That wasn't a strawman. I was responding to the nonsense you quoted verbatim from the Tea Party We're-Not-Really-Sure-What-We-Want-So-We'll-Just-Use-The-Tired-Word-"Patriot"-To-Claim-We're-Worth-Listening-To crowd.
That you try to defend the statement as "fact" is very strange when you then backpedal and claim no relationship. If you want to claim politicians are liars, fine- I won't argue against that premise, but if you exclude this specific politician-run group, expect to be called a hypocrite.
Even in your "I'm not with them" excuse you still parrot their "repeal obamacare!" mantra, instead of a real reply about the constitutionality claim that government must be limited.
Sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously when you do these things.
Care to try to point out those alleged fallacies you think I made? Based on how you butchered "hominem", I'm guessing you won't bother to, just as you addressed my perfectly valid point with your nonsense.
Sad, sad, sad, that you think that was a proper response. Blame me for "regurgitating" (without evidence, naturally), and then go for a dictionary definition. Such lovely hypocrisy. That was also a wonderfully subjective- and completely off-topic point.
It's all nice and well to claim your interpretation of the constitution mandates your wishes but SCOTUS hasn't yet declared Bush's massive expansion of government unconstitutional, Republicans still dodge questions about supporting Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, and free markets have quite recently demonstrated their failure points.
You'd know that if you and other partisan hacks actually bothered to read the bill, rather than being content to fan the flames of ignorance, hatred and mistrust. But all you and the Republicans care about is politics. It's sadly ironic that you complain about lack of content, when that's exactly what your argument amounts to.
If you can't take the time to know what you're talking about quit voting so the rest of us can fix the messes you idiots keep making.
Republican voters, certainly. I'd think Dr. Paul's libertarian followers should have left shortly after the idiots hijacked his populist movement and turned it into the pointless anti-Obama mob it has become.
I don't think the current teabaggers are not embarrassed at all about Bush. These guys aren't moderates- they're the die-hards. They're the undoubting sheep who can't see any fault with Republicans past or present, no matter how Bachmann-esque. Sure- they don't yearn for Bush as much as they yearn for Regan, but I think that's a matter of charisma and nostalgia. They're content with the current wars, "trickle-down economics", and complete deregulation- all Bush policies. They love the idea of Palin running things, so how could they possibly believe 43 was the lousy president he was?
Sounds like you need a refresher yourself. It wasn't about the question of federalism- that came later on. The Declaration was about a lack of self determination.
The problem with all these stupid calls to read the Declaration and Constitution is teabaggers seem to equate unelected tyranny with LOSING THE ELECTION BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FUCKING MINORITY.
"Wait, we aren't supposed to do this...isn't this against the law since we passed::insert random bill::"
No no no- you don't understand how government works. Since Congress is the one writing laws, it can't actually break them (as a group through passing legislation, that is. Individually, they can and do break all sorts of laws; ethics violations are quite separate).
Congress is only limited by the constitution, though it requires the judicial to rein in an overstepping legislature. When congress writes a law that conflicts with another it's still up to a judge to determine where and how to resolve them if congress doesn't seek to fix the issue themselves with a correction or repeal.
Only the executive branch and the people (again, including individual legislators) are required to follow the law. And yes, we do ask that "What the hell are you talking about?" question.
Sigh... Yes yes, bottom line is everything... Nothing else matters...
"Most valuable brand" is about what people will pay...
That "people" == customers. So you've said it yourself- it's about customers. Regardless of motivation, regardless of consequences.
The site you quoted is stupid, confusing "brand" with "brand value". Brand, as in "brand loyalty", is about customers tending to purchase specific products or from specific companies, and has absolutely nothing to do with that company's bottom line. What that brand is worth, while the impetus for improving it, is but a derivative aspect.
Doom was much more than just a precursor to modern FPS (a genre I've personally long abandoned).
It pushed the boundaries in gaming of graphics, audio, level design, and interactivity. It also helped excite a generation of game developers into joining the industry. Respect its authoritah.
Interesting point but I wonder if that's actually true. It's certainly true that Google and its users have been very fortunate that it has had the ability to use search profits in tinkering quite freely and provide non revenue generating services. It's also true that breaking those services away from Google's advertising engine would be a huge blow if data and code were not shared with a splinter company.
Still, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Google Docs being able to survive if it was forced to shift to advertising for revenue in order to keep the servers running with a balanced sheet. Other services (*cough* Wave *cough*) could not hope to survive, I agree, but perhaps the major ones could. Do you have information how profitable Gmail's ads might be at the moment?
Walmart? That brand is J-U-N-K, and no amount of smiling faces will change that fact. They're only in business because they sell cheaply, not because people think well of them.
Brand is about what you mean to customers, not investors. That "brand" directory explains it's not about brand, but about market caps.
Why "randomly destructive" and "telling your neighbor how he can live his life better"? If you want to portray greed as a positive thing, at least be honest enough to equate it to a positive alternative. "Molesting priests are good- it's the devil who's bad" won't get you far.
You seem to be confusing greed with any method of economic advancement. You don't have to be greedy to benefit from your hard work. Greed is the desire to profit despite negative consequences. The fact of the matter is greed is not accepted as a positive attribute by anyone other than the greedy. This isn't some new "liberal hippie socialist agenda" - this traces back to the Hebrew bible and likely before its writing.
I know capitalists love to make the strawman that "liberals want to punish success", but there's nothing inherently wrong with success. The problem lies in success gained by greed.
The difference is they seem to still risk their lives on the Bering, where actual soap opera stars don't actually die when their character is killed. Mike Rowe plays to the camera, but he still gets dirty and gets the job done- those can still be two different things and discovery doesn't have to be documentary the way History should (but sadly no longer is).
Degree is everything, and I don't know that they've crossed the line. How much they make from Discovery is part of this- if they don't need to crab, they've certainly crossed it. If they are, as you suggest, crabbing for a living, they're still badass, hardworking dudes. If instead they're simply acting to a written script and don't care about full pots, then that would certainly be more drama than reality.
I have ho idea where that minirant came from and what the point was supposed to be.
The crusades had nothing to do with lack of resources, unlike the Americas and colonies. The Hundred Years and Roses were likewise strictly internal and political. And if European history is to be discussed when the topic is population, the plague was far better at percentage-wise depopulation than any war, including both WWs combined with influenza. If depopulation is your goal, war is both an ineffective and expensive tool.
I forgot to mention in response to your previous nonsense that Darwin wasn't talking about anthropology, which is very different from evolution. Get a clue before you use the word bullshit. You're obviously way out of your league here.
The solution to overpopulation is the development of the third world, increasing availability to food and medicine. Easier said than done, of course, but that's the now-obvious goal. Promotion of suffering is neither strategically- and certainly not morally the right approach.
How cool would it be if the fossils of dinosaurs were actually the remains biomechanical, space-traveling, laser-shooting interstellar vehicles?
Kind of a mix between Dinotopia and Battletech- I like it.
But the actual fossils we have are strictly biologic and you forgot "procreating". As for "interstellar", do you mean they have the power to move between planets ala Stargate, or were you thinking really really big spacesuits and dehydrated tricero-rations?:)
it may be easier to primorial goo with all the building blocks
Easier it sure would be, but the point is about spreading the human race, not just life. And seeding primordial (missed a 'd' there) goo is like giving a dozen kids a random assortment of Lego blocks (plus enough time to forget about the Spongebob episode they just watched) and expecting identical results. Because of how evolution works, there's no guarantee you'd get anything like humans, and it would take far too long to see results.
Slashdot Mirror
That wasn't a strawman. I was responding to the nonsense you quoted verbatim from the Tea Party We're-Not-Really-Sure-What-We-Want-So-We'll-Just-Use-The-Tired-Word-"Patriot"-To-Claim-We're-Worth-Listening-To crowd.
That you try to defend the statement as "fact" is very strange when you then backpedal and claim no relationship. If you want to claim politicians are liars, fine- I won't argue against that premise, but if you exclude this specific politician-run group, expect to be called a hypocrite.
Even in your "I'm not with them" excuse you still parrot their "repeal obamacare!" mantra, instead of a real reply about the constitutionality claim that government must be limited.
Sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously when you do these things.
Thanks for making my point about being unable to admit defeat.
Care to try to point out those alleged fallacies you think I made? Based on how you butchered "hominem", I'm guessing you won't bother to, just as you addressed my perfectly valid point with your nonsense.
Sad, sad, sad, that you think that was a proper response. Blame me for "regurgitating" (without evidence, naturally), and then go for a dictionary definition. Such lovely hypocrisy. That was also a wonderfully subjective- and completely off-topic point.
It's all nice and well to claim your interpretation of the constitution mandates your wishes but SCOTUS hasn't yet declared Bush's massive expansion of government unconstitutional, Republicans still dodge questions about supporting Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, and free markets have quite recently demonstrated their failure points.
Care to try again?
Sounds about right. And it's not just bad reporting as usual- the press release had few details on the application, not including a name.
I found it strange it said they can "fix" the problem with a security system which hasn't been released yet.
The keepers of the law are so out of touch that they are voting on a bill with no name and no content?
The untitled version of HR 1586 does have content.
You'd know that if you and other partisan hacks actually bothered to read the bill, rather than being content to fan the flames of ignorance, hatred and mistrust. But all you and the Republicans care about is politics. It's sadly ironic that you complain about lack of content, when that's exactly what your argument amounts to.
If you can't take the time to know what you're talking about quit voting so the rest of us can fix the messes you idiots keep making.
Republican voters, certainly. I'd think Dr. Paul's libertarian followers should have left shortly after the idiots hijacked his populist movement and turned it into the pointless anti-Obama mob it has become.
I don't think the current teabaggers are not embarrassed at all about Bush. These guys aren't moderates- they're the die-hards. They're the undoubting sheep who can't see any fault with Republicans past or present, no matter how Bachmann-esque. Sure- they don't yearn for Bush as much as they yearn for Regan, but I think that's a matter of charisma and nostalgia. They're content with the current wars, "trickle-down economics", and complete deregulation- all Bush policies. They love the idea of Palin running things, so how could they possibly believe 43 was the lousy president he was?
Dear Idiot:
I didn't say anything about Google.
You want my grandparent.
XXX,
Me.
There's an apppropriate loophole for that.
What? A rational, plausible and simple explanation for an unimportant mistake?
Go away, dude. We want to vent about the politicians we keep voting in! :D
Sounds like you need a refresher yourself. It wasn't about the question of federalism- that came later on. The Declaration was about a lack of self determination.
The problem with all these stupid calls to read the Declaration and Constitution is teabaggers seem to equate unelected tyranny with LOSING THE ELECTION BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FUCKING MINORITY.
Short memory. The curse of the American people...
"Wait, we aren't supposed to do this...isn't this against the law since we passed ::insert random bill::"
No no no- you don't understand how government works. Since Congress is the one writing laws, it can't actually break them (as a group through passing legislation, that is. Individually, they can and do break all sorts of laws; ethics violations are quite separate).
Congress is only limited by the constitution, though it requires the judicial to rein in an overstepping legislature. When congress writes a law that conflicts with another it's still up to a judge to determine where and how to resolve them if congress doesn't seek to fix the issue themselves with a correction or repeal.
Only the executive branch and the people (again, including individual legislators) are required to follow the law. And yes, we do ask that "What the hell are you talking about?" question.
Sigh... Yes yes, bottom line is everything... Nothing else matters...
"Most valuable brand" is about what people will pay...
That "people" == customers. So you've said it yourself- it's about customers. Regardless of motivation, regardless of consequences.
The site you quoted is stupid, confusing "brand" with "brand value". Brand, as in "brand loyalty", is about customers tending to purchase specific products or from specific companies, and has absolutely nothing to do with that company's bottom line. What that brand is worth, while the impetus for improving it, is but a derivative aspect.
Doom was much more than just a precursor to modern FPS (a genre I've personally long abandoned).
It pushed the boundaries in gaming of graphics, audio, level design, and interactivity. It also helped excite a generation of game developers into joining the industry. Respect its authoritah.
Interesting point but I wonder if that's actually true. It's certainly true that Google and its users have been very fortunate that it has had the ability to use search profits in tinkering quite freely and provide non revenue generating services. It's also true that breaking those services away from Google's advertising engine would be a huge blow if data and code were not shared with a splinter company.
Still, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Google Docs being able to survive if it was forced to shift to advertising for revenue in order to keep the servers running with a balanced sheet. Other services (*cough* Wave *cough*) could not hope to survive, I agree, but perhaps the major ones could. Do you have information how profitable Gmail's ads might be at the moment?
Thank you! Nice to hear a learned and sane voice once in a while. Wish I hadn't blown all my mod points on trivia yesterday.
Walmart? That brand is J-U-N-K, and no amount of smiling faces will change that fact. They're only in business because they sell cheaply, not because people think well of them.
Brand is about what you mean to customers, not investors. That "brand" directory explains it's not about brand, but about market caps.
Why "randomly destructive" and "telling your neighbor how he can live his life better"? If you want to portray greed as a positive thing, at least be honest enough to equate it to a positive alternative. "Molesting priests are good- it's the devil who's bad" won't get you far.
You seem to be confusing greed with any method of economic advancement. You don't have to be greedy to benefit from your hard work. Greed is the desire to profit despite negative consequences. The fact of the matter is greed is not accepted as a positive attribute by anyone other than the greedy. This isn't some new "liberal hippie socialist agenda" - this traces back to the Hebrew bible and likely before its writing.
I know capitalists love to make the strawman that "liberals want to punish success", but there's nothing inherently wrong with success. The problem lies in success gained by greed.
The difference is they seem to still risk their lives on the Bering, where actual soap opera stars don't actually die when their character is killed. Mike Rowe plays to the camera, but he still gets dirty and gets the job done- those can still be two different things and discovery doesn't have to be documentary the way History should (but sadly no longer is).
Degree is everything, and I don't know that they've crossed the line. How much they make from Discovery is part of this- if they don't need to crab, they've certainly crossed it. If they are, as you suggest, crabbing for a living, they're still badass, hardworking dudes. If instead they're simply acting to a written script and don't care about full pots, then that would certainly be more drama than reality.
I have ho idea where that minirant came from and what the point was supposed to be.
The crusades had nothing to do with lack of resources, unlike the Americas and colonies. The Hundred Years and Roses were likewise strictly internal and political. And if European history is to be discussed when the topic is population, the plague was far better at percentage-wise depopulation than any war, including both WWs combined with influenza. If depopulation is your goal, war is both an ineffective and expensive tool.
I forgot to mention in response to your previous nonsense that Darwin wasn't talking about anthropology, which is very different from evolution. Get a clue before you use the word bullshit. You're obviously way out of your league here.
This does not require a citation. It's well documentation that the gap in wealth is growing.
NO, NO, NO. That's a debunked myth.
The solution to overpopulation is the development of the third world, increasing availability to food and medicine. Easier said than done, of course, but that's the now-obvious goal. Promotion of suffering is neither strategically- and certainly not morally the right approach.
How cool would it be if the fossils of dinosaurs were actually the remains biomechanical, space-traveling, laser-shooting interstellar vehicles?
Kind of a mix between Dinotopia and Battletech- I like it.
But the actual fossils we have are strictly biologic and you forgot "procreating". As for "interstellar", do you mean they have the power to move between planets ala Stargate, or were you thinking really really big spacesuits and dehydrated tricero-rations? :)
it may be easier to primorial goo with all the building blocks
Easier it sure would be, but the point is about spreading the human race, not just life. And seeding primordial (missed a 'd' there) goo is like giving a dozen kids a random assortment of Lego blocks (plus enough time to forget about the Spongebob episode they just watched) and expecting identical results. Because of how evolution works, there's no guarantee you'd get anything like humans, and it would take far too long to see results.