[She] is only a communist by right of birth, and not by any conscious political affiliation
China, USSR and probably other countries had times when refusing to join the party was bad for your health - just as if the Spanish Inquisition unexpectedly visits you and asks to kiss the cross and recite a prayer. Those are nothing but tests for loyalty.
Actually, in post-revolution China joining the party has always been a privilege. That is, they don't tell everyone to join the party or pay the consequences, they take applications to join, the vast majority of which are denied. Of course, nearly everyone wants to join because then you're first in line for jobs and such, but it's not a mass organization like it was pre-revolution.
If you just said this: I am Keynsian, I am for a society that always tries to help every member of itself to the detriment of everything else, I am for equal economic outcomes, I am for equality in everything, OK, I can understand that point. It's a misguided point, it doesn't stand a real life test, but I can understand it.
But no Keynesians would say that, because that's not what Keynes believed or wrote. That's what Marx wrote. Keynes had nothing to do with equality, he wrote about the causes of business cycles and what aspects of them caused booms to be shorter and busts to be longer than truly rational markets would dictate.
BUT saying that Keynesian is RATIONAL?
Here what is not rational: trying to stop a natural business cycle of boom/bust from going through one of its phases, namely through bust, and doing it by allocating resources in a way, that PREVENTS the bust from being resolved and prevents the next boom from starting.
You're right: I think we should only subsidize every segment of the market where there are TWO or MORE natural monopolies! Yeah!
- yeah yeah yeah, you'd subsidize everything.
No subsidies for any business, that's my position. I don't want to build businesses with my money through government power.
I agree. I like how you just assume that because I believe in regulation I must also believe in subsidies. You also seem to have a flaw in your sarcasm detection chip.
Except the "highly successful company" in question was not a monopoly. Re-read my post, then resume contorting away.
- it got where it got through tens of thousands of government contracts, including contracts with the government of Nazi Germany...
You've got to be fucking kidding me. You just Godwined an argument about whether monopolies are caused by government? Also, how is selling things to the Nazis the same as having a monopoly? And are you saying the government should never buy shit from companies? Any time the government buys the products it needs to do its job through the open market, it's creating a ward of the state?
Great example. Explain to me why I still can't buy a Linux PC from a major vendor without paying the Microsoft tax.
- You can't buy a PC from Apple without paying MS tax?
I can't buy a Linux PC from Apple, period. Helps if you read every word in the sentence.
No, in my world the government would enter clearly inefficient markets and use policy tools to make them more efficient.
- dream on, pipe boy. Government making things more efficient without use of subsidies?
Why is it the only form of policy you're familiar with is subsidies? Is net neutrality a subsidy? I don't think so. Is making a law that says, "you cannot hold your customers for ransom" a subsidy? This is what the thread is about, for chrissakes!
Boom cannot continue indefinitely, and printing money and borrowing more only digs a deeper hole for you.
Which is why I favor government policies other than printing money and borrowing more. Policies that soften the bust cycle, like mandating lower leverage ratios for banks, or keeping investment banks separate from traditional banks. These policies would have prevented the current recession.
but here on Earth there are things called market failures that exist in real economies and can only be fixed by government intervention
- yeah yeah, no government intervention can fix anything....They have no tool but the printing press...
Government has many tools: environmental regulations, fire codes, antitrust law, excise taxes on goods that produce externalities, etc., etc. Again, you need to read before you reply. Since you're incapable of typing "Market Failure" into your search engine box, I'll give you a nice link. Read it.
I am only against government involvement into Economics. Government has a role so far in order and military protection.
Notwithstanding your above quote that "no government intervention can fix anything", I'll take you at your word here. But if the government always gets taken over by special interests no matter what it does, what makes you so confident it can do those two things right? Also, how come military production and order can't be provided by the free market? These are services too, right?
I'm taking the reasonable middle ground that government sometimes works and sometimes makes things worse, which is the position borne out by history and economics.
- In the long run, any government that messed with economics destr
The problem would be greatly simplified if people kept a private record of all the services they use (or at least, the major ones), with login and password details.
Some of us don't even know all these things ourselves...
Just keep a list of passwords and such in your safe/safety deposit box, along with account numbers and all that other info. Sure, your folks are going to be able to look at your pr0n collection after yer dead...
Um...you could just omit the pr0n passwords and list the others, couldn't you?
Perhaps they're already gone and the role is being fulfilled à la The Dread Pirate Roberts. This might explain some of the step-changes in editing quality over the last decade.
Oh my god...it's worse than I thought! CowboyNeal is running all of slashdot! He's taken over the Hemos and CmdrTaco accounts! Soon, he will resurrect the dreaded JonKatz!
The supreme court has repeatedly held that the 14th amendment extended the prohibitions of the 1st amendment to all branches of government and to the states.
We don't have an "empire" and free speech has always been something that can be curtailed for an ongoing criminal investigation. National Security really doesn't have anything to do with it.
Except that this wasn't a criminal investigation warrant, it was a national security letter. If you're saying national security doesn't have anything to do with that, then I think you've made GP's point even better than GP could have.
That's a great plan, with just one minor drawback: you have to expect them to eventually serve you in order to be able to do it. Which makes it great from here on out, but useless for the man in question.
Did you really just cite a movie as a reference?! It's not that hard to cite the actual case, after all.
We're Americans (mostly). We won't look up the case, but we might watch the movie. So which is a better way to get the point across, cite something we'll look up or something we won't?
What, the government is supposed to SUBSIDIZE every segment of the market where there is only one natural monopoly so that another inefficient company or government service can be created? That's retarded.
You're right: I think we should only subsidize every segment of the market where there are TWO or MORE natural monopolies! Yeah!
Seriously? Because only IBM products shipped with Microsoft software, right? Here you reveal the logical contortions you have to go through to make your point.
- no contortions. If I get a special EXCLUSIVE deal from a highly successful company, then I am profiting from that company's success. The fact that the highly successful company was built with all sorts of government money and thus became a monopoly now is transferred to me.
Except the "highly successful company" in question was not a monopoly. Re-read my post, then resume contorting away.
Let me give you a hint: what do you think happens to the price, and quality, and cut-throat margins after the competition goes out of business?
- Microsoft is a good example of what happens: competition happens. Free Software competition over time has done the necessary work, Apple has done the work, Google has done the work, etc. That's what happens.
Great example. Explain to me why I still can't buy a Linux PC from a major vendor without paying the Microsoft tax.
In your world the government would be involved in all aspects of market, completely distorting it by allocating resources away from productive segments of society.
No, in my world the government would enter clearly inefficient markets and use policy tools to make them more efficient. I know in Friedman-land it's trendy to believe that all unregulated markets are 100% efficient all of the time, but here on Earth there are things called market failures that exist in real economies and can only be fixed by government intervention. You're the extremist here, advocating the position that government is always bad. I'm taking the reasonable middle ground that government sometimes works and sometimes makes things worse, which is the position borne out by history and economics.
So let me get this straight: free markets always work because competition drives down prices, right? But when there's no competition, because it's a monopoly, the market still works, as long as the government didn't create the monopoly, right? So free markets work even when the mechanism that makes free markets work is absent, right? Hang on, I think this is all going over my head a bit.
- AFAIC it is over your Keynesian head.
Man, that stings. I can't believe you called me a Keynesian. Think I need some ice for that burn.
No, it has never happened that a company became an absolute monopoly on its own.
For a highly restricted definition of "absolute monopoly". I don't even know what this term means, and I've studied the economics of monopoly behavior.
You won't find an example. Even Standard Oil was not a monopoly by the time it was split.
I think the supreme court would beg to differ on that. Either way, by buying up competitors (not with support from the government, but with the size of its own pocketbook) Standard Oil was able to control pricing, demand rebates from shippers, dominate 91% of the oil market, and enjoy 100% of the market in many regions. By the time their share fell to 64% prior to breakup they had been enduring 20 years of government regulation; their 91% dominance came prior to Sherman.
Microsoft became a monopoly by dealing with IBM, so by proxy Microsoft also was helped by big bad governments, yes.
Seriously? Because only IBM products shipped with Microsoft software, right? Here you reveal the logical contortions you have to go through to make your point. Microsoft became a monopoly by dealing with both IBM and IBM's competitors. IBM never had anything near a monopoly on the personal computing market. Their only monopoly was in mainframes (and before that, in mechanical card tabulators and such). IBM was in competition with Tandy, Apple, Commodore and many others, and from '84 on with clones of its own products. Guess what? All of them shipped with Microsoft software. Because of the government? No, because Microsoft independently dealt with all these companies and sold them its software (first BASIC interpreters, then later MS-DOS).
So AFAIC 99% monopolies are created with government support.
AFAIC 100% of that statistic was pulled from your anal orifice.
The rest are natural monopolies that either serve extremely small markets where there is no room for more than one player or the product is provided at such price and quality and cut-throat margins that competition couldn't survive.
Let me give you a hint: what do you think happens to the price, and quality, and cut-throat margins after the competition goes out of business?
For a consumer the natural monopoly is not a problem,
Ummm...since when? A consumer doesn't care whether a monopoly is natural or artificial, they only care that any sort of monopoly is able to set price equal to marginal revenue, which is much higher than competitive equilibrium price. In other words, the company gets to rip them off, no matter what kind of monopoly it is, unless prices are regulated.
the real threat is a monopoly that kills competition by the hand of government money/regulation.
So let me get this straight: free markets always work because competition drives down prices, right? But when there's no competition, because it's a monopoly, the market still works, as long as the government didn't create the monopoly, right? So free markets work even when the mechanism that makes free markets work is absent, right? Hang on, I think this is all going over my head a bit.
You just admitted that you know nothing about the history of your own country.
...or maybe that I have a broader perspective than you and don't see everything in a one-sided way whereby I must twist all evidence to fit some set of preconceptions.
The government would have done nothing about slavery if the people had not demanded it be ended. The pressure voters placed upon politicians through voting out politicians against ending slavery and voting in those politicians who wanted to end slavery was tremendous.
No shit. That's called Democracy.
It was moral outrage on the part of the individual American that ended slavery as nothing would have happened without it. Read "A Team of Rivals", a book about Lincoln's cabinet and the political history of each the men who made up his cabinet. It's a fascinating read as it delves into the political views and attitudes of the American people at the time as well as Lincoln, his motivations, and how he governed.
Great, but that still in no way affects my statement. You get bonus points for assuming that someone with a different perspective simply knows less than you, and will automatically come around once they know what you know.
We, the people, didn't cede power to the government to change things. We demanded that the government use the power it had at that time to do what was right.
Factually untrue. Prior to the 13th amendment the federal government did not have the authority to abolish slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves held by "rebels"). The 13th amendment was something we, the people, through our state governments ratifying it, used to make federal law that would otherwise have violated states' rights. Only to someone who is fundamentally addicted to believing "every increase in government power is bad!!" is this not ceding power to the government to change things.
If you don't understand that difference you will misunderstand most of US history.
Given the illogic and magical thinking you display, I'm perfectly content to "misunderstand most of US history" according to you.
Oh, and fishexe the Bill O'Reilly 'quote' is about kali sheikh mohammed (mastermind of 9/11) and the context was Bill asking a guest if 9/11 was a terrorist act. Bill wanted the guests opinion on that question, not legal advise about constitutional rights for non US citizens. You should stop taking quotes out of context or people are going to start thinking you're full of shit.
Or maybe O'Reilly should stop being an asshole demagogue. The full context was that they were having a debate about constitutional rights for non-US citizens, and O'Reilly was trying to railroad it into a discussion of whether something is a terrorist act, which was totally irrelevant. The terms "terrorist act" do not appear in the Constitution, as an exception to due process or anything else. Judge Napolitano was correctly resisting O'Reilly's attempt to change the subject. But as he himself said, O'Reilly doesn't care about the Constitution. At least not what's actually in it.
Seriously, wtf kind of argument is, "The Constitution isn't here, you're here!"? That's not something you say when someone's dodging a salient question, that's something you say when you don't have a leg to stand on and you just want to call someone a pinhead.
Game the system. If there are not betting limits, heres what you do.
1. Attend college on list for a few semesters, fail most classes, but not enough to get kicked out.
2. Bet double your accumulated tuition cost, and then overload on your mickey mouse degree classes.
3. No xxxxxxxx step, just straight profit
If you RTFA you'd see that they have limits on your bets. You can't bet enough to make it worthwhile to flush your tuition down the drain or to throw a few semesters.
Who says your tuition was flushed down the drain? You're allowed to learn all the material, just pretend you don't for the exam.
Slashdot Mirror
...than that other birthday Slashdot's recognizing today.
Why is it that you assume only FOX News spews propaganda? The other channels do as well (especially MSNBC which has been caught doing it).
Nobody assumes that. This happens to be a thread about Murdoch, owner of FOX News.
[She] is only a communist by right of birth, and not by any conscious political affiliation
China, USSR and probably other countries had times when refusing to join the party was bad for your health - just as if the Spanish Inquisition unexpectedly visits you and asks to kiss the cross and recite a prayer. Those are nothing but tests for loyalty.
Actually, in post-revolution China joining the party has always been a privilege. That is, they don't tell everyone to join the party or pay the consequences, they take applications to join, the vast majority of which are denied. Of course, nearly everyone wants to join because then you're first in line for jobs and such, but it's not a mass organization like it was pre-revolution.
the commentary 'by the people' is far more educational and revealing than any paid mouthpeace in a cute dress.
More educational I'll give you, but more revealing?? That depends on the dress.
that everyone who links to its articles is "stealing content"?
If you just said this: I am Keynsian, I am for a society that always tries to help every member of itself to the detriment of everything else, I am for equal economic outcomes, I am for equality in everything, OK, I can understand that point. It's a misguided point, it doesn't stand a real life test, but I can understand it.
But no Keynesians would say that, because that's not what Keynes believed or wrote. That's what Marx wrote. Keynes had nothing to do with equality, he wrote about the causes of business cycles and what aspects of them caused booms to be shorter and busts to be longer than truly rational markets would dictate.
BUT saying that Keynesian is RATIONAL?
Here what is not rational: trying to stop a natural business cycle of boom/bust from going through one of its phases, namely through bust, and doing it by allocating resources in a way, that PREVENTS the bust from being resolved and prevents the next boom from starting.
I think you need to actually read Keynes.
You're right: I think we should only subsidize every segment of the market where there are TWO or MORE natural monopolies! Yeah!
- yeah yeah yeah, you'd subsidize everything.
No subsidies for any business, that's my position. I don't want to build businesses with my money through government power.
I agree. I like how you just assume that because I believe in regulation I must also believe in subsidies. You also seem to have a flaw in your sarcasm detection chip.
Except the "highly successful company" in question was not a monopoly. Re-read my post, then resume contorting away.
- it got where it got through tens of thousands of government contracts, including contracts with the government of Nazi Germany...
You've got to be fucking kidding me. You just Godwined an argument about whether monopolies are caused by government? Also, how is selling things to the Nazis the same as having a monopoly? And are you saying the government should never buy shit from companies? Any time the government buys the products it needs to do its job through the open market, it's creating a ward of the state?
Great example. Explain to me why I still can't buy a Linux PC from a major vendor without paying the Microsoft tax.
- You can't buy a PC from Apple without paying MS tax?
I can't buy a Linux PC from Apple, period. Helps if you read every word in the sentence.
No, in my world the government would enter clearly inefficient markets and use policy tools to make them more efficient.
- dream on, pipe boy. Government making things more efficient without use of subsidies?
Why is it the only form of policy you're familiar with is subsidies? Is net neutrality a subsidy? I don't think so. Is making a law that says, "you cannot hold your customers for ransom" a subsidy? This is what the thread is about, for chrissakes!
Boom cannot continue indefinitely, and printing money and borrowing more only digs a deeper hole for you.
Which is why I favor government policies other than printing money and borrowing more. Policies that soften the bust cycle, like mandating lower leverage ratios for banks, or keeping investment banks separate from traditional banks. These policies would have prevented the current recession.
but here on Earth there are things called market failures that exist in real economies and can only be fixed by government intervention
- yeah yeah, no government intervention can fix anything....They have no tool but the printing press...
Government has many tools: environmental regulations, fire codes, antitrust law, excise taxes on goods that produce externalities, etc., etc. Again, you need to read before you reply. Since you're incapable of typing "Market Failure" into your search engine box, I'll give you a nice link. Read it.
I am only against government involvement into Economics. Government has a role so far in order and military protection.
Notwithstanding your above quote that "no government intervention can fix anything", I'll take you at your word here. But if the government always gets taken over by special interests no matter what it does, what makes you so confident it can do those two things right? Also, how come military production and order can't be provided by the free market? These are services too, right?
I'm taking the reasonable middle ground that government sometimes works and sometimes makes things worse, which is the position borne out by history and economics.
- In the long run, any government that messed with economics destr
The problem would be greatly simplified if people kept a private record of all the services they use (or at least, the major ones), with login and password details.
Some of us don't even know all these things ourselves...
Just keep a list of passwords and such in your safe/safety deposit box, along with account numbers and all that other info. Sure, your folks are going to be able to look at your pr0n collection after yer dead...
Um...you could just omit the pr0n passwords and list the others, couldn't you?
Perhaps they're already gone and the role is being fulfilled à la The Dread Pirate Roberts. This might explain some of the step-changes in editing quality over the last decade.
Oh my god...it's worse than I thought! CowboyNeal is running all of slashdot! He's taken over the Hemos and CmdrTaco accounts! Soon, he will resurrect the dreaded JonKatz!
Perhaps there should be an option for a "will" of sorts.
I would like to be able to set the "upon my death, close off new posts, but keep my old ones available" option.
Maybe allow me to select a new theme or a digital epitaph.... or just a "final post".
You could put all those things in your paper will. Your executor would be bound to honor them, as long as they included nothing unlawful.
If the government has enough revenue, why are we supposed to be so worried about the deficit?
Yes.
That's absurd.
So are you, my friend. So are you.
The supreme court has repeatedly held that the 14th amendment extended the prohibitions of the 1st amendment to all branches of government and to the states.
We don't have an "empire" and free speech has always been something that can be curtailed for an ongoing criminal investigation. National Security really doesn't have anything to do with it.
Except that this wasn't a criminal investigation warrant, it was a national security letter. If you're saying national security doesn't have anything to do with that, then I think you've made GP's point even better than GP could have.
That's a great plan, with just one minor drawback: you have to expect them to eventually serve you in order to be able to do it. Which makes it great from here on out, but useless for the man in question.
Did you really just cite a movie as a reference?! It's not that hard to cite the actual case, after all.
We're Americans (mostly). We won't look up the case, but we might watch the movie. So which is a better way to get the point across, cite something we'll look up or something we won't?
What, the government is supposed to SUBSIDIZE every segment of the market where there is only one natural monopoly so that another inefficient company or government service can be created? That's retarded.
You're right: I think we should only subsidize every segment of the market where there are TWO or MORE natural monopolies! Yeah!
Seriously? Because only IBM products shipped with Microsoft software, right? Here you reveal the logical contortions you have to go through to make your point.
- no contortions. If I get a special EXCLUSIVE deal from a highly successful company, then I am profiting from that company's success. The fact that the highly successful company was built with all sorts of government money and thus became a monopoly now is transferred to me.
Except the "highly successful company" in question was not a monopoly. Re-read my post, then resume contorting away.
Let me give you a hint: what do you think happens to the price, and quality, and cut-throat margins after the competition goes out of business?
- Microsoft is a good example of what happens: competition happens. Free Software competition over time has done the necessary work, Apple has done the work, Google has done the work, etc. That's what happens.
Great example. Explain to me why I still can't buy a Linux PC from a major vendor without paying the Microsoft tax.
In your world the government would be involved in all aspects of market, completely distorting it by allocating resources away from productive segments of society.
No, in my world the government would enter clearly inefficient markets and use policy tools to make them more efficient. I know in Friedman-land it's trendy to believe that all unregulated markets are 100% efficient all of the time, but here on Earth there are things called market failures that exist in real economies and can only be fixed by government intervention. You're the extremist here, advocating the position that government is always bad. I'm taking the reasonable middle ground that government sometimes works and sometimes makes things worse, which is the position borne out by history and economics.
So let me get this straight: free markets always work because competition drives down prices, right? But when there's no competition, because it's a monopoly, the market still works, as long as the government didn't create the monopoly, right? So free markets work even when the mechanism that makes free markets work is absent, right? Hang on, I think this is all going over my head a bit.
- AFAIC it is over your Keynesian head.
Man, that stings. I can't believe you called me a Keynesian. Think I need some ice for that burn.
No, it has never happened that a company became an absolute monopoly on its own.
For a highly restricted definition of "absolute monopoly". I don't even know what this term means, and I've studied the economics of monopoly behavior.
You won't find an example. Even Standard Oil was not a monopoly by the time it was split.
I think the supreme court would beg to differ on that. Either way, by buying up competitors (not with support from the government, but with the size of its own pocketbook) Standard Oil was able to control pricing, demand rebates from shippers, dominate 91% of the oil market, and enjoy 100% of the market in many regions. By the time their share fell to 64% prior to breakup they had been enduring 20 years of government regulation; their 91% dominance came prior to Sherman.
Microsoft became a monopoly by dealing with IBM, so by proxy Microsoft also was helped by big bad governments, yes.
Seriously? Because only IBM products shipped with Microsoft software, right? Here you reveal the logical contortions you have to go through to make your point. Microsoft became a monopoly by dealing with both IBM and IBM's competitors. IBM never had anything near a monopoly on the personal computing market. Their only monopoly was in mainframes (and before that, in mechanical card tabulators and such). IBM was in competition with Tandy, Apple, Commodore and many others, and from '84 on with clones of its own products. Guess what? All of them shipped with Microsoft software. Because of the government? No, because Microsoft independently dealt with all these companies and sold them its software (first BASIC interpreters, then later MS-DOS).
So AFAIC 99% monopolies are created with government support.
AFAIC 100% of that statistic was pulled from your anal orifice.
The rest are natural monopolies that either serve extremely small markets where there is no room for more than one player or the product is provided at such price and quality and cut-throat margins that competition couldn't survive.
Let me give you a hint: what do you think happens to the price, and quality, and cut-throat margins after the competition goes out of business?
For a consumer the natural monopoly is not a problem,
Ummm...since when? A consumer doesn't care whether a monopoly is natural or artificial, they only care that any sort of monopoly is able to set price equal to marginal revenue, which is much higher than competitive equilibrium price. In other words, the company gets to rip them off, no matter what kind of monopoly it is, unless prices are regulated.
the real threat is a monopoly that kills competition by the hand of government money/regulation.
So let me get this straight: free markets always work because competition drives down prices, right? But when there's no competition, because it's a monopoly, the market still works, as long as the government didn't create the monopoly, right? So free markets work even when the mechanism that makes free markets work is absent, right? Hang on, I think this is all going over my head a bit.
You just admitted that you know nothing about the history of your own country.
...or maybe that I have a broader perspective than you and don't see everything in a one-sided way whereby I must twist all evidence to fit some set of preconceptions.
The government would have done nothing about slavery if the people had not demanded it be ended. The pressure voters placed upon politicians through voting out politicians against ending slavery and voting in those politicians who wanted to end slavery was tremendous.
No shit. That's called Democracy.
It was moral outrage on the part of the individual American that ended slavery as nothing would have happened without it. Read "A Team of Rivals", a book about Lincoln's cabinet and the political history of each the men who made up his cabinet. It's a fascinating read as it delves into the political views and attitudes of the American people at the time as well as Lincoln, his motivations, and how he governed.
Great, but that still in no way affects my statement. You get bonus points for assuming that someone with a different perspective simply knows less than you, and will automatically come around once they know what you know.
We, the people, didn't cede power to the government to change things. We demanded that the government use the power it had at that time to do what was right.
Factually untrue. Prior to the 13th amendment the federal government did not have the authority to abolish slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves held by "rebels"). The 13th amendment was something we, the people, through our state governments ratifying it, used to make federal law that would otherwise have violated states' rights. Only to someone who is fundamentally addicted to believing "every increase in government power is bad!!" is this not ceding power to the government to change things.
If you don't understand that difference you will misunderstand most of US history.
Given the illogic and magical thinking you display, I'm perfectly content to "misunderstand most of US history" according to you.
Oh, and fishexe the Bill O'Reilly 'quote' is about kali sheikh mohammed (mastermind of 9/11) and the context was Bill asking a guest if 9/11 was a terrorist act. Bill wanted the guests opinion on that question, not legal advise about constitutional rights for non US citizens. You should stop taking quotes out of context or people are going to start thinking you're full of shit.
Or maybe O'Reilly should stop being an asshole demagogue. The full context was that they were having a debate about constitutional rights for non-US citizens, and O'Reilly was trying to railroad it into a discussion of whether something is a terrorist act, which was totally irrelevant. The terms "terrorist act" do not appear in the Constitution, as an exception to due process or anything else. Judge Napolitano was correctly resisting O'Reilly's attempt to change the subject. But as he himself said, O'Reilly doesn't care about the Constitution. At least not what's actually in it.
Seriously, wtf kind of argument is, "The Constitution isn't here, you're here!"? That's not something you say when someone's dodging a salient question, that's something you say when you don't have a leg to stand on and you just want to call someone a pinhead.
Game the system. If there are not betting limits, heres what you do. 1. Attend college on list for a few semesters, fail most classes, but not enough to get kicked out. 2. Bet double your accumulated tuition cost, and then overload on your mickey mouse degree classes. 3. No xxxxxxxx step, just straight profit
If you RTFA you'd see that they have limits on your bets. You can't bet enough to make it worthwhile to flush your tuition down the drain or to throw a few semesters.
Who says your tuition was flushed down the drain? You're allowed to learn all the material, just pretend you don't for the exam.
2. Bet double your accumulated tuition cost, and then overload on your mickey mouse degree classes.
...why stop at double?
It boggled my mind that people who have no idea how to use a computer were getting degrees in computer science.
"Computer Science is as much about computers as Astronomy is about telescopes." --Edsger Dijkstra
(something you might know if you'd taken more CS courses)
so what about people who did the job and did not go to big 4 year school? Why should they get passed over for a JOB?
Because they type like you and still expect to be taken seriously?