When you dont have a publisher breathing down your neck to get the product out and to worry about profits you end up with shit like this and duke nukem forever.
Exactly...as Microsoft proved when Windows Longhorn was released on time and under budget....
That doesn't confirm in any way any specific claim he has made any more than a felony warrant confirms the claim of any other fugitive that "I didn't do it! I'm innocent!"
Then Obama and the rest of the neocons would be laughing as they publicly point out what a liar Snowden is.
He parsed is words in such a way that he was deliberately misleading while telling the absolute truth. They weren't spying on Americans, they were spying on Phones.
Nice try:
"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
Obama is "fully responsible" for a program Dubya put in place? Partisan much?
Project much? How much responsibility does an ex-president have for what the current president is doing right now?
Bitch at Bush as much as you want, but unless you have a time machine it's not going to change anything. As opposed to, you know, looking at those who are in power right now.
That also fails the prior art test since a lot of audio equipment is equipped with SPDIF ports that have an electrical coax connector shell and a fiberoptic core. So you can plug in either a coax SPDIF digital audio cable or a fiberoptic one. Two well documented standard cables and one port.
My G4 iMac (the makeup mirror one) won't boot off the USB port. They were slow to adopt USB 2.0, because USB was seen as sort of 'ghetto' by Apple in that era.
Troll. Windows at the time didn't support USB booting either, even if your PC supported it, which wasn't a given.
As to the merits, it seems to me like there is probably prior art, and it may also fail the obviousness test.
Everything is obvious, once someone else has done it. Laptop power adapters that attach and release magnetically, saving your computer from your clumsiness/kids/cats, are totally obvious. But it took someone 20+ years to actually do it...
Over the last decade or so , there have been quite a few major riots by N. African Muslims in Western Europe - especially France. Most times it's because they are incapbable of living in a Free Secular Western society - a society that treats women as equals.
Or, because they're tired of putting up with racist bullshit and discrimination from bigots like yourself and the AC who started this thread.
...which is nothing more than the 10,000th iteration of "nothing to see here, move along" buuuuuuuuullshit concern trolling. Yeah, we really all have heard of Echelon, Stasi, Carnivor, the Great Wall of China, COINTELPRO, etc etc. Really.
Wrong is wrong, it doesn't matter who's doing it, or how long it's been around.
5 painful health-care lessons from Massachusetts - June 16, 2010 Massachusetts struggles to rein in health care costs - Apr 30, 2011
Yes, excellent summaries on why basing your health care around a for-profit system is a disaster. But he was talking about non-profit and single payer....
This is the part of the affordiable care plan that makes it "affordable". The idea behind insurance, it is pooled risk
The problem with that theory is that high costs have little to do with "risk pools" and everything to do with increasing shareholder profits. That's why doctors in states that have passed corporate liability limits, I mean "tort reform", pay just as much for malpractice insurance as doctors in states without "tort reform".
No, "the people" didn't want socialized medicine. That is why the bill didn't come close to that, in the first place.
Do you ever spend time here on planet Earth? Just asking. Because the laws and policies we get have little to nothing to do with what the public actually wants. Like how the Public Option had 80% support from the public with next to no support from either party, but the PO went nowhere. Whereas policies like telecom immunity, bank bailouts and health insurance mandates sail right on through, despite being hated by the left, right and center.
Why should I be forced by the govt to pay for someone elses problems?
Why should I have to pay for your police, ambulance or fire services? Why should I have to pay for your water treatment, the sidewalk past your house, or the road you drive to work?
Neat trick, substituting the cost of one person for the average cost per person and hoping no one will notice. And when your health care costs start to drastically increase in 10, 20 or 30 years, what then, Slick?
The solution is to expose the costs to the consumer. Do that, and these bullshit "Chargemasters" would go away from simple market mechanics.
So....reinvent the wheel to keep pleasing the Free Market Fairy, and go on ignoring the fact that socialized medicine produces better outcomes for a third the cost?
The reason the medical system is messed up is because of the laws, regulations and monopoly protections enforced on the entire sector by the government.
Riiight. That's why countries with socialized (i.e. most regulated) health care have far lower costs than we do with far better outcomes. But I guess you gotta ignore the elephant of shareholder profits in the room too keep up that Randian storyline....
Too bad the Democrats wanted to create a bloated, byzantine, idiotic plan and pass it through chicanery and corrupt bribes on their own ("deeming" it passed, "corn husker kickback", etc.) instead of using Republican ideas. I love it when people conveniently ignore the facts...
That's the most hilarious thing I've read all year. You do know that Obamacare used to be called Romneycare, right? That the plan was first cooked up by the Heritage Foundation and that Poppy Bush ran on it in '92?
George Herbert Walker Bush ran on it in 1992. Dole ran on it again in 1996. And of course there's a reason why it was called Romneycare before it was was called Obamacare.
But that's one of the great things about Obomneycare: it outs a lot of partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle.
ActiveX is a self describing plugin system which allows an application to load and potentially use a plugin without any prior knowledge, EXACTLY like XPCOM in Firefox. Again, they are 100% functionally the same. Internet Explorer had retarded defaults
And how did end users get the majority of their ActiveX widgets? Through Internet Explorer. Your argument makes sense - from a pedantic programmer's perspective. From an end user's perspective (and those of us who have had to clean said users computers), though, it's a distinction without a difference.
The internet is becoming "app-ified" because users want their websites to do more, to load faster, to not have "flicker" whenever the page has to change something... The "old way" of websites is as dead as Geocities, because if we web developers actually designed them that way, our users/clients would never be happy.
Load faster? In either case your internet connection is going to be the bottleneck as you're waiting for data to load...
First, polygamy could mean multiple wives OR multiple husbands. The gender specific terms (from your friendly neighborhood wiki) you want is polygyny and polyandry.
Of course I know that, but that's a distinction without a difference. Because you know as well as I do that the first group to jump back on the polygamy bandwagon would be Mormons, who have never had wives with multiple husbands. And far behind them would be Muslims, who are in the same boat.
Lets say Marissa Mayer decides she wants a few "brother husbands" while she's raking in the bucks at Yahoo. There's only going to be a couple thousand Mormon men in front of her to get themselves some "sister wives". Which brings us right back to my original statement: legalizing polygamy would inherently devalue women.
Now to play devil's advocate... so what? As long as they were informed and consented, who are you to decide what's the "right" % of the relationship each partner has?
Answering the devil as I did the other guy in this thread: for the same reasons you can't sell yourself into slavery or indentured servitude. Some contracts are too unjust, too imbalanced, and too ripe for abuse to be valid.
It is skipped over because it is a strawman.
You mean because it blows a hole in your "argument"? On what planet is including one of the main problems with polygamy in a discussion on polygamy a "straw man"? Beuller? Beuller?
You're the one comparing apples and oranges to setup strawmans.
Ooo, another case of pure projection. There is no Lost Boy problem when two women marry. There is no devaluation when one man marries one man, as opposed to one person having half a dozen spouses. Furthermore, the only people taking multiple spouses (whether a Mayer or a Romney) will be rich. And the rich aren't a historically abused minority like, say, GLBT's.
So take your mixed fruit basket and GTFO with your debunked excuses for maintaining bigotry.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly...as Microsoft proved when Windows Longhorn was released on time and under budget....
Oh, like when they prance massive carrier groups near our borders? Oh wait, that's what we do to them.
All hail the American Empire.
Then Obama and the rest of the neocons would be laughing as they publicly point out what a liar Snowden is.
If making or possessing arms makes you a "terrorist", than the U.S. and Israel are the biggest terrorists on the planet.
Nice try:
Project much? How much responsibility does an ex-president have for what the current president is doing right now?
Bitch at Bush as much as you want, but unless you have a time machine it's not going to change anything. As opposed to, you know, looking at those who are in power right now.
Apples (audio) and oranges (data).
Troll. Windows at the time didn't support USB booting either, even if your PC supported it, which wasn't a given.
Everything is obvious, once someone else has done it. Laptop power adapters that attach and release magnetically, saving your computer from your clumsiness/kids/cats, are totally obvious. But it took someone 20+ years to actually do it...
Or, because they're tired of putting up with racist bullshit and discrimination from bigots like yourself and the AC who started this thread.
...which is nothing more than the 10,000th iteration of "nothing to see here, move along" buuuuuuuuullshit concern trolling. Yeah, we really all have heard of Echelon, Stasi, Carnivor, the Great Wall of China, COINTELPRO, etc etc. Really.
Wrong is wrong, it doesn't matter who's doing it, or how long it's been around.
Yes, excellent summaries on why basing your health care around a for-profit system is a disaster. But he was talking about non-profit and single payer....
The problem with that theory is that high costs have little to do with "risk pools" and everything to do with increasing shareholder profits. That's why doctors in states that have passed corporate liability limits, I mean "tort reform", pay just as much for malpractice insurance as doctors in states without "tort reform".
Do you ever spend time here on planet Earth? Just asking. Because the laws and policies we get have little to nothing to do with what the public actually wants. Like how the Public Option had 80% support from the public with next to no support from either party, but the PO went nowhere. Whereas policies like telecom immunity, bank bailouts and health insurance mandates sail right on through, despite being hated by the left, right and center.
Why should I have to pay for your police, ambulance or fire services? Why should I have to pay for your water treatment, the sidewalk past your house, or the road you drive to work?
Idiot.
Neat trick, substituting the cost of one person for the average cost per person and hoping no one will notice. And when your health care costs start to drastically increase in 10, 20 or 30 years, what then, Slick?
So....reinvent the wheel to keep pleasing the Free Market Fairy, and go on ignoring the fact that socialized medicine produces better outcomes for a third the cost?
Riiight. That's why countries with socialized (i.e. most regulated) health care have far lower costs than we do with far better outcomes. But I guess you gotta ignore the elephant of shareholder profits in the room too keep up that Randian storyline....
What do you mean "even"? Both the Heritage Foundation and the current POTUS are hard-core right wingers.
That's the most hilarious thing I've read all year. You do know that Obamacare used to be called Romneycare, right? That the plan was first cooked up by the Heritage Foundation and that Poppy Bush ran on it in '92?
The ACA is nothing but Republican ideas!
George Herbert Walker Bush ran on it in 1992. Dole ran on it again in 1996. And of course there's a reason why it was called Romneycare before it was was called Obamacare.
But that's one of the great things about Obomneycare: it outs a lot of partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle.
And how did end users get the majority of their ActiveX widgets? Through Internet Explorer. Your argument makes sense - from a pedantic programmer's perspective. From an end user's perspective (and those of us who have had to clean said users computers), though, it's a distinction without a difference.
Load faster? In either case your internet connection is going to be the bottleneck as you're waiting for data to load...
Not all security issues are related to privacy, but all privacy issues are security issues. The security of your person, papers, effects, etc....
Of course I know that, but that's a distinction without a difference. Because you know as well as I do that the first group to jump back on the polygamy bandwagon would be Mormons, who have never had wives with multiple husbands. And far behind them would be Muslims, who are in the same boat.
Lets say Marissa Mayer decides she wants a few "brother husbands" while she's raking in the bucks at Yahoo. There's only going to be a couple thousand Mormon men in front of her to get themselves some "sister wives". Which brings us right back to my original statement: legalizing polygamy would inherently devalue women.
Answering the devil as I did the other guy in this thread: for the same reasons you can't sell yourself into slavery or indentured servitude. Some contracts are too unjust, too imbalanced, and too ripe for abuse to be valid.
You mean because it blows a hole in your "argument"? On what planet is including one of the main problems with polygamy in a discussion on polygamy a "straw man"? Beuller? Beuller?
Ooo, another case of pure projection. There is no Lost Boy problem when two women marry. There is no devaluation when one man marries one man, as opposed to one person having half a dozen spouses. Furthermore, the only people taking multiple spouses (whether a Mayer or a Romney) will be rich. And the rich aren't a historically abused minority like, say, GLBT's.
So take your mixed fruit basket and GTFO with your debunked excuses for maintaining bigotry.