Sports agencies are often full of a LOT more than urine. Like BS. There was the case of a gymnast who lost her gold medal in 2000 because she took some cold pills (as instructed by her coach), and the agency in charge said that was not allowed. Then 2 years later they said the pills are a legal substance because they have zero affect on athletic performance.
So if the pills have zero affect on performance, shouldn't this young woman get her gold medal back? That means she won the medal through her own great skills, but the Gymanastic Agency steadfastly refuses. That would mean admitting they were wrong, and they'd rather hold up the view that they are flawless godlike people & the athlete deserves to be punished!!! (Because we say so.)
It seems that USADA has the same "godlike" view of themselves. They accused Armstrong of guilt, and rather than admit they can't prove it, they will cover their asses and do whatever it takes to destroy the man, even if it takes years-and-years of darkroom interrogations. The athlete deserves to be punished!!! (Because we say so.)
>>>He still had plenty of options left to fight the charge, including actually turning up to discussions they invited him to and also involving independent bodies like the Court of Arbitration
You mean a trumped-up kangaroo court. Like that James Kirk trial in Star Trek 6..... no good can come from such a situation where the person "invited to talk" is systematically framed & words twisted to make him look guilty. Either they have the evidence, or they don't, and in this case they don't. Which means they are trying to frame the man through dirty, underhanded tactics.
>>> If we had video of Armstrong shooting up some kind of drug, or some kind of personal statement to that effect on tape or on paper, I think we'd all agree that trumped the test, wouldn't we?
No. He could be shooting a legal drug that's not banned. And a personal statement does not mean much. To add to my other post (below) I once had a security manager swear he saw me stealing. Turns-out he saw me handing brown packages to the postman. The security dope assumed I was stealing from the company (because that's what it looked like), but in reality the packages had been removed from my house, placed in my car, driven to work, and handed to the postman at 10am.
They had PS2 games inside them. Completely innocent of any crime but the manager's statement was "I saw him stealing packages from work". LIKEWISE just because a video or person claims to see Mr. Armstrong shooting-up does not prove a crime. We have no idea what he is shooting up. It could just be cancer medicine or insulin or sugar water (all legal per the rules).
Presume innocence until you can PROVE guilt. A video or statement does not prove anything.
>>>I don't think anyone has ever believed that passing a drug test mean the person was clean for sure
No but it's better than word-of-mouth. I once had some idiot (manager) accuse me of "eating too much lunch". When I asked WHY this idiot thought that, he said he saw me carrying a humongous brown bag. Um. Yeah. A humongous brown bag full of a *week* worth of food that I carried 200 miles from my home Monday morning (so I'd have something to eat at work & in my hotel). Not just one day's lunch.
Point: Just because some people THINK they saw Mr. Armstrong doping does not mean it is true. People often jump to false conclusions based upon flimsy evidence. Like my idiot boss who jumped to the wrong conclusion I was eating a whole bag of food in just one sitting.
>>>No state can have a law which would reduce those rights.
That's only been true since about 1900 in a gradual process by the SCOTUS called incorporation. Prior to that point states didn't have to obey the Constitution. For example Congress is barred from establishing an official state religion, but the many States continued to have their own state/taxpayer supported religion upto ~1840.
>>>One example in the search and seizure area is routine traffic stops. SCOTUS says you can arrest someone for not wearing a seatbelt and haul their butt to jail.
Yeah but they also ruled any evidence found is not admissable, because the officer had no cause to randly pull-over your car and impede your travel. He can ticket you for the safety violation of not wearing a belt, but if he finds drugs then he is exceeding the purpose of the stop & the evidence must be thrown out.
This is why if you get pulled-over by DHS along one of their internal checkpoints, you are not required to comply with their demands to see inside your car or trunk. No warrant == no right to search your person or effects.
This could be clarified very easy by reading the Tenth Amendment. And since the 10th was ratified AFTER the actual 1786 constitution, it supercedes anything that was written at that time. Powers not given to Congress are reserved to the Member States of the Union.
The 10th says that Congress does not have the power to ban a substance inside a state. Therefore California can legalize marijuana. Or Pennsylvania can legalize natural milk. Or ____ can legalize automatic weapons. Only when you cross state lines can you be arrested (see the case of the Amish farmer who was arrested because he sold milk to non-residents, but is still allowed to sell to PA residents).
Back to topic: If California's government wants to ban themselves from taking cellphone or ISP records of conversations without a warrant, they can. That won't stop the federals though if your conversation crosses the CA line.
Hard to fault a system that runs on "majority rule". If that's what the People want then that's what they get. Maybe the Iranian women should do like the U.S. women and protest for the right to vote. (Of course Democrat President Wilson responded by throwing them in prison. So much for free speech.)
I often hear "If you don't like the U.S. then leave" spatted at me. How difficult would it be for Iranian women to leave? Of course nobody really wants to leave their home, so the solution is pretty much DOA.
The administrators appear to be out touch too (see below). Frankly I don't understand the obsession with posting video lectures. I've found copied handouts of the prof's notes (and also homework solutions) much more useful than a meandering talk. I can scan the notes far, far faster than I can scan a 50 minute video.
" Administrators believed that 73 percent of the professors at their institutions used data logged by the LMS either âoeregularlyâ or âoeoccasionallyâ to identify students who need extra help..... In fact, only 51 percent of faculty reported doing so. About half of the administrators estimated that professors regularly or occasionally posted video-recorded lectures into the LMS, but just 25 percent of the faculty respondents actually do. Nearly 80 percent of administrators said their faculty members regularly or occasionally used the LMS to track student attendance; the professors clocked in at 44 percent."
People that don't live in the real world. I have a physics prof that I visited one day, and after we caught up, he asked for some computer help. He didn't even understand the concept of gigabytes or megahertz. He is so buried in the world of the very small (superstrings) that he doesn't understand the basics of computer science. And he's not that old either; he used computers in college but it's as if his knowledge stopped in 1985.
I never understand why people cite professors as if they are the end-all answer. If they have data to backup their claims, good, but many are just offering an opinion. Very few have ever left the campus & don't know how things actually work in industry, or day-to-day choices (Do I spend $100 on cable or cellphone instead?).
>>>The problem with all of these things is not that its "government" doing it, its that politicians are involved. Government runs fine in most countries, here, its actually falling apart around us...
So you're in agreement with then. The U.S. Government should Not be touching healthcare & messing it up, like they mess up everything else they touch. (Which is the viewpoint many Americans hold.) Besides private healthcare really isn't that bad. You buy insurance and either pay direct out of pocket to your doctor, or have the insurance company pay for major events like heart surgery. Plus Medicaid to help the poor. Where is the "broken" at?
As my friends would say, "Why are you so bitter? They are just trying to Do their job and they don't need you making it harder for them by criticizing their decisions! They are doing the best to protect us from threats." NOTE: I do not agree with my friends. I think cops need to stop spying on me, just waiting to arrest me if I download a naked 17 year old photo (which isn't even illegal but they still arrest people anyway).
>>>Republicans had the Presidency, the House, and the Senate from 2003 to 2007 -- a ridiculously convenient opportunity to address the mortgage lending market problems. Democrats can't filibuster for four solid years!
Agree 100%. Now apply that SAME logic to the years 2007-10 (when the Democrats held a congressional majority plus the presidency for 2 years) and stop giving them excuses for why the country is in a shambles now. They have no one to blame but themselves.
>>>How many patients in the US are denied care per year?
None. It is illegal for hospitals to turn-away patients; they are required to provide the care even if the bills don't get paid. (And you should have known that.) (And so should the two mods that falsely-labeled you insightful.)
Comedian Tom Green actually traveled FROM Canada to get his cancer surgery. He was still a Canadian citizen, but when they told him the wait time was 9 months, and there was a 10% chance he might be dead by that point, he went to the U.S. In typical factory-style efficiency the U.S. performed the surgery in mere days. Hence showing why an open market with multiple choices (yes I'm pro-choice) is better than a monopoly/single payer market.
BTW why does everyone always assume "government provides free care for everyone" is the only answer? Here's what I propose: - People too poor to afford health insurance, say below $25,000, can get Medicare benefits regardless of their age. Just as they are eligible for food stamps or housing assistance.
- Everyone else (that's us) can just buy it directly the same way we buy the other necessities of life (food, water, shelter) directly. I pay a mere $120 a month for my insurance. That's cheaper than some CATV services.
- I pay for doctor visits, pills, etc and the insurance company pays when the total annual cost exceeds $20,000.
This country does "give a fuck" about the health of its citizens. That's why it doesn't want the government to takeover and turn the local hospital into something like the MVA.
Or Amtrak (40 years consistently losing money). Or Social Security (giving you a measly 500 so you can buy dogfood). Or the post office (also losing money). Congress F's up everything it touches.
>>>If we talk about "progress per year" I was lucky enough to experience it in exactly the correct order, because once I got my Commodore 128 in about 1987 I could never go back to the Atari 2600. Compare that to me being a holdout of Windows XP today and the difference is telling.
+1 for the last paragraph. I've made the same observation that progress has slowed to almost nothing. I'm still using a PC that is 11 years old and can run the latest software (just need to boost the RAM space). You would be hard-pressed to buy a 1979 Atari computer and be able to play the latest full-screen video game in 1990. Progress was very very rapid in the 80s and early 90s, and then all but stopped.
BTW I still played my Atari even after my C128 arrived. I even upgraded to a 7800 ProSystem after the old 2600 died. I love old Atari games..... good memories.
>>>So you wouldn't have bought that bread, but I'm pretty sure you'd buy something to eat.
Nope I'd turn-on the radio or the youtube and get my bread for free, since they are broadcasting it everywhere. The fact is I rarely buy anything because I'm a cheapass(gamer.com). Maybe if the baker had a greatest hits compilation I'd buy that on CD and he'd get his cut of the money, but that's the exception for me, not the norm. Most times I just get my bread (music) for free via legal means.
Technically yes I'm stealing the baker's labor, but that presumes I would have bought his bread. I would not (as I said in paragraph 4 or 5 that you failed to read). If a Trek-style replicator did not exist then I would not be buying his bread. Just as I would not be buying a Britney Spears CD. (Though it you hand me a copy for free, then yeah I'll store it away somewhere.) There is no loss if the customer had no intention to buy, either through lack of interest (me) or lack of money (Jamie).
>>>And the reason nothing passed was the Democrats were attempting to be bi-partisan.
False. The Democrats are a single party but not a single mind. Obamacare could have swept through without a single republidick vote, but the "blue dog" Democrats were opposed to it. There Democrat party was split over the bill.
In order to winover their votes Obama had to promise to use a signing statement to block abortion funding. That's the only reason it passed with a slim 50.5% majority.
For noncontroversial issues the Democrat majority didn't have any problem ramming-through the Stimulus Bill in four weeks. Or the DTV Transition in just a few days (they pushed it back from February to June). Like my own Maryland legislature the Republicans could have stayed home from 2009 to 10, and it would have made no difference in what was passed because the Dems were in control.
>>>At the time it was voted on, TARP was bipartisan.
At the time it was voted on, TARP failed to pass. The democrats loved the idea but the republicans rejected it, so it failed with only ~40% in favor. So they made a second bill (call it TARP 2) that was filled with lots of pork. That bill did eventually pass but only just barely. The majority of republicans still voted nay to it, but were outnumbered by the Democrat Congress.
I'm not blaming the poor. I'm blaming the policies that made it illegal for banks to turn-down housing loans. (Else they'd be prosecuted for discrimination.)
>>>GPU acceleration is becoming more and more popular...
>>>if you can split your problem up, into the rendering problem and the logic problem the CPU becomes a lot less important
I am slightly amused that this is only being "discovered" in the last few years, when this principle was being on on the Commodore Amiga back in 1985. (Because the OS could multitask, the 68000 passed-off the rendering work to the 3 graphics and sound coprocessors, while the 68000 focused on basic math/logic problems. Hence a 7 MHz processor could do full-sized video.) Why are Windows PCs always so far behind the curve of what was already invented long ago?
Please tell me more. I have a Windows 7 PC but suppose it dies five years from now, and I need a replacement. I goto staples, but a Win8 PC, and then what? How do I downgrade it to Windows 7? It isn't on stores shelves anymore (and frankly I don't want to pay for Windows twice... once for 8 and again for 7).
>>> I'm thinking we start with a "No Vaccination" list, like a sex offender list.
Yeah because the Sex Offender list has been oh-so-fair. There are people who have downloaded, for example, bestiality photos and served their 10 years in jail for the so-called "crime". Or they had sex as a teenager and served their 5 years for the "crime" of statutory rape. - Then they get out but because they are on the S.O. list they cannot rent an apartment. Or buy a house. Or even stay at a hotel.
The sex offender list is like the old Scarlett Letter A, that makes a person "untouchable" and punishes them for the rest of their life. They never have an opportunity to become a rehabilitated functional member of society, but instead become homeless/poor and barely able to get by. It is a cruel system.
This is my body. That means I have the right to abort if I get pregnant.
This is my body. That means I have the right to drink until I pass out.
This is my body. This means I have the right to have sex with my girl or my best guy. Or even in a swingers party.
This is my body. This means I have the right to choose where I work and trade my body's labor for money.
This is my body. This means I have the right to be free, and not a serf (unpaid work).
This is my body. This means I have the right to smoke. Or not.
This is my body. This means I have the right to vaccinate. Or not.
Democrats/liberals who can't understand this chain of statements Fail at basic rudimentary logic. They scream "My body, my vagina, my right!" over and over and then turn-round and try to dictate how I use MY body as if my body belongs to Them instead of me. (Forced purchase of hospital insurance; forced vaccinations; et cetera.) Logic fail. Inconsistent.
This is why even though I agree with the Democrats on many issues, I refuse to join their party. I will remain libertarian since their party view is not perfect, but at least it's consistent. (Your body, your choice in ALL areas of life.)
Slashdot Mirror
Sports agencies are often full of a LOT more than urine. Like BS. There was the case of a gymnast who lost her gold medal in 2000 because she took some cold pills (as instructed by her coach), and the agency in charge said that was not allowed. Then 2 years later they said the pills are a legal substance because they have zero affect on athletic performance.
So if the pills have zero affect on performance, shouldn't this young woman get her gold medal back? That means she won the medal through her own great skills, but the Gymanastic Agency steadfastly refuses. That would mean admitting they were wrong, and they'd rather hold up the view that they are flawless godlike people & the athlete deserves to be punished!!! (Because we say so.)
It seems that USADA has the same "godlike" view of themselves. They accused Armstrong of guilt, and rather than admit they can't prove it, they will cover their asses and do whatever it takes to destroy the man, even if it takes years-and-years of darkroom interrogations. The athlete deserves to be punished!!! (Because we say so.)
>>>He still had plenty of options left to fight the charge, including actually turning up to discussions they invited him to and also involving independent bodies like the Court of Arbitration
You mean a trumped-up kangaroo court. Like that James Kirk trial in Star Trek 6..... no good can come from such a situation where the person "invited to talk" is systematically framed & words twisted to make him look guilty. Either they have the evidence, or they don't, and in this case they don't. Which means they are trying to frame the man through dirty, underhanded tactics.
>>> If we had video of Armstrong shooting up some kind of drug, or some kind of personal statement to that effect on tape or on paper, I think we'd all agree that trumped the test, wouldn't we?
No.
He could be shooting a legal drug that's not banned. And a personal statement does not mean much. To add to my other post (below) I once had a security manager swear he saw me stealing. Turns-out he saw me handing brown packages to the postman. The security dope assumed I was stealing from the company (because that's what it looked like), but in reality the packages had been removed from my house, placed in my car, driven to work, and handed to the postman at 10am.
They had PS2 games inside them. Completely innocent of any crime but the manager's statement was "I saw him stealing packages from work". LIKEWISE just because a video or person claims to see Mr. Armstrong shooting-up does not prove a crime. We have no idea what he is shooting up. It could just be cancer medicine or insulin or sugar water (all legal per the rules).
Presume innocence until you can PROVE guilt. A video or statement does not prove anything.
>>>I don't think anyone has ever believed that passing a drug test mean the person was clean for sure
No but it's better than word-of-mouth. I once had some idiot (manager) accuse me of "eating too much lunch". When I asked WHY this idiot thought that, he said he saw me carrying a humongous brown bag. Um. Yeah. A humongous brown bag full of a *week* worth of food that I carried 200 miles from my home Monday morning (so I'd have something to eat at work & in my hotel). Not just one day's lunch.
Point: Just because some people THINK they saw Mr. Armstrong doping does not mean it is true. People often jump to false conclusions based upon flimsy evidence. Like my idiot boss who jumped to the wrong conclusion I was eating a whole bag of food in just one sitting.
>>>No state can have a law which would reduce those rights.
That's only been true since about 1900 in a gradual process by the SCOTUS called incorporation. Prior to that point states didn't have to obey the Constitution. For example Congress is barred from establishing an official state religion, but the many States continued to have their own state/taxpayer supported religion upto ~1840.
>>>One example in the search and seizure area is routine traffic stops. SCOTUS says you can arrest someone for not wearing a seatbelt and haul their butt to jail.
Yeah but they also ruled any evidence found is not admissable, because the officer had no cause to randly pull-over your car and impede your travel. He can ticket you for the safety violation of not wearing a belt, but if he finds drugs then he is exceeding the purpose of the stop & the evidence must be thrown out.
This is why if you get pulled-over by DHS along one of their internal checkpoints, you are not required to comply with their demands to see inside your car or trunk. No warrant == no right to search your person or effects.
This could be clarified very easy by reading the Tenth Amendment. And since the 10th was ratified AFTER the actual 1786 constitution, it supercedes anything that was written at that time. Powers not given to Congress are reserved to the Member States of the Union.
The 10th says that Congress does not have the power to ban a substance inside a state. Therefore California can legalize marijuana. Or Pennsylvania can legalize natural milk. Or ____ can legalize automatic weapons. Only when you cross state lines can you be arrested (see the case of the Amish farmer who was arrested because he sold milk to non-residents, but is still allowed to sell to PA residents).
Back to topic: If California's government wants to ban themselves from taking cellphone or ISP records of conversations without a warrant, they can. That won't stop the federals though if your conversation crosses the CA line.
Hard to fault a system that runs on "majority rule". If that's what the People want then that's what they get. Maybe the Iranian women should do like the U.S. women and protest for the right to vote. (Of course Democrat President Wilson responded by throwing them in prison. So much for free speech.)
I often hear "If you don't like the U.S. then leave" spatted at me. How difficult would it be for Iranian women to leave? Of course nobody really wants to leave their home, so the solution is pretty much DOA.
The administrators appear to be out touch too (see below). Frankly I don't understand the obsession with posting video lectures. I've found copied handouts of the prof's notes (and also homework solutions) much more useful than a meandering talk. I can scan the notes far, far faster than I can scan a 50 minute video.
"
Administrators believed that 73 percent of the professors at their institutions used data logged by the LMS either âoeregularlyâ or âoeoccasionallyâ to identify students who need extra help..... In fact, only 51 percent of faculty reported doing so. About half of the administrators estimated that professors regularly or occasionally posted video-recorded lectures into the LMS, but just 25 percent of the faculty respondents actually do. Nearly 80 percent of administrators said their faculty members regularly or occasionally used the LMS to track student attendance; the professors clocked in at 44 percent."
People that don't live in the real world. I have a physics prof that I visited one day, and after we caught up, he asked for some computer help. He didn't even understand the concept of gigabytes or megahertz. He is so buried in the world of the very small (superstrings) that he doesn't understand the basics of computer science. And he's not that old either; he used computers in college but it's as if his knowledge stopped in 1985.
I never understand why people cite professors as if they are the end-all answer. If they have data to backup their claims, good, but many are just offering an opinion. Very few have ever left the campus & don't know how things actually work in industry, or day-to-day choices (Do I spend $100 on cable or cellphone instead?).
>>>The problem with all of these things is not that its "government" doing it, its that politicians are involved. Government runs fine in most countries, here, its actually falling apart around us...
So you're in agreement with then. The U.S. Government should Not be touching healthcare & messing it up, like they mess up everything else they touch. (Which is the viewpoint many Americans hold.) Besides private healthcare really isn't that bad. You buy insurance and either pay direct out of pocket to your doctor, or have the insurance company pay for major events like heart surgery. Plus Medicaid to help the poor. Where is the "broken" at?
As my friends would say, "Why are you so bitter? They are just trying to Do their job and they don't need you making it harder for them by criticizing their decisions! They are doing the best to protect us from threats." NOTE: I do not agree with my friends. I think cops need to stop spying on me, just waiting to arrest me if I download a naked 17 year old photo (which isn't even illegal but they still arrest people anyway).
>>>Republicans had the Presidency, the House, and the Senate from 2003 to 2007 -- a ridiculously convenient opportunity to address the mortgage lending market problems. Democrats can't filibuster for four solid years!
Agree 100%.
Now apply that SAME logic to the years 2007-10 (when the Democrats held a congressional majority plus the presidency for 2 years) and stop giving them excuses for why the country is in a shambles now. They have no one to blame but themselves.
>>>How many patients in the US are denied care per year?
None. It is illegal for hospitals to turn-away patients; they are required to provide the care even if the bills don't get paid. (And you should have known that.) (And so should the two mods that falsely-labeled you insightful.)
Comedian Tom Green actually traveled FROM Canada to get his cancer surgery. He was still a Canadian citizen, but when they told him the wait time was 9 months, and there was a 10% chance he might be dead by that point, he went to the U.S. In typical factory-style efficiency the U.S. performed the surgery in mere days. Hence showing why an open market with multiple choices (yes I'm pro-choice) is better than a monopoly/single payer market.
BTW why does everyone always assume "government provides free care for everyone" is the only answer? Here's what I propose: - People too poor to afford health insurance, say below $25,000, can get Medicare benefits regardless of their age. Just as they are eligible for food stamps or housing assistance.
- Everyone else (that's us) can just buy it directly the same way we buy the other necessities of life (food, water, shelter) directly. I pay a mere $120 a month for my insurance. That's cheaper than some CATV services.
- I pay for doctor visits, pills, etc and the insurance company pays when the total annual cost exceeds $20,000.
This country does "give a fuck" about the health of its citizens. That's why it doesn't want the government to takeover and turn the local hospital into something like the MVA.
Or Amtrak (40 years consistently losing money). Or Social Security (giving you a measly 500 so you can buy dogfood). Or the post office (also losing money). Congress F's up everything it touches.
>>>If we talk about "progress per year" I was lucky enough to experience it in exactly the correct order, because once I got my Commodore 128 in about 1987 I could never go back to the Atari 2600. Compare that to me being a holdout of Windows XP today and the difference is telling.
+1 for the last paragraph.
I've made the same observation that progress has slowed to almost nothing. I'm still using a PC that is 11 years old and can run the latest software (just need to boost the RAM space). You would be hard-pressed to buy a 1979 Atari computer and be able to play the latest full-screen video game in 1990. Progress was very very rapid in the 80s and early 90s, and then all but stopped.
BTW I still played my Atari even after my C128 arrived. I even upgraded to a 7800 ProSystem after the old 2600 died. I love old Atari games..... good memories.
>>>So you wouldn't have bought that bread, but I'm pretty sure you'd buy something to eat.
Nope I'd turn-on the radio or the youtube and get my bread for free, since they are broadcasting it everywhere. The fact is I rarely buy anything because I'm a cheapass(gamer.com). Maybe if the baker had a greatest hits compilation I'd buy that on CD and he'd get his cut of the money, but that's the exception for me, not the norm. Most times I just get my bread (music) for free via legal means.
Technically yes I'm stealing the baker's labor, but that presumes I would have bought his bread. I would not (as I said in paragraph 4 or 5 that you failed to read). If a Trek-style replicator did not exist then I would not be buying his bread. Just as I would not be buying a Britney Spears CD. (Though it you hand me a copy for free, then yeah I'll store it away somewhere.) There is no loss if the customer had no intention to buy, either through lack of interest (me) or lack of money (Jamie).
>>>And the reason nothing passed was the Democrats were attempting to be bi-partisan.
False. The Democrats are a single party but not a single mind. Obamacare could have swept through without a single republidick vote, but the "blue dog" Democrats were opposed to it. There Democrat party was split over the bill.
In order to winover their votes Obama had to promise to use a signing statement to block abortion funding. That's the only reason it passed with a slim 50.5% majority.
For noncontroversial issues the Democrat majority didn't have any problem ramming-through the Stimulus Bill in four weeks. Or the DTV Transition in just a few days (they pushed it back from February to June). Like my own Maryland legislature the Republicans could have stayed home from 2009 to 10, and it would have made no difference in what was passed because the Dems were in control.
>>>At the time it was voted on, TARP was bipartisan.
At the time it was voted on, TARP failed to pass. The democrats loved the idea but the republicans rejected it, so it failed with only ~40% in favor. So they made a second bill (call it TARP 2) that was filled with lots of pork. That bill did eventually pass but only just barely. The majority of republicans still voted nay to it, but were outnumbered by the Democrat Congress.
I'm not blaming the poor. I'm blaming the policies that made it illegal for banks to turn-down housing loans. (Else they'd be prosecuted for discrimination.)
>>>GPU acceleration is becoming more and more popular...
>>>if you can split your problem up, into the rendering problem and the logic problem the CPU becomes a lot less important
I am slightly amused that this is only being "discovered" in the last few years, when this principle was being on on the Commodore Amiga back in 1985. (Because the OS could multitask, the 68000 passed-off the rendering work to the 3 graphics and sound coprocessors, while the 68000 focused on basic math/logic problems. Hence a 7 MHz processor could do full-sized video.) Why are Windows PCs always so far behind the curve of what was already invented long ago?
>>> It's called "downgrade rights"
Please tell me more. I have a Windows 7 PC but suppose it dies five years from now, and I need a replacement. I goto staples, but a Win8 PC, and then what? How do I downgrade it to Windows 7? It isn't on stores shelves anymore (and frankly I don't want to pay for Windows twice... once for 8 and again for 7).
Please educate me and everybody else.
thx
>>> I'm thinking we start with a "No Vaccination" list, like a sex offender list.
Yeah because the Sex Offender list has been oh-so-fair. There are people who have downloaded, for example, bestiality photos and served their 10 years in jail for the so-called "crime". Or they had sex as a teenager and served their 5 years for the "crime" of statutory rape. - Then they get out but because they are on the S.O. list they cannot rent an apartment. Or buy a house. Or even stay at a hotel.
The sex offender list is like the old Scarlett Letter A, that makes a person "untouchable" and punishes them for the rest of their life. They never have an opportunity to become a rehabilitated functional member of society, but instead become homeless/poor and barely able to get by. It is a cruel system.
Read more here: http://reason.com/archives/2011/08/19/a-false-remedy-for-sex-offende
This is my body.
That means I have the right to abort if I get pregnant.
This is my body.
That means I have the right to drink until I pass out.
This is my body.
This means I have the right to have sex with my girl or my best guy. Or even in a swingers party.
This is my body.
This means I have the right to choose where I work and trade my body's labor for money.
This is my body.
This means I have the right to be free, and not a serf (unpaid work).
This is my body.
This means I have the right to smoke. Or not.
This is my body.
This means I have the right to vaccinate. Or not.
Democrats/liberals who can't understand this chain of statements Fail at basic rudimentary logic. They scream "My body, my vagina, my right!" over and over and then turn-round and try to dictate how I use MY body as if my body belongs to Them instead of me. (Forced purchase of hospital insurance; forced vaccinations; et cetera.) Logic fail. Inconsistent.
This is why even though I agree with the Democrats on many issues, I refuse to join their party. I will remain libertarian since their party view is not perfect, but at least it's consistent. (Your body, your choice in ALL areas of life.)