Do you think Blizzard will wake up one day and say "shit, all my money comes from mobile!" no, because they don't do that. Do you think EA might do that? Maybe, but do you know what they will cut? The shovelware. We won't lose the AAA titles, if anything they'll get better as the crap thins out.
It's a shame, really. The whole thing. I don't even want to get in to the politics or the possible thought behind it, it's just going to split the same way it always does: left vs. right, both claiming not enough in their own direction. The whole thing is growing tiresome, so we should at least agree that violent protesting is a vicious, stupid thing to do. Somebody should teach these people how to effectively air their issues with the government and society in a way that doesn't make hell for people who aren't to blame and make the situation worse.
They're not angry though. Not a lot of them. A lot of them are having fun. My brother was all hot to trot when the Cincinnati riots happened. He wanted to go steal things. That's the way kids are. Duh.
Seems you are of the opinion that rights have to be recognized, which isn't the case. I don't understand your viewpoint at all. The whole point of being intrinsic is that they just are that way, whether people recognize it or not. Are you of the opinion that somebody who is bound and gaggled their whole life has no right to be able to walk and talk, since they can't exercise the right? That's insane, shallow thinking. That person had those rights by virtue of being a person. The constitution makes no claim that it lists all the rights of a person, just the ones the government will not prevent a person from exercising. That nobody can agree on what the rights are does not mean the rights that do exist are not intrinsic, it just means we didn't see them for what they were. The constitution is our attempt to protect the rights of people. The more important part of the debate isn't whether or not the right to not be searched before travelling exists, the important part is that the government said it was one of the things it would not violate, and it did. It broke its own law, and at that point, what good is law?
That doesn't mean you didn't have the right, that just means people are violating them. Why is that so hard to understand? We have rights and nothing anybody does can mean it isn't a right (inviolable). By virtue of being men, we are entitled to a few things, such as life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. That, of course, does not mean nobody can enslave me without government, or government can not enslave me. It just means that I have a right not to be. The constitution says that the rights enumerated therein will be recognized by the government, and it will not make laws that are contrary to those rights. All of this other shit about what happens to rights iwthout govenrment are philosophical bullshit that are of no consequence to the question of "What are men entitled to?"
Wow, you sure got him! Good for you for picking a minor detail to argue against and miss the point, which is valid. The states agreed to be governed by a federal government with the constitution as its guidelines. Since the federal government has violated these guidelines, none of the states should feel obligated to recognize it's authority. Didn't Jefferson write something about it being the right of the people to revolt against their government? What was that document again? If only I could remember.
...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
The constitution ratification was the consent of the governed. The shitting on that consent is the cause for people to alter or to abolish the government and institute new government.
Dont' be an idiot, we don't have the backbone to fight a real war against people half the globe over anymore. We have reached a point where we can peacefully dissolve.
Local governments are different in that it's much easier to travel between them and have much less power in that once you leave, they can't get you. Further, they should be more representative of the people they govern because the people have more in common and are fewer. Having said that, yes, the police are out of hand and state laws that are proposed making it illegal to videotape police officers (specifically or implicitly) should result in serious, serious backlash for anybody who wrote, supported, voted for, or upheld it. Not just political ramifications, either.
That is unreasonable. People actively try to rob stores, we don't search everybody who goes in to a fucking store. People actively try to rob banks, we dont' search everybody who goes in to a fucking bank. People actively try to murder people every where you go, we don't search people when they leave their houses.
Do you even really believe that terrorists insist on only blowing up planes? What about the terrorists that blew up that Russian airport terminal? It is an ineffective way to do security anyway, and a violation of rights. This isn't a simple run your bag through an xray and step through the metal detector, this is invasive shit that we don't have to deal with anywhere else because of a couple of fluke incidents and you are part of the problem. I mean that from the bottom of my heart. Thanks for letting the terrorists win.
I know that sounds trollish, but I really do mean that. You now feel the way the terrorists wanted you to feel. You gave up some of your rights and became scared. That was exactly the goal of 9/11.
Some of the copyright laws (their duration) severely limit free speech, domain seizures, a lot of what TSA does (especially flights from one part of California to another), mandating the purchase of healthcare insurance, "free speech zones", and warrantless wiretaps. I can go on. I'm not trying to spout off a bunch of republican/conservative talking points. A lot of laws are passed that just don't fit in with the constitution, and a lot of regulations are imposed that go against the constitution. And ultimately, yes, everything can be rationalized with an "interpretation" of the constitution, some are a lot further stretches than others though.
Yes, but the constitution isn't really followed much anymore, is it? So the framework doesn't work very well anymore. It's no good having a federal government that can't act when it puts itself in to situations where it has to act. And it has done so by very loose (at best) interpretation of the constitution. We obviously can't make any kind of workable compromises under the current structure, and the people aren't served by half implementations that are broken from the start.
The people who wrote the constitution were very smart, and they did a very good job. We didn't maintain things so well, but they foresaw that as well, expecting us not to last as long as we did. There is nothing wrong with seeing that things aren't working, and making drastic changes. Even that was said by the writers of the constitution.
The US doesn't even have the same debt ratio as an individual with a decent sized mortgage and a few credit cards, but they have a way better interest rate.
I wonder which agency carries the most weight though. I suspect it is S&P, though I'm not sure.
We have a huge cultural problem. Most people don't care about any of the important things. Of the people who care, fewer still are educated. Of the people that are educated, many are polarized in to incompatible philosophies. This is leading to paralysis. I hate to say it, but more and more the idea of dividing the union just makes more sense. The belief that the Federal government should be doing all that it does makes the US too big and too diverse to govern in a reasonable way.
I don't mean any of this in a doom and gloom kind of way, just saying I think it makes a lot more sense. Everybody knows the US is majorly divided on how we should do just about everything, largely based on geography.
It's just a regular expression that would match an entire line. It literally would cross "the road", while remaining not funny the whole time. I spent a long time tyring to figure out the joke part of it, and I'm still not sure that it is meant to be one. But hey, it's hard to be smart AND funny, especially when talking about pattern matching so I don't hold it against her.
It's more like blaming the ant for protesting that the 800lb gorilla is sitting in their sun, when the ant can just move out of the gorilla's shadow. But the ant wants to be near the other ants that find the shade cooling and useful.
Further, Google will allow you to share you G+ shit via email, which means your friends using G+ can still add you with your the_real_batman@juicyjuice.com email, so.... yeah. Google isn't locking you out of viewing stuff without giving your real name. What more do you want?
Do people want to live in a world where they can't even dream? Where they have to sign a registry and wait for the next open slot to have a child? Ask the people suffering if they love life. If they do, then hey, good enough. Why do we have to make everybody's life better at the expense of our own? If they don't love life, then why haven't they killed themselves? Hope for things to get better? Well destroying hope is a good way to make people not want to live, isn't it?
You're a terrible human with the shittiest outlook on life, because you're also a hypocrit, as I'm sure you haven't sold your house and clothes and lowered your lifestyle to barely surviving so you can help other countries with the resources you can obtain here. So fuck off, we're all going to die. Somebody should enjoy themselves, somebody should be comfortable, and somebody should be able to achieve a dream instead of all of us living a life of sacrifice trying to stop the inevitable doom that threatens us all.
The people that buy gold in 4.9 years. Then all the money they spent to get the gold will be gone for nothing and they'll say "What happened to all my money? I need government assistance!" as banks and investment funds begin to falter. Sound familiar? Bubble and bust is not insignificant.
If we discovered another universe that didn't follow our laws of physics, wouldn't that just disprove our current physical theories are laws and more local effects of the real laws of physics which would govern why energy and matter appear to behave differently in the two sections of space-time?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think Blizzard will wake up one day and say "shit, all my money comes from mobile!" no, because they don't do that. Do you think EA might do that? Maybe, but do you know what they will cut? The shovelware. We won't lose the AAA titles, if anything they'll get better as the crap thins out.
It's a shame, really. The whole thing. I don't even want to get in to the politics or the possible thought behind it, it's just going to split the same way it always does: left vs. right, both claiming not enough in their own direction. The whole thing is growing tiresome, so we should at least agree that violent protesting is a vicious, stupid thing to do. Somebody should teach these people how to effectively air their issues with the government and society in a way that doesn't make hell for people who aren't to blame and make the situation worse.
They're not angry though. Not a lot of them. A lot of them are having fun. My brother was all hot to trot when the Cincinnati riots happened. He wanted to go steal things. That's the way kids are. Duh.
They're not people, they're kids. Come on, stop making the mistake of associating reasoned thought with hormoned up teens.
This isn't a simple run your bag through an xray and step through the metal detector
Seems you are of the opinion that rights have to be recognized, which isn't the case. I don't understand your viewpoint at all. The whole point of being intrinsic is that they just are that way, whether people recognize it or not. Are you of the opinion that somebody who is bound and gaggled their whole life has no right to be able to walk and talk, since they can't exercise the right? That's insane, shallow thinking. That person had those rights by virtue of being a person. The constitution makes no claim that it lists all the rights of a person, just the ones the government will not prevent a person from exercising. That nobody can agree on what the rights are does not mean the rights that do exist are not intrinsic, it just means we didn't see them for what they were. The constitution is our attempt to protect the rights of people. The more important part of the debate isn't whether or not the right to not be searched before travelling exists, the important part is that the government said it was one of the things it would not violate, and it did. It broke its own law, and at that point, what good is law?
That doesn't mean you didn't have the right, that just means people are violating them. Why is that so hard to understand? We have rights and nothing anybody does can mean it isn't a right (inviolable). By virtue of being men, we are entitled to a few things, such as life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. That, of course, does not mean nobody can enslave me without government, or government can not enslave me. It just means that I have a right not to be. The constitution says that the rights enumerated therein will be recognized by the government, and it will not make laws that are contrary to those rights. All of this other shit about what happens to rights iwthout govenrment are philosophical bullshit that are of no consequence to the question of "What are men entitled to?"
...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
The constitution ratification was the consent of the governed. The shitting on that consent is the cause for people to alter or to abolish the government and institute new government.
Dont' be an idiot, we don't have the backbone to fight a real war against people half the globe over anymore. We have reached a point where we can peacefully dissolve.
Local governments are different in that it's much easier to travel between them and have much less power in that once you leave, they can't get you. Further, they should be more representative of the people they govern because the people have more in common and are fewer. Having said that, yes, the police are out of hand and state laws that are proposed making it illegal to videotape police officers (specifically or implicitly) should result in serious, serious backlash for anybody who wrote, supported, voted for, or upheld it. Not just political ramifications, either.
That is unreasonable. People actively try to rob stores, we don't search everybody who goes in to a fucking store. People actively try to rob banks, we dont' search everybody who goes in to a fucking bank. People actively try to murder people every where you go, we don't search people when they leave their houses.
Do you even really believe that terrorists insist on only blowing up planes? What about the terrorists that blew up that Russian airport terminal? It is an ineffective way to do security anyway, and a violation of rights. This isn't a simple run your bag through an xray and step through the metal detector, this is invasive shit that we don't have to deal with anywhere else because of a couple of fluke incidents and you are part of the problem. I mean that from the bottom of my heart. Thanks for letting the terrorists win.
I know that sounds trollish, but I really do mean that. You now feel the way the terrorists wanted you to feel. You gave up some of your rights and became scared. That was exactly the goal of 9/11.
Some of the copyright laws (their duration) severely limit free speech, domain seizures, a lot of what TSA does (especially flights from one part of California to another), mandating the purchase of healthcare insurance, "free speech zones", and warrantless wiretaps. I can go on. I'm not trying to spout off a bunch of republican/conservative talking points. A lot of laws are passed that just don't fit in with the constitution, and a lot of regulations are imposed that go against the constitution. And ultimately, yes, everything can be rationalized with an "interpretation" of the constitution, some are a lot further stretches than others though.
You're right, I was looking at debt to GDP, not debt to government revenue.
Yes, but the constitution isn't really followed much anymore, is it? So the framework doesn't work very well anymore. It's no good having a federal government that can't act when it puts itself in to situations where it has to act. And it has done so by very loose (at best) interpretation of the constitution. We obviously can't make any kind of workable compromises under the current structure, and the people aren't served by half implementations that are broken from the start.
The people who wrote the constitution were very smart, and they did a very good job. We didn't maintain things so well, but they foresaw that as well, expecting us not to last as long as we did. There is nothing wrong with seeing that things aren't working, and making drastic changes. Even that was said by the writers of the constitution.
It's called creating a buzz. It's a good thing.
The US doesn't even have the same debt ratio as an individual with a decent sized mortgage and a few credit cards, but they have a way better interest rate.
I wonder which agency carries the most weight though. I suspect it is S&P, though I'm not sure.
We have a huge cultural problem. Most people don't care about any of the important things. Of the people who care, fewer still are educated. Of the people that are educated, many are polarized in to incompatible philosophies. This is leading to paralysis. I hate to say it, but more and more the idea of dividing the union just makes more sense. The belief that the Federal government should be doing all that it does makes the US too big and too diverse to govern in a reasonable way.
I don't mean any of this in a doom and gloom kind of way, just saying I think it makes a lot more sense. Everybody knows the US is majorly divided on how we should do just about everything, largely based on geography.
Awww, you changed your sig. Now I feel like a bully!
It's just a regular expression that would match an entire line. It literally would cross "the road", while remaining not funny the whole time. I spent a long time tyring to figure out the joke part of it, and I'm still not sure that it is meant to be one. But hey, it's hard to be smart AND funny, especially when talking about pattern matching so I don't hold it against her.
It's more like blaming the ant for protesting that the 800lb gorilla is sitting in their sun, when the ant can just move out of the gorilla's shadow. But the ant wants to be near the other ants that find the shade cooling and useful.
Further, Google will allow you to share you G+ shit via email, which means your friends using G+ can still add you with your the_real_batman@juicyjuice.com email, so.... yeah. Google isn't locking you out of viewing stuff without giving your real name. What more do you want?
Do people want to live in a world where they can't even dream? Where they have to sign a registry and wait for the next open slot to have a child? Ask the people suffering if they love life. If they do, then hey, good enough. Why do we have to make everybody's life better at the expense of our own? If they don't love life, then why haven't they killed themselves? Hope for things to get better? Well destroying hope is a good way to make people not want to live, isn't it?
You're a terrible human with the shittiest outlook on life, because you're also a hypocrit, as I'm sure you haven't sold your house and clothes and lowered your lifestyle to barely surviving so you can help other countries with the resources you can obtain here. So fuck off, we're all going to die. Somebody should enjoy themselves, somebody should be comfortable, and somebody should be able to achieve a dream instead of all of us living a life of sacrifice trying to stop the inevitable doom that threatens us all.
The people that buy gold in 4.9 years. Then all the money they spent to get the gold will be gone for nothing and they'll say "What happened to all my money? I need government assistance!" as banks and investment funds begin to falter. Sound familiar? Bubble and bust is not insignificant.
My god, it's almost as if the economis of the US and China are globally important, intertwined and affecting all of us every day.
If we discovered another universe that didn't follow our laws of physics, wouldn't that just disprove our current physical theories are laws and more local effects of the real laws of physics which would govern why energy and matter appear to behave differently in the two sections of space-time?