It's all relative, isn't it? By your use of capital letters, excessive exclamation points, words like "cus" and "freaking", and childish invective, I'm guessing you are a teenager.
the government getting more powerful does NOT aid any individual in the government. we live in a democratic republic
It's actually a constitutional republic, but you still get points for not calling it a "democracy". You need to support your point. How does our government being a constitutional republic mean that its increasing size does NOT give any individual more power?
Let me give one example that destroys your argument. The new PATRIOT act allows the FBI to wiretap without warrant. FBI agents now have much greater leeway to abuse their wiretap abilities. Suppose an agent wants to check up on a competitor of his side business, or wants to spy on some cute chick in his neighborhood that he wants to bang? It's much easier now, thanks to the increasing power of government.
i really hate people like you. don't ask me why cus you're not smart enough to understand.
Do you feel a little better about yourself after that? Probably so, but it won't fix the real problem.
why do you use words that are SIMILAR, but not accurate to describe people you don't like?
Let me know when you're ready to start making sense.
what in the world does the government gain by spying on people? SECURITY. they don't get money, they don't get sex. they give more jobs and more security.
The government gets power by spying on people. Power can lead to money and sex if so desired.
you're a freaking idiot. it's a reason, not an excuse
Historically, do governments get bigger or smaller before they are overthrown?
They die, they bloat from rotting, they float for a while (the skin is really tough) until they finally rupture. The fatty chunks that washed up are all that's left by that point.
After which they are called "bhandasim", a delicacy throughout much of South East Asia.
If Symantec is anything like any of the companies I've worked for, they are way too busy just attending the regular day-to-day business to invent and distribute new viruses. It's absurd to think that they could be this efficient, releasing new viruses into the wild every couple of months that work this well.
I disagree. Suppose you're a "virus protection" company. How many people do you have to employ to release one new virus every three months? This becomes a variable in the profitibility equation for your extortion racket, I mean, business model. The more viruses you release, the more valuable your virus protection is, but you don't want too many viruses as then people might abandon the said favority virus-friendly platform for one that is less hospitable for viruses (and you don't want to piss off your friend, Microsoft, who created the virus protection industry).
Much easier, and probably just as effective, to just throw around some inflated numbers, like claiming billions upon billions in damages and what not.
If no one actually gets a virus, then these inflated numbers that you've been throwing around would eventually be revealed as the bullshit they are. There needs to be some kind of damage to ensure your long-term profitability.
I had probably typed about 700 words in reply before my 3-year-old inadvertently hit the reset button on my computer. Here will be my shorter attempt:
There are no "Rules of Isolation" you assclown.
First, if there are no rules of isolation, than anyone can claim that any alleged pathogen exists based on arbitrary criteria. Second, it was a poor choice for you to use invective: how do you know now that I'm not going to resist you merely out of spite?
Third, I read the article that you posted, and I've found it rife with errors and flaws. I had started to list them before my son hit the reset button, and had gotten to #4. My question now is, do you want me to detail for you the flaws in the stupid article you've posted? I'm not sure if it's going to be useful becuase I don't think you're willing to challenge your own beliefs.
I understand what you're saying. But I don't think they're anti-Microsoft;
I disagree. Anti-Microsoft sentiment seems pretty high in Europe nowadays.
Look at how the voting went - it was hardly unanimous.
I think there are many factors that went into how people voted, and anti-Microsoft sentiment is but one of them.
No. That's why I used 'many' and 'much.' I was calling you on your statement that Germany is anti-American.
I understand now. I was typing fast and forgot to qualify my statement. Having travelled to France and met some really wonderful people there, I know that not all of <insert typically-viewed-as-anti-American-European-country here> is anti-American, just as not every American who travels there is an "ugly American" (though some of the worst people I met in France were, regrettably, Americans).
I sold a whole pile of backissues of 2600 magazine on eBay last year.
Does this mean there's a homing beacon in the fender of my car now??
I don't know. The government hasn't exactly been forthcoming about who they have their eyes on and for what reason. It got a whole lot worse after 9/11, but that was the excuse for additional surveillance, not the reason.
If you think I'm so crazy, then answer me this question:
Who isolated HIV according to the Rules of Isolation established at the Pasteur Institute? Giving me a name is insufficient; you must show me the paper which declares which person fulfilled each and all of the Rules of Isolation.
I don't see how being pro-Linux necessarily indicates anti-Microsoft feelings. Best tool for the job and all that, right?
I'm not arguing that Germans are anti-Microsoft because they're pro-Linux. I'm arguing the converse: that they're pro-Linux because they're anti-Microsoft. (Did I use "converse" correctly?)
And, contrary to what many Americans think, much of the rest of the world is intelligent enough to distinguish between American foreign policies and a view of the country as a whole, which is something the US would be wise to emulate (Yes! Let's pour our Bordeaux down the drain and rename our cafeteria food! That'll show 'em!).
It sounds like here you're arguing: "Non-Americans are capable of distinguishing between Americans and thier government. Americans, on the other hand, are incapable of distinguishing between Non-Americans and their respective governments." You're making two generalizations. You forget that many Americans still buy French wine and many Europeons still trash McDonalds restaurants. Lots of people, regardless of their nationality, are bigoted and make gross generalizations about other groups (as you seem to have done).
ok... what's the problem? i can't seem to find it... anti freedom? WHAT?????
As a taxpayer, am I free to NOT pay for Microsoft software? No! The government takes my money and buys Microsoft software with it. Microsoft, like so many other unprincipled companies who value money over freedom, beg like starving mongrels at the thought of taxpayer-plundered money.
please explain to me the reasons MS is immoral.
My god, where to start?
1. Microsoft developed poor-quality software that people were content to live with merely because Microsoft was able to hold onto a huge market share. People are accustomed to the idea that "computers are unstable" and "need to be rebooted frequently" -- problems created by Microsoft if by anyone. 2. Microsoft created and fosters the virus protection industry. 3. Microsoft has a vested interest in things such as incompatible and secret file formats in order to compel people spend more money on software. 4. Microsoft uses the BSA to threaten those who don't comply with its will. 5. Microsoft does not honor the refund that it states on its EULA. 6. Microsoft lied about the difference between NT Worstation and NT Server in order to force the sale of IIS. 7. Microsoft lied about the technical differences between Direct3D and OpenGL in order to force developers to learn an API that it controlled. 8. Microsoft compelled computer makers to not ship dual-boot systems by threatening to take away the Windows license of any computer manufacturer who violated Microsoft's will.
I can go on and on. I an totally willing to discuss any of the points I've brought up here if it would help you understand why I think Microsoft is immoral. I will not accept any claim that my reasons are "petty", for what is "petty" to one is earth-shattering to another.
No, the loss of an entire city government in an pro-American and pro-Microsoft country would be a defeat that would probably have ripple effects which scare the poo out of Microsoft.
I agree. Was this supposed to show that my claim was false? I maintain that it is still true. In this way, the loss of a German city's government is worse because other German cities (rife with anti-Microsoft sentiment) are much more likely to fall like dominos than are pro-Microsoft cities. Lots more Linux installations means lots more reasons for people to develop software for Linux. Lots more software for Linux means lots more reasons for others to switch over to Linux. Does my reasoning make sense to you? I'm not sure at this point if you're disagreeing with me merely because you want to fight.
Fox News Channel gets singled out because it dares to be balanced. This is why it gets picked on by those who insist that the only media should be that with a stringent left-wing bias.
FOX is definately not balanced, despite their claims. The conservative viewpoint definately gets the upper-hand. It's not one-tenth as biased as Dan Rather is, but it isn't "balanced" either. I think that the market was demanding a FOX news, and it got one. I think that Leftists are upset because they don't have a stranglehold on the televised bully pulpit any more. Remember, Leftists, like Christians, would much rather preach than debate. This is why they suck at talk radio: they can't face the callers who will challenege their fact- and reason-deprived positions.
They can haul out their guns and take it, but as often as not they just haul out the printing press instead.
As if the latter excused the former. Furthermore, the latter has a well-established negative effect on the economy.
I've got an idea. Biodegradeable money. That way you can abolish taxes. Just adjust the amount of time the money will last before being eaten by bugs.
The government loves this idea! In fact, it has already been proposed by one or more Leftist congressmen. The government hates cash for the simple reason that it's very hard to track. It's why I choose to pay cash on those rare occurrences in which I buy "2600".
Lots of news outlets are biased. The major ones have been biased toward the left for years. Check out Rather Biased to see some of the ultra-Leftist things that the Leftist Dan Rather has said, many of which have been said as if they were objective reporting. The New York Times, considered the "most respectable" newspaper in the country, has some of the most Leftist slant of any.
So why are you picking on Fox? There are many well-established Leftist mouthpieces which masquerading as objective reporting for decades that you could have chosen.
Microsoft isn't about making money so much any more. They're about maintaining control. The loss of an entire city government in an anti-American and anti-Microsoft country is a defeat that will probably have ripple effects which scare the poo out of Microsoft.
what would be the surprise? did MS do anything illegal here? or are they doing what companies do for fun; MAKING MONEY?
The problem I see here is that Microsoft's customer is the government. Where did the government get their money? Did they work hard and earn it? Hell, no! They took it by force. If the government wants more money, do they have to work harder for it or cut expenses (like the rest of us do)? Of course not! They just haul out the guns and take it! So, no, they didn't do anything illegal. They did something that is anti-freedom.
please stop looking at everything microsoft does as immoral - they are a company, their purpose is to make money.
Lots of Leftists think that making money is inherently immoral. I am not one of them, so your argument here is ineffective on me. I think Microsoft is immoral for other reasons. These are reasons for which they have never apologized, for which they have never tried to make amends, and that they show no signs of stopping.
I think their "last minute" offer shows that Microsoft still thinks that everyone else either stands in awe or cowers in fear when in Microsoft's presence. I think that the deal-makers at Microsoft were thinking, "They'll be stunned to receive a deal from someone the likes of Microsoft!" only to be completely chagrined when Munich was not impressed. Microsoft isn't used to having to bargain. They're used to having their way.
Comparing your chosen favorite introverted loser activity to others
I disputed the point that MMORPGs are unacceptable leisure activities and you have thus decided that it must be my favorite leisure activity. Your poor reasoning has led you to a false conclusion.
doesn't change the fact that you just listed a whole bunch of introverted loser activites.
Put-downs say much more about your self-esteem than they do about anything else.
Okay, so playing an online game, according to you, is avoiding "real life". So, what about sitting in front of the television? What about lying on your bed listening to Eminem? Do those alternatives qualify as "enjoying real life" to you? Apparently, going outside is a crucial element for you to judge a certain activity as "enjoying real life". What if a person spends three hours at a Britney Spears concert? What if a person spends three hours "going out", i.e., hitting clubs, trying to "score" (either sexually or substance-wise)? Are those "enjoying real life"?
I propose this: either you have to spend all your waking hours working to survive, or you don't. If you don't, then you have leisure time, and people who are in this privileged position choose all sorts of activites to fill their leisure time. To me, it sounds like you don't approve of the way some people spend their leisure time. That's fine, everyone is a snob to some degree. But don't say that they're not "enjoying real life". All leisure activities are escapism.
It CAN equal a revision. Good God, read the freaking amendments, some of them DO contradict things that are in the main body of the Constitution.
Which ones contradict the main body of the constitution, and how?
You can either be a great person or a great parent
on
Marriage May Tame Genius
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You can either be a great person or a great parent, but not both. The two are mutually exclusive.
Lots of great people have tried to be parents. What happened? They ended up being "distant", "unknowable" (i.e., shitty) parents becuase they were spending no time with their kids. After all, they couldn't afford to spend any time with their kids -- all of their precious time was spent doing things that made them into a great person.
And what is the primary requisite for being a great parent? Spending time with your children! It doesn't have to be some exalted kind of "quality time", just spend time with them! Even watching television with your child is infinitely better than spending no time with your child.
So if you have the desire to be a great person, give up on the idea of having children. You will end up doing a disservice to them.
Ultimately, the government protects your private property, so you don't have to.
This is false. Suppose I am a single mother, and my teenage son sells drugs in my house. The police can confiscate my home.
First of all, without the military, another country could invade and take all your stuff.
Agreed!
Secondly, the government also provides a structure of laws which allows you to focus on building a business without having to worry about other people stealing it or squatting on your land.
You are reiterating your first point, that the government protects property rights (which is false). Suppose I buy a house, fix it up, and then sell it for a profit of $40,000. What is the government's cut? 50%! Now, tell me, which laws in particular are worth $20,000 of that sale? I contend that government laws hinder business more than they help business.
Thirdly, your taxes fund the infrastructure of the country, which allow you to get to work and communicate.
As far as "get to work" goes, it's our car that allows my partner to drive the 8 miles to work and back. It seems to me we're paying far more than our fair share for the infrastructure that we use. As far as "communicate" goes, the only form of communication that is run by the government is the USPS, which is now $11 Billion (with a B) dollars in debt. All others are private industries.
Government programs that help the poor reduce crime, which also allows you to focus on attaining success (instead of protecting yourself).
One of the hugest government programs, the War on Some Drugs, does a lot more to create crime than to reduce it. The War on Some Drugs has turned the United States into the most incarceration-friendly country on the planet, filled our prisons to overflowing with non-violent drug criminals, created black markets that breed corruption and crime, ushered in 4th-amendment-killing forfeiture laws and life-destroying mandantory minimum sentencing laws, and, worst of all, has in no way diminshed drug use. So your assertion that government programs help the poor (or anyone) reduce crime is stupidly false in light of the colossal failure of the War on Some Drugs.
The FDA (for example) releases you from the burden of researching the conditions of every farm or dairy you might buy from.
The FDA also prevents life-saving drugs from reaching the market and has given its stamp of full approval on the HIV myth, allowing thousands to die from AZT poisoning and other private industries to profit from it.
The government also provides financial programs to reduce the risk of starting a business. Bankruptcy laws, subsidized loans, and FDIC are examples.
Why is there any reason that this can't be done by a private institution? Oh wait, it is. All the time. At all levels of business.
There are certainly many other examples.
Are they going to suck as bad as the ones you've given here? What line of business are you in?
It is much more likely that the existing system can be refined, than a libertarian utopia created.
Freedom is scary, isn't it?
Any self-made businessman got where they are today (if done legally) with more help than hinderance from the government.
You have yet to show me anything which supports this point. Outside of the military, the government needs to butt out. But they won't, for there is just too much political power to be had at the citizenry's expense.
Again, we all help pay for it, because it could be any of us next.
This assumes that there are only benevolent and innocent motives behind any government program. Consider this: government wants people to stay on welfare. They do NOT want people to get off welfare. People on welfare are dependant people, people who can be told, "The Republicans are going to cut your welfare checks!" Then the votes start rolling in. Certainly you see how easily "charity" programs (which means taking money from the people whose votes you don't need and giving it to the people whoes votes you do need) can be abused for political gain.
Slashdot Mirror
look, loundry 4243!!!!! gosh you must be old..
It's all relative, isn't it? By your use of capital letters, excessive exclamation points, words like "cus" and "freaking", and childish invective, I'm guessing you are a teenager.
the government getting more powerful does NOT aid any individual in the government. we live in a democratic republic
It's actually a constitutional republic, but you still get points for not calling it a "democracy". You need to support your point. How does our government being a constitutional republic mean that its increasing size does NOT give any individual more power?
Let me give one example that destroys your argument. The new PATRIOT act allows the FBI to wiretap without warrant. FBI agents now have much greater leeway to abuse their wiretap abilities. Suppose an agent wants to check up on a competitor of his side business, or wants to spy on some cute chick in his neighborhood that he wants to bang? It's much easier now, thanks to the increasing power of government.
I can't even begin to guess how you arrived at your opinion.
What he is stating is that illegal does not imply immoral.
Webster's definition of immoral: "not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior."
Notice that Webster's definition has nothing to do with legality. You are arguing your opponent's point.
"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." -MLK Jr.
i really hate people like you. don't ask me why cus you're not smart enough to understand.
Do you feel a little better about yourself after that? Probably so, but it won't fix the real problem.
why do you use words that are SIMILAR, but not accurate to describe people you don't like?
Let me know when you're ready to start making sense.
what in the world does the government gain by spying on people? SECURITY. they don't get money, they don't get sex. they give more jobs and more security.
The government gets power by spying on people. Power can lead to money and sex if so desired.
you're a freaking idiot. it's a reason, not an excuse
Historically, do governments get bigger or smaller before they are overthrown?
They die, they bloat from rotting, they float for a while (the skin is really tough) until they finally rupture. The fatty chunks that washed up are all that's left by that point.
After which they are called "bhandasim", a delicacy throughout much of South East Asia.
If Symantec is anything like any of the companies I've worked for, they are way too busy just attending the regular day-to-day business to invent and distribute new viruses. It's absurd to think that they could be this efficient, releasing new viruses into the wild every couple of months that work this well.
I disagree. Suppose you're a "virus protection" company. How many people do you have to employ to release one new virus every three months? This becomes a variable in the profitibility equation for your extortion racket, I mean, business model. The more viruses you release, the more valuable your virus protection is, but you don't want too many viruses as then people might abandon the said favority virus-friendly platform for one that is less hospitable for viruses (and you don't want to piss off your friend, Microsoft, who created the virus protection industry).
Much easier, and probably just as effective, to just throw around some inflated numbers, like claiming billions upon billions in damages and what not.
If no one actually gets a virus, then these inflated numbers that you've been throwing around would eventually be revealed as the bullshit they are. There needs to be some kind of damage to ensure your long-term profitability.
I had probably typed about 700 words in reply before my 3-year-old inadvertently hit the reset button on my computer. Here will be my shorter attempt:
There are no "Rules of Isolation" you assclown.
First, if there are no rules of isolation, than anyone can claim that any alleged pathogen exists based on arbitrary criteria. Second, it was a poor choice for you to use invective: how do you know now that I'm not going to resist you merely out of spite?
Third, I read the article that you posted, and I've found it rife with errors and flaws. I had started to list them before my son hit the reset button, and had gotten to #4. My question now is, do you want me to detail for you the flaws in the stupid article you've posted? I'm not sure if it's going to be useful becuase I don't think you're willing to challenge your own beliefs.
Welcome to my friend list, RevMike. :)
I understand what you're saying. But I don't think they're anti-Microsoft;
y here> is anti-American, just as not every American who travels there is an "ugly American" (though some of the worst people I met in France were, regrettably, Americans).
I disagree. Anti-Microsoft sentiment seems pretty high in Europe nowadays.
Look at how the voting went - it was hardly unanimous.
I think there are many factors that went into how people voted, and anti-Microsoft sentiment is but one of them.
No. That's why I used 'many' and 'much.' I was calling you on your statement that Germany is anti-American.
I understand now. I was typing fast and forgot to qualify my statement. Having travelled to France and met some really wonderful people there, I know that not all of <insert typically-viewed-as-anti-American-European-countr
I sold a whole pile of backissues of 2600 magazine on eBay last year.
Does this mean there's a homing beacon in the fender of my car now??
I don't know. The government hasn't exactly been forthcoming about who they have their eyes on and for what reason. It got a whole lot worse after 9/11, but that was the excuse for additional surveillance, not the reason.
If you think I'm so crazy, then answer me this question:
Who isolated HIV according to the Rules of Isolation established at the Pasteur Institute? Giving me a name is insufficient; you must show me the paper which declares which person fulfilled each and all of the Rules of Isolation.
I don't see how being pro-Linux necessarily indicates anti-Microsoft feelings. Best tool for the job and all that, right?
I'm not arguing that Germans are anti-Microsoft because they're pro-Linux. I'm arguing the converse: that they're pro-Linux because they're anti-Microsoft. (Did I use "converse" correctly?)
And, contrary to what many Americans think, much of the rest of the world is intelligent enough to distinguish between American foreign policies and a view of the country as a whole, which is something the US would be wise to emulate (Yes! Let's pour our Bordeaux down the drain and rename our cafeteria food! That'll show 'em!).
It sounds like here you're arguing: "Non-Americans are capable of distinguishing between Americans and thier government. Americans, on the other hand, are incapable of distinguishing between Non-Americans and their respective governments." You're making two generalizations. You forget that many Americans still buy French wine and many Europeons still trash McDonalds restaurants. Lots of people, regardless of their nationality, are bigoted and make gross generalizations about other groups (as you seem to have done).
ok... what's the problem? i can't seem to find it... anti freedom? WHAT?????
As a taxpayer, am I free to NOT pay for Microsoft software? No! The government takes my money and buys Microsoft software with it. Microsoft, like so many other unprincipled companies who value money over freedom, beg like starving mongrels at the thought of taxpayer-plundered money.
please explain to me the reasons MS is immoral.
My god, where to start?
1. Microsoft developed poor-quality software that people were content to live with merely because Microsoft was able to hold onto a huge market share. People are accustomed to the idea that "computers are unstable" and "need to be rebooted frequently" -- problems created by Microsoft if by anyone.
2. Microsoft created and fosters the virus protection industry.
3. Microsoft has a vested interest in things such as incompatible and secret file formats in order to compel people spend more money on software.
4. Microsoft uses the BSA to threaten those who don't comply with its will.
5. Microsoft does not honor the refund that it states on its EULA.
6. Microsoft lied about the difference between NT Worstation and NT Server in order to force the sale of IIS.
7. Microsoft lied about the technical differences between Direct3D and OpenGL in order to force developers to learn an API that it controlled.
8. Microsoft compelled computer makers to not ship dual-boot systems by threatening to take away the Windows license of any computer manufacturer who violated Microsoft's will.
I can go on and on. I an totally willing to discuss any of the points I've brought up here if it would help you understand why I think Microsoft is immoral. I will not accept any claim that my reasons are "petty", for what is "petty" to one is earth-shattering to another.
No, the loss of an entire city government in an pro-American and pro-Microsoft country would be a defeat that would probably have ripple effects which scare the poo out of Microsoft.
I agree. Was this supposed to show that my claim was false? I maintain that it is still true. In this way, the loss of a German city's government is worse because other German cities (rife with anti-Microsoft sentiment) are much more likely to fall like dominos than are pro-Microsoft cities. Lots more Linux installations means lots more reasons for people to develop software for Linux. Lots more software for Linux means lots more reasons for others to switch over to Linux. Does my reasoning make sense to you? I'm not sure at this point if you're disagreeing with me merely because you want to fight.
Fox News Channel gets singled out because it dares to be balanced. This is why it gets picked on by those who insist that the only media should be that with a stringent left-wing bias.
FOX is definately not balanced, despite their claims. The conservative viewpoint definately gets the upper-hand. It's not one-tenth as biased as Dan Rather is, but it isn't "balanced" either. I think that the market was demanding a FOX news, and it got one. I think that Leftists are upset because they don't have a stranglehold on the televised bully pulpit any more. Remember, Leftists, like Christians, would much rather preach than debate. This is why they suck at talk radio: they can't face the callers who will challenege their fact- and reason-deprived positions.
They can haul out their guns and take it, but as often as not they just haul out the printing press instead.
As if the latter excused the former. Furthermore, the latter has a well-established negative effect on the economy.
I've got an idea. Biodegradeable money. That way you can abolish taxes. Just adjust the amount of time the money will last before being eaten by bugs.
The government loves this idea! In fact, it has already been proposed by one or more Leftist congressmen. The government hates cash for the simple reason that it's very hard to track. It's why I choose to pay cash on those rare occurrences in which I buy "2600".
Lots of news outlets are biased. The major ones have been biased toward the left for years. Check out Rather Biased to see some of the ultra-Leftist things that the Leftist Dan Rather has said, many of which have been said as if they were objective reporting. The New York Times, considered the "most respectable" newspaper in the country, has some of the most Leftist slant of any.
So why are you picking on Fox? There are many well-established Leftist mouthpieces which masquerading as objective reporting for decades that you could have chosen.
Microsoft isn't about making money so much any more. They're about maintaining control. The loss of an entire city government in an anti-American and anti-Microsoft country is a defeat that will probably have ripple effects which scare the poo out of Microsoft.
Yeah, but they don't have to be such gluttons about it. How about leaving enough so others can make money too?
You're accusing them of greed, an entirely subjective notion. It's as meaningless as blanket accusations of "evil".
what would be the surprise? did MS do anything illegal here? or are they doing what companies do for fun; MAKING MONEY?
The problem I see here is that Microsoft's customer is the government. Where did the government get their money? Did they work hard and earn it? Hell, no! They took it by force. If the government wants more money, do they have to work harder for it or cut expenses (like the rest of us do)? Of course not! They just haul out the guns and take it! So, no, they didn't do anything illegal. They did something that is anti-freedom.
please stop looking at everything microsoft does as immoral - they are a company, their purpose is to make money.
Lots of Leftists think that making money is inherently immoral. I am not one of them, so your argument here is ineffective on me. I think Microsoft is immoral for other reasons. These are reasons for which they have never apologized, for which they have never tried to make amends, and that they show no signs of stopping.
I think their "last minute" offer shows that Microsoft still thinks that everyone else either stands in awe or cowers in fear when in Microsoft's presence. I think that the deal-makers at Microsoft were thinking, "They'll be stunned to receive a deal from someone the likes of Microsoft!" only to be completely chagrined when Munich was not impressed. Microsoft isn't used to having to bargain. They're used to having their way.
Comparing your chosen favorite introverted loser activity to others
I disputed the point that MMORPGs are unacceptable leisure activities and you have thus decided that it must be my favorite leisure activity. Your poor reasoning has led you to a false conclusion.
doesn't change the fact that you just listed a whole bunch of introverted loser activites.
Put-downs say much more about your self-esteem than they do about anything else.
Okay, so playing an online game, according to you,
is avoiding "real life". So, what about sitting
in front of the television? What about lying on
your bed listening to Eminem? Do those alternatives
qualify as "enjoying real life" to you? Apparently,
going outside is a crucial element for you to judge
a certain activity as "enjoying real life". What
if a person spends three hours at a Britney Spears concert?
What if a person spends three hours "going out", i.e.,
hitting clubs, trying to "score" (either sexually
or substance-wise)? Are those "enjoying real life"?
I propose this: either you have to spend all your
waking hours working to survive, or you don't. If
you don't, then you have leisure time, and people who are in this privileged position
choose all sorts of activites to fill their leisure
time. To me, it sounds like you don't approve of
the way some people spend their leisure time. That's fine,
everyone is a snob to some degree. But don't say
that they're not "enjoying real life". All leisure
activities are escapism.
It CAN equal a revision. Good God, read the freaking amendments, some of them DO contradict things that are in the main body of the Constitution.
Which ones contradict the main body of the constitution, and how?
You can either be a great person or a great parent, but not both. The two are mutually exclusive.
Lots of great people have tried to be parents. What happened? They ended up being "distant", "unknowable" (i.e., shitty) parents becuase they were spending no time with their kids. After all, they couldn't afford to spend any time with their kids -- all of their precious time was spent doing things that made them into a great person.
And what is the primary requisite for being a great parent? Spending time with your children! It doesn't have to be some exalted kind of "quality time", just spend time with them! Even watching television with your child is infinitely better than spending no time with your child.
So if you have the desire to be a great person, give up on the idea of having children. You will end up doing a disservice to them.
Ultimately, the government protects your private property, so you don't have to.
This is false. Suppose I am a single mother, and my teenage son sells drugs in my house. The police can confiscate my home.
First of all, without the military, another country could invade and take all your stuff.
Agreed!
Secondly, the government also provides a structure of laws which allows you to focus on building a business without having to worry about other people stealing it or squatting on your land.
You are reiterating your first point, that the government protects property rights (which is false). Suppose I buy a house, fix it up, and then sell it for a profit of $40,000. What is the government's cut? 50%! Now, tell me, which laws in particular are worth $20,000 of that sale? I contend that government laws hinder business more than they help business.
Thirdly, your taxes fund the infrastructure of the country, which allow you to get to work and communicate.
As far as "get to work" goes, it's our car that allows my partner to drive the 8 miles to work and back. It seems to me we're paying far more than our fair share for the infrastructure that we use. As far as "communicate" goes, the only form of communication that is run by the government is the USPS, which is now $11 Billion (with a B) dollars in debt. All others are private industries.
Government programs that help the poor reduce crime, which also allows you to focus on attaining success (instead of protecting yourself).
One of the hugest government programs, the War on Some Drugs, does a lot more to create crime than to reduce it. The War on Some Drugs has turned the United States into the most incarceration-friendly country on the planet, filled our prisons to overflowing with non-violent drug criminals, created black markets that breed corruption and crime, ushered in 4th-amendment-killing forfeiture laws and life-destroying mandantory minimum sentencing laws, and, worst of all, has in no way diminshed drug use. So your assertion that government programs help the poor (or anyone) reduce crime is stupidly false in light of the colossal failure of the War on Some Drugs.
The FDA (for example) releases you from the burden of researching the conditions of every farm or dairy you might buy from.
The FDA also prevents life-saving drugs from reaching the market and has given its stamp of full approval on the HIV myth, allowing thousands to die from AZT poisoning and other private industries to profit from it.
The government also provides financial programs to reduce the risk of starting a business. Bankruptcy laws, subsidized loans, and FDIC are examples.
Why is there any reason that this can't be done by a private institution? Oh wait, it is. All the time. At all levels of business.
There are certainly many other examples.
Are they going to suck as bad as the ones you've given here? What line of business are you in?
It is much more likely that the existing system can be refined, than a libertarian utopia created.
Freedom is scary, isn't it?
Any self-made businessman got where they are today (if done legally) with more help than hinderance from the government.
You have yet to show me anything which supports this point. Outside of the military, the government needs to butt out. But they won't, for there is just too much political power to be had at the citizenry's expense.
Again, we all help pay for it, because it could be any of us next.
This assumes that there are only benevolent and innocent motives behind any government program. Consider this: government wants people to stay on welfare. They do NOT want people to get off welfare. People on welfare are dependant people, people who can be told, "The Republicans are going to cut your welfare checks!" Then the votes start rolling in. Certainly you see how easily "charity" programs (which means taking money from the people whose votes you don't need and giving it to the people whoes votes you do need) can be abused for political gain.