'll be good! I'll buy BOTH bliz store mounts, I promise!
Casual LAN copyright infringement is still copyright infringement. I've done it, too, but I'm not going to try and claim it as some kind of right. I was playing games I didn't pay for. If companies come up with effective DRM that prevents me from casually pirating their game at a LAN, then guess what? I'm not going to casually pirate their game at a LAN. And if it's a particularly good game, if I want to play it at a LAN with my friends, then I will buy it.
The GP was not suggesting infringement.
Two points - first, he said his friends wouldn't buy SC2 (nor will I) because of no-LAN, always online nonsense, but that they all owned SC1. Second - and more relevant - SC1 had that AWESOME feature that let you set up a friend with their own secondary install. I forget what it was called, but you could join any LAN game as long as someone with a full copy created the game. No infringement, user-friendly design.
I like WoW, for what it is. I don't have a problem with MMOs, they're fun. Games like Diablo online, however, are like some unexplored circle of hell (if you'll pardon the expression). You couldn't pay me to play D2 on battle.net, and it has nothing to do with cheaters. It's the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. D3 is just another single player game for me (and, it seems, many others). I'm deeply disappointed with this Activisionization, and as sorry as I'll be not to play, I have better ways to spend my money than supporting schemes like this.
Of course, there *will* be a crack. Nothing is foolproof, and there's no greater collection of fools than the cracking community.
Let's just ban everything and punish everyone, then. It's easier that way.
Everything not illegal is already mandatory.
Considering a Democrat president
Using Republican code words undercuts any valid points you may have. I'd respectfully suggest you knock it off if you want to have a serious conversation.
TL:DR You cant anymore disprove god, than prove god, so using someone's belief in god as a basis whether you will even consider they're research(which is unrelated to religion or the beginning of the universe) makes you strongly emotionally biased, and very closed minded.Neither are traits associated with being a good scientist.
This isn't bias against a religious belief, this is a bias against a religious belief claimed as a science, something you yourself seem to take issue with.
Agree to agree?
I didn't know those numbers, interesting stuff. Cleaning up the DEA is only a tiny portion of what I suggest though.
There is a particular product used in every state of the Union, at every level of the socio-economic ladder, and in virtually all demographic groups. This product is readily accessible, totally unregulated, and has a domestic (some might say thriving) cottage industry. It is also sold by violent, criminal, foreign organizations in order to meet national demand. The Federal attitude is to pretend prohibition functions in any meaningful way - which it clearly does not.
Instead, I think it should see dollar signs.
I have to blink a little to clear the blind rage at your willful ignorance and reckless, arrogant selfishness. It isn't worth my time to rebut all of your Reagan-era talking-point bullshit. You live in a country whose ideals you spit on with your "reduce the surplus population" attitude. Fucking over the poor and padding the accounts of the mega-wealthy makes for great quarterly reports but it is tearing this nation apart.
If the only number that matters to you is Number One, go find a nice bunker somewhere and let the rest of us care for our countrymen.
For people interested in actually learning about these issues, I strongly recommend Paul Krugman's blog. He is a brilliant macroeconomist with a remarkably prescient track record. You could also spend some time reading his older articles and compare them to the present day situation. It's pretty eye-opening when things unfold in such a precisely-predicted manner.
And those limits can be overwhelmed by a large response.
Or is the real news story that Americans are expressing something about their political parties for once?
I think the buried lead is that these systems weren't even built with the expectation that they'd be used by a significant number of voters.
The helmsman is unable to steer away from the iceberg till the most affluent passengers agree to pay twice as much as the passengers in steerage for their exquisite first class cabins.
Not a perfect analogy, but I think this is a little closer to the mark.
We could end prohibition of cannabis, cut the DEA budget by about 70%, license the existing cottage industry, and tax the product. This would have the added benefit of drastically reducing the required spending on Federal imprisonment, a not-insubstantial amount of cash.