Bundle the documents up in a hardcover, put a picture of Snooki on the front and give her writing credit. Distribute to any bookstore in the country that will take it. The secret will be safe forever.
It's about the fact that people are flocking to 3rd party browsers despite IE being embedded in the OS. It's proof that there was no browser monopoly to begin with. The better browser wins. It's not anti-trust laws, but rather "the invisible hand" that pimp-slapped IE marketshare.
And if Chrome and Firefox keep bloating and IE keeps slimming, it can all be turned around; IE vs Netscape redux. Not that I want to see that happen, at all.
Not robbing people - this is great, keep it up mixing it with other stuff. If you asked me about one thing that didn't belong in your list, it's this one.
It absolutely belongs. It sets the precedent that the government has the authority to mandate your behavior. If you accept this much, then we merely argue about where the extent of that authority is.
I prefer minimal interference from the government, in line with America's founding fathers' philosophy (and not today's micromanaging, bureaucratic autocracy). Your theory of governance, however, reminds me more of Somalia than early US.
You are obligate by social contract to society as a whole. This idea that all of society exists for you in contrary to the founding fathers' intent. It is your social contract with society that guarantees your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In guaranteeing those rights for others, you are occasionally obligated (by that same social contract) to such things as: - Voting - Paying your taxes - Going to war during a draft - Getting an education - Not robbing people - Getting government-mandated vaccinations
There are countless circumscriptions to your rights to "do whatever you want." Your absolutist view is out of line with mainstream American philosophy since its very inception.
It's a good response, and one I use with my conservative religious friends. For anti-vaxer's I have nothing; they simply can't be reasoned with on the issue.
If you choose to put a chink in the armor of herd immunity, I agree it should be your right. Somewhere else. Maybe we can make an island for people who like smallpox and polio, too.
I jest, but you're coming at this from the angle of a person who has already benefited from government-mandated vaccinations given to your parents and grandparents; vaccinations which may have saved your life.
The GP is speaking for the large number of friends I have who borrowed $100K to go to a prestigious art school. Or $150K to get an environmental degree from an ivy league school. Or $80K for a "classical" degree. These people were foolish. I went to a community-college-turned-university for my comp sci degree, and I make as much as all of them put together. We have inculcated in our children this "you can be whatever you want to be" nonsense, instead of teaching them reality: to make it, you have to plan ahead, make smart choices, and extend yourself as little as possible.
What? The whole point of feeding them billions upon billions of dollars was to maintain the status quo. Screw that. Let them fail.
Also, what proposals have been made to block bank bail-outs that the "tea party" has blocked? The tea-party has protested TARP from the very beginning. It's one of the reasons it was created in the first place.
Whose money? Remember that a lot of these kids have not had any money "stolen" from them... they simply borrowed too much because no one told them any better.
My idea was to not give them free tax-payer money to begin with, and let them starve to death. That was the free-market solution, and we should have tried that first.
After judging ifcomp for the last few years, I can safely say I can never go back to the old Infocom games. The best modern interactive fiction have an artistry that really reflects the maturity of that genre.
It's also why conservative Christian groups like the ACLJ will occasionally defend atheist groups in court on free speech issues. Stifling anyone's opinion because you don't like it sets a dangerous precedent. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly are only possibly in a truly open idea exchange without circumscription.
Cultures who outlaw dickwads are at the mercy of those who define the term "dickwad." Wait until your favorite religion/race/affiliation/cereal-brand is a "hate crime."
The US has free speech so that no man may stifle another man's conscience.
Slashdot Mirror
After my release-day copy of KDE 3.5 just finished compiling, too! Of all the luck...
There's always somebody who thinks they're smarter than the standard libraries. And you'll always get stuck fixing their "innovations."
At least zombies don't have slash-fic.
I do not necessarily see the decommoditization of (what is now) basic desktop functionality to be a bad thing.
Bundle the documents up in a hardcover, put a picture of Snooki on the front and give her writing credit. Distribute to any bookstore in the country that will take it. The secret will be safe forever.
It's about the fact that people are flocking to 3rd party browsers despite IE being embedded in the OS. It's proof that there was no browser monopoly to begin with. The better browser wins. It's not anti-trust laws, but rather "the invisible hand" that pimp-slapped IE marketshare.
And if Chrome and Firefox keep bloating and IE keeps slimming, it can all be turned around; IE vs Netscape redux. Not that I want to see that happen, at all.
Your argument is 10 years out of date.
It absolutely belongs. It sets the precedent that the government has the authority to mandate your behavior. If you accept this much, then we merely argue about where the extent of that authority is.
I prefer minimal interference from the government, in line with America's founding fathers' philosophy (and not today's micromanaging, bureaucratic autocracy). Your theory of governance, however, reminds me more of Somalia than early US.
I heard Tardisil gives 12-year-old girls autism. A weeping mother told me one time. And I know, because you can always trust a weeping mother.
You are obligate by social contract to society as a whole. This idea that all of society exists for you in contrary to the founding fathers' intent. It is your social contract with society that guarantees your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In guaranteeing those rights for others, you are occasionally obligated (by that same social contract) to such things as:
- Voting
- Paying your taxes
- Going to war during a draft
- Getting an education
- Not robbing people
- Getting government-mandated vaccinations
There are countless circumscriptions to your rights to "do whatever you want." Your absolutist view is out of line with mainstream American philosophy since its very inception.
Your child is not responsible for, nor can they be 100% cognizant of, the actions their spouse took prior to marrying them.
It's a good response, and one I use with my conservative religious friends. For anti-vaxer's I have nothing; they simply can't be reasoned with on the issue.
You can teach your child to remain abstinent until marriage, and they'll still get HPV on their wedding night.
Polio? Smallpox?
If you choose to put a chink in the armor of herd immunity, I agree it should be your right. Somewhere else. Maybe we can make an island for people who like smallpox and polio, too.
I jest, but you're coming at this from the angle of a person who has already benefited from government-mandated vaccinations given to your parents and grandparents; vaccinations which may have saved your life.
Your virgin daughter can still get HPV on her wedding night, and die of cervical cancer.
I mean, shouldn't it be called Lithp?
The GP is speaking for the large number of friends I have who borrowed $100K to go to a prestigious art school. Or $150K to get an environmental degree from an ivy league school. Or $80K for a "classical" degree. These people were foolish. I went to a community-college-turned-university for my comp sci degree, and I make as much as all of them put together. We have inculcated in our children this "you can be whatever you want to be" nonsense, instead of teaching them reality: to make it, you have to plan ahead, make smart choices, and extend yourself as little as possible.
What? The whole point of feeding them billions upon billions of dollars was to maintain the status quo. Screw that. Let them fail.
Also, what proposals have been made to block bank bail-outs that the "tea party" has blocked? The tea-party has protested TARP from the very beginning. It's one of the reasons it was created in the first place.
I'm not sure you understand any of these issues.
Whose money? Remember that a lot of these kids have not had any money "stolen" from them... they simply borrowed too much because no one told them any better.
My idea was to not give them free tax-payer money to begin with, and let them starve to death. That was the free-market solution, and we should have tried that first.
After judging ifcomp for the last few years, I can safely say I can never go back to the old Infocom games. The best modern interactive fiction have an artistry that really reflects the maturity of that genre.
Now I know why I hate variant types. Typeless languages are a sea of androgyny. Like Europe. /duck /run /hide
It's also why conservative Christian groups like the ACLJ will occasionally defend atheist groups in court on free speech issues. Stifling anyone's opinion because you don't like it sets a dangerous precedent. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly are only possibly in a truly open idea exchange without circumscription.
Cultures who outlaw dickwads are at the mercy of those who define the term "dickwad." Wait until your favorite religion/race/affiliation/cereal-brand is a "hate crime."
The US has free speech so that no man may stifle another man's conscience.