I'm not worried about the batshit crazy speech, because all reasonable people can see how batshit crazy it is.
I'm worried about the mildly crazy woo-woo speech, because some reasonable people can't see it for the falsehood that it is.
But yeah, okay fine, we're not trying to legislate it out of existence, we're trying to LAUGH it out of existence. Sadly, it's not working as well as we might hope.
You have made the assumption that the cycle of decades must have started with the first year of our counting. That's a wrong assumption. Same with millennia.
INCORRECT! Year zero doesn't even enter into the question, because as we all know the current epoch started with the year 1970. Thus, decades in our epoch end with zeros.
What do you mean, before there were human beings? Yeah, okay, good point, but now that humans have evolved, we have human problems to solve. Not everyone can be a tree or a tiger.
The only "intellectual laziness" that I see is you trying to proffer the false equivalence of Fox News and NYT. The underpinnings of such an equivalence can not be supported, so to promulgate it is untenable.
If you were less intellectually lazy, you would realize that.
I'm not familiar with the event to which you allude, but sometimes opposition to a bill could be legitimately compared to being in favor of slavery. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that in this case (whatever case you refer to), it is not a fair comparison.
Huh, I've never gotten anything like that on a PC I bought. Do the software manufacturers pay you to deal with their 'bloatware'? Do they cut you a check, or pay you via PayPal, or some other way?
What do you mean? My Presidential ballot normally has between eight and twelve names on it, from a wide variety of parties, and I can write in any other person I wish to vote for. That is precisely the opposite of being forced to choose from one or two options.
I totally agree, but it makes me wonder, how small of a change is too small to matter? Changing search engine options is, really, relatively minor, but to me still big enough. But what if they, uh, changed the "Start" menu to a "Go" menu (for example), or changed the icon for the browser from a little planet to a little sailing ship? What if they changed one default ring tone to a different default ring tone? I can't decide where I'd draw the line.
I'm with you in concept, but if the promo contract was really worth 500 million dollars, then at 30 dollars a call (which sounds really high to me), that would be one and two thirds million calls just for them to break even.
In this case, the naturally occurring cell phone market is unfree because the power delta between provider and consumer is so gigantic that providers can collude and use tricks to get consumers to buy their products. We can use legislation to make that unfree market more free, by having laws to increase consumers' understanding of contracts, and so on.
There is no such thing as a free market (just as there is no such thing as a perfect circle), and insofar as we prefer freer markets to unfreer ones, we can use legislation to increase freeness.
Yeah, I guess. Some inequalities are due to sexism, some aren't. Some inequalities arise from the natural parameters of the job; some arise from wrong, inbred notions of the type of person best suited to the job.
Well you asked "Since when do we have a precedent that lands seized in a war are given to the inhabitants of the country that ends up with those lands?"
The answer to that question is "since always".
You might have really meant the question "in 1949, didn't we try to change the longstanding precedent that lands seized in a war are given to the victors?"
And the answer to that question would be, yes, we tried to do that, with impressive but imperfect results.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, yeah.
I'm not worried about the batshit crazy speech, because all reasonable people can see how batshit crazy it is.
I'm worried about the mildly crazy woo-woo speech, because some reasonable people can't see it for the falsehood that it is.
But yeah, okay fine, we're not trying to legislate it out of existence, we're trying to LAUGH it out of existence. Sadly, it's not working as well as we might hope.
The "last decade" is synonymous with "since the late 90s".
You are forgetting the iMac, which was the product that changed everything at Apple.
You have made the assumption that the cycle of decades must have started with the first year of our counting. That's a wrong assumption. Same with millennia.
INCORRECT! Year zero doesn't even enter into the question, because as we all know the current epoch started with the year 1970. Thus, decades in our epoch end with zeros.
What is an MMO? A massively multiplayer online?
What do you mean, before there were human beings? Yeah, okay, good point, but now that humans have evolved, we have human problems to solve. Not everyone can be a tree or a tiger.
No it wouldn't have been.
Yes, exactly; they are. I'm glad we see eye-to-eye.
Hah! Yeah right, dude.
The only "intellectual laziness" that I see is you trying to proffer the false equivalence of Fox News and NYT. The underpinnings of such an equivalence can not be supported, so to promulgate it is untenable.
If you were less intellectually lazy, you would realize that.
That might work, or we might end up with a Congress full of people like Joe Lieberman. I wouldn't want that.
In fact, I haven't looked very closely, but can you say for sure that independent politicians are "better" by some metric than partisan ones?
I'm not familiar with the event to which you allude, but sometimes opposition to a bill could be legitimately compared to being in favor of slavery. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that in this case (whatever case you refer to), it is not a fair comparison.
Huh, I've never gotten anything like that on a PC I bought. Do the software manufacturers pay you to deal with their 'bloatware'? Do they cut you a check, or pay you via PayPal, or some other way?
It is untenable poppycock to suggest that Microsoft doesn't share some blame with Verizon.
Your descriptions don't jibe with my experiences with markets. I'll leave it at that.
What do you mean? My Presidential ballot normally has between eight and twelve names on it, from a wide variety of parties, and I can write in any other person I wish to vote for. That is precisely the opposite of being forced to choose from one or two options.
I totally agree, but it makes me wonder, how small of a change is too small to matter? Changing search engine options is, really, relatively minor, but to me still big enough. But what if they, uh, changed the "Start" menu to a "Go" menu (for example), or changed the icon for the browser from a little planet to a little sailing ship? What if they changed one default ring tone to a different default ring tone? I can't decide where I'd draw the line.
I'm with you in concept, but if the promo contract was really worth 500 million dollars, then at 30 dollars a call (which sounds really high to me), that would be one and two thirds million calls just for them to break even.
So, you'd better call back over and over again.
You sound very knowledgeable. Could you please cite a law so we could use it?
Don't think it's because he's ignorant of just European geography. We Americans also can't tell the difference between Iowa and Idaho.
Okay, it's fair to say Ford is doing a lot better than GM, but I'm not sure I'd describe it as "very successful".
I disagree. Car makers have invented lots of stuff over the course of the development of the internal combustion engine.
We use legislation to make markets more free.
In this case, the naturally occurring cell phone market is unfree because the power delta between provider and consumer is so gigantic that providers can collude and use tricks to get consumers to buy their products. We can use legislation to make that unfree market more free, by having laws to increase consumers' understanding of contracts, and so on.
There is no such thing as a free market (just as there is no such thing as a perfect circle), and insofar as we prefer freer markets to unfreer ones, we can use legislation to increase freeness.
Yeah, I guess. Some inequalities are due to sexism, some aren't. Some inequalities arise from the natural parameters of the job; some arise from wrong, inbred notions of the type of person best suited to the job.
Oh, okay.
Well you asked "Since when do we have a precedent that lands seized in a war are given to the inhabitants of the country that ends up with those lands?"
The answer to that question is "since always".
You might have really meant the question "in 1949, didn't we try to change the longstanding precedent that lands seized in a war are given to the victors?"
And the answer to that question would be, yes, we tried to do that, with impressive but imperfect results.