Will we be? Because, well, the whole issue is that those corporations are contributing close to bupkiss in the way of taxes and other revenues to the member state/nation.
Interesting fact - in many areas, a Walmart actually costs a community more than the value of the business and taxes it brings in. Generalize, and apply to this topic.
But, is Steam using bargaining power here? From my understanding, the reasons its being included in so many of these games are as a matchmaking engine and social-hub component; which, frankly, it does better than most of the roll-your-own solutions of yore.
And arguably bad for customers, except that Steam doesn't drop games due to age (AFAICT), and their prices for old games are, by and large, better than Gamestop's prices for used.
If "they" in your sentence doesn't refer to Steamworks (the game publishing component of Valve), then what is your comment actually referring to? The comment you reply to is specifically talking about Steam (and thus Steamworks); if you weren't talking about that, then you're badly off-topic and unable to reply coherently.
So, is AOL's actual plan to just keep buying other companies who haven't been relevant since the late 90s, until such time as the massive collection of 90s nostalgia somehow changes, alchemically, into something worthwhile?
Yet, gay people are not satisfied only with the practical effects of civil union (which is, for all it matters, marriage). They also want it called "marriage" because......? Well, because they want so, and you're a frothing stinking religious bigot if your don't agree with them.
Because separate but equal has already been found unconstitutional in other cases. Because the only reason to create a new wording is to say "You gays can't be part of this social institution!" Because, well, the only actual motivation for this is, in fact, bigotry - not necessarily frothing, or religious, but certainly bigotry.
Also, your claim of a "historical meaning" shows that you're not very good at history. Note the number of states that have had to amend their laws specifically to ADD gendered language, to keep gay people from marrying. And even if you weren't full of it, it wouldn't actually work as a justification. I mean, keeping the vote for particular classes of people has all kinds of historical justification; so should we take the vote away from women? I mean, now that all the black people more or less own themselves, do they cast their 3/5 of a vote, or does some white dude have to take charge of them? Oh, wait - that's right, progress happens, so these aren't reasonable arguments. And neither is yours. Albeit yours was stupid to start with, because words get redefined all the time, as the things they talk about change. I mean, when you get married, are you going to post your banns? Is the consummation going to be witnessed by the whole village?
It's not some issue of definition that you're angry about; it's the idea that gay people are real people, and that their relationships are valid. Admit it, hopefully deal with and repudiate it someday, or don't, but drop this BS where you try to pretend you have some sort of linguistic principle behind you. Because it's both pathetic and insulting.
The main issue isn't theft or loss, although I'd put it out there that I'm much more likely to have my Kindle/iPhone/Laptop stolen than my several thousand paper books, at least in one theft transaction.
The main issue is that the expected lifetime for any one digital device these days is what, 1-3 years? Phones and other "carry-them-everywhere" devices have an even shorter life expectancy. This kind of ephemeral existence isn't the norm, or liable to be accepted as such, for books and other data. I mean, would you be happy if, because your DVD player died, you had to re-buy every single show or movie you'd ever purchased? Of course not. If your computer died, would you be alright if there was no way to potentially get your data off? I'm guessing not.
You're the one positing that there's some sort of secrecy attached to the bill. I invite you to prove it. The bill went through the House and the Senate, the text was (and is) publicly available as required, and frankly, I'd imagine that the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist claiming that something shady has gone on.
What in Obama's stated positions or legislative record makes you think that he ISN'T a centrist? His eventual health-care plan is ridiculously tame; the only "leftist" provision left in the damned thing is that it doesn't allow insurers to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions. He's stated that he's willing to compromise heavily over the Bush tax cuts. He's hardly pushing huge boundaries on the various homosexual policy lines, or dismantling the army, or, really, doing anything that would account for the ridiculous assaults made on him by the right.
Obama is a centrist, a moderate, pro-business Democrat. Stop claiming that he's Ralph bleeping Nader or something, and own to what you mean - that anything left of Ronald Reagan is unacceptable, because you won't accept a centrist compromise.
A: I'm not sure how good your grasp of how the U.S. Government works. Watch Schoolhouse Rock again until you understand how a bill becomes law. Short version - the health care plan wasn't secret, and your argument is based on ridiculous premises.
B: Obama is a centrist. If you fail to recognize this as truth, you may just be fringier than you thinks.
Last night was a mid-term election for the U.S. Senate and House. It wasn't actually this magic "yes-no" between Obama and all of Republicans, or a referendum on Obamacare, or any of the things it's being pressed into acting as a symbol for.
He's still the goddamn sitting president of the United States of America, and yes, the Congress and House are still obligated to compromise with the head of a branch of the fucking government. And, yes, if someone says "We're not going to compromise at all with the sitting president, and we're going to prevent anything from getting done if he won't do it entirely our way," they are being obstructionist, as surely as, for example, a president would be obstructionist if he just sat and vetoed every law his congress passed him, unless it was exactly his way.
So, yes - whether or not you agree with his politics or Obama's, Boehner is STATING that his intent is to be obstructionist. Cheer him on, fine, but stop it with this weaselly nonsense where you try and turn it into "Republicans won so you're wrong!" BS.
No, anyone who says "I'll work with him, as long as he's doing exactly what we want" is an obstructionist.
Whether you agree with Obama or not, he's been very thoroughly devoted to trying to compromise. Personally, I think that's been largely the problem with his administration, but regardless of your position on that, trying to paint him as someone unwilling to compromise is either stupid or deceptive.
On the other hand, the statement "We'll work with him, as long as he does what we want!" isn't in any way accepting the idea of a compromise. Which isn't surprising, and may even seem like good news to Boehner's supporters. But exactly as I said, it's a promise to obstruct, rather than compromise.
Well, ignoring the fact that this isn't a technology with any sort of real censorship possibilities (scanning hardware is too ubiquitous, OCR is too weak a search tool), when was the last time you saw an expensive, top-tier, recently manufactured corporate copier in a public library? I'm guessing never, because few public libraries are going to have the funds to purchase them, and even fewer would waste the funds they have on purchasing them if they come up with the money.
The point, and only real purpose, of this technology is to prevent documents that are supposed to be confidential from being accidentally scanned. This is going to have an impact on privacy - namely, it's going to slightly enhance it, because the dumbass intern at your medical/legal/insurance provider will be prevented from faxing a document he shouldn't have to someone.
I mean, I don't know how to put this more bluntly - no conventional, accepted definition of mental illness encompasses all religion. Period, end sentence. Whether or not you feel that religion is problematic or even outright evil, it's not a mental illness. Sorry, but facts is facts.
I concede partial points - I'd forgotten a lot of the religious aspects of the book.
I do have to say that it's not as clearly black and white as Dune being anti-religious - it seems unlikely that it would be, given that Frank Herbert was a practicing Buddhist.
And, as I think I said earlier, I'm not a big fan of organized religion. I'm just also not a fan of attacking ideas by declaring them insanity.
Except that I point out several times that his statements aren't accurate. Not in that exact line, but regardless your claim is false.
I do focus more heavily on how offensive I find his comments, because I am offended, and because I have more interest in and hope of getting him to stop being a dick than in debating whether his crack-addled idea is valid.
I'd go through and point out where I argued with him on accuracy, but I figure you need the reading practice more than I need to bother with you.
We may disagree on the meaning of words, but that's my point - you are incorrect about the meaning of the words. Your explained position does not match the accepted definitions of mental illness - therefore, if you want to be understood, it is up to you to use the phrase correctly.
I picked Count Fenring because he's an interesting minor character from a book I like - I liked the idea of a character who was one gene away from being the hero, and the position it put him in in the book. Also, I'm unclear as to where religion is being assaulted by Dune - the religious Fremen are generally portrayed much more sympathetically than the secular empire, if you want to reduce it to that. Really, the book has very little to do with religion - it's a political book, in which certain of the factions have a level of mysticism built up around their use of a spice that lets them see the future.
If I was going to subscribe to your poorly-thought out and weakly supported premise, than, as a component of the majority of human beings' thinking, religion is by definition not mental illness - it's normal mental functioning. You're the mentally ill one.
But I don't actually believe that, because your premise is crap. There isn't solid consensus on a neuropsychological foundation for religion; in fact, even the source you use mentions that such studies are rare. And, even if there are neurological elements that predispose people to religious thought, THAT DOESN'T EQUAL MENTAL ILLNESS. We have neurophysical predilections for all kinds of thought that aren't mental illness.
I'm done here. Let's just say that you're not capable of being debated with, because atheism-combined-with-virulent-anti-religious-sentiment is a delusion caused by a chemical imbalances in the brain.
By conversion potential, I simply mean persuasive power, rather than preaching. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
You don't specify "Harmless mental illness that doesn't require care of any kind and is normal, because everyone has something like that" in your earlier post. This is a cheap dodge. You are being highly offensive; believing something that is unproven or incorrect isn't mental illness - stop saying that it is. If you want to say that religion is illogical, or that it has negative effects, fine; but it's not a mental illness, however mild, and it's stupid and childish to keep trying to hold on to your offensive and inaccurate metaphor.
Stop calling religious people mentally ill. It is offensive to both religious people and mentally ill people.
Additionally, it destroys ANY conversion power your arguments might have. Unless you're just out to spew hot, hate-scented air all over everyone, you presumably want people to listen to you, and to come around to your way of thinking. Well, when you're calling the majority of the world's population mentally ill for no good reason, and adding insults along with, your arguments that atheism is correct or logical or morally ok have no chance to take hold. People take one look at the abuse your directing at them, and say "See! Atheists are horrible people! They behave badly toward others!"
You end up reinforcing the delusions you hate so much.
And you're comparing Florida's crime rate during the middle of the war on drugs with its crime rate after, and claiming that the change is concealed carry, which is crap. I mean, come on.
I don't have any illusion that the single number that is crime rate tells any sort of compelling story about CCW's affect on crime. It's a variable with a million factors, and frankly, I'm pretty sure that CCW is a pretty minor one. It has an affect on the whether guns are available to criminals, because it does affect the availability of guns overall, but saying anything past that is certainly beyond the reach of anyone who hasn't done a lot of research, preferably original studies. And it's not a problem that is actually easy to develop conclusive studies about.
My statement was correct as it stands, and isn't meant to prove further theory. I'm not running away from anything, and I'm not going to allow you to put words in my mouth. Stop being a jackass and trying to claim that I'm making your counter-argument by fiat.
For the last time - Grishnakh claimed that crime rate is uniformly lower in states with permissive gun laws. It is not. The present tense is used in both statements. At no point have I said anything against concealed carry, open carry, or the purchasing of handguns by toddlers, for that matter. While somewhat dubious about the third, I actually don't have a problem with either of the first two. I have a problem with Grishnakh's counter-factual statement, and with his behavior towards myself and others on Slashdot.
::sigh:: Sorry, but just because you use metaphor as if it were the fact in question doesn't make it so. It's a crazy, fucked up rendition of atheism, and it's linked to a lot of different things, but no, fanatic devotion to the state doesn't count as a religion, and yes, it still counts.
Again, I have no problem with atheism - I lean in that direction myself. I have a problem with the absolutist "ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE EVIL, OR AT LEAST WORSE THAN OUR PERFECT ATHEIST GOD-SELVES!"
Except that large majorities of people are wrong about universal facts all the freaking time. Sheer numbers don't make a valid source of experimental validity, unless their claims are based in evidence. Mass faith is still faith. Nothing against it, but atheism doesn't stop being rational just because most people aren't atheists.
You do remember that this article started with a discussion of geocentrism, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Will we be? Because, well, the whole issue is that those corporations are contributing close to bupkiss in the way of taxes and other revenues to the member state/nation.
Interesting fact - in many areas, a Walmart actually costs a community more than the value of the business and taxes it brings in. Generalize, and apply to this topic.
But, is Steam using bargaining power here? From my understanding, the reasons its being included in so many of these games are as a matchmaking engine and social-hub component; which, frankly, it does better than most of the roll-your-own solutions of yore.
And arguably bad for customers, except that Steam doesn't drop games due to age (AFAICT), and their prices for old games are, by and large, better than Gamestop's prices for used.
If "they" in your sentence doesn't refer to Steamworks (the game publishing component of Valve), then what is your comment actually referring to? The comment you reply to is specifically talking about Steam (and thus Steamworks); if you weren't talking about that, then you're badly off-topic and unable to reply coherently.
Unrelated note: Your sig is beautiful.
So, is AOL's actual plan to just keep buying other companies who haven't been relevant since the late 90s, until such time as the massive collection of 90s nostalgia somehow changes, alchemically, into something worthwhile?
Well, I guess that they might see the value in the law as written, even if that doesn't tend to be how the law plays out.
Because separate but equal has already been found unconstitutional in other cases. Because the only reason to create a new wording is to say "You gays can't be part of this social institution!" Because, well, the only actual motivation for this is, in fact, bigotry - not necessarily frothing, or religious, but certainly bigotry.
Also, your claim of a "historical meaning" shows that you're not very good at history. Note the number of states that have had to amend their laws specifically to ADD gendered language, to keep gay people from marrying. And even if you weren't full of it, it wouldn't actually work as a justification. I mean, keeping the vote for particular classes of people has all kinds of historical justification; so should we take the vote away from women? I mean, now that all the black people more or less own themselves, do they cast their 3/5 of a vote, or does some white dude have to take charge of them? Oh, wait - that's right, progress happens, so these aren't reasonable arguments. And neither is yours. Albeit yours was stupid to start with, because words get redefined all the time, as the things they talk about change. I mean, when you get married, are you going to post your banns? Is the consummation going to be witnessed by the whole village?
It's not some issue of definition that you're angry about; it's the idea that gay people are real people, and that their relationships are valid. Admit it, hopefully deal with and repudiate it someday, or don't, but drop this BS where you try to pretend you have some sort of linguistic principle behind you. Because it's both pathetic and insulting.
The main issue isn't theft or loss, although I'd put it out there that I'm much more likely to have my Kindle/iPhone/Laptop stolen than my several thousand paper books, at least in one theft transaction.
The main issue is that the expected lifetime for any one digital device these days is what, 1-3 years? Phones and other "carry-them-everywhere" devices have an even shorter life expectancy. This kind of ephemeral existence isn't the norm, or liable to be accepted as such, for books and other data. I mean, would you be happy if, because your DVD player died, you had to re-buy every single show or movie you'd ever purchased? Of course not. If your computer died, would you be alright if there was no way to potentially get your data off? I'm guessing not.
You're the one positing that there's some sort of secrecy attached to the bill. I invite you to prove it. The bill went through the House and the Senate, the text was (and is) publicly available as required, and frankly, I'd imagine that the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist claiming that something shady has gone on.
What in Obama's stated positions or legislative record makes you think that he ISN'T a centrist? His eventual health-care plan is ridiculously tame; the only "leftist" provision left in the damned thing is that it doesn't allow insurers to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions. He's stated that he's willing to compromise heavily over the Bush tax cuts. He's hardly pushing huge boundaries on the various homosexual policy lines, or dismantling the army, or, really, doing anything that would account for the ridiculous assaults made on him by the right.
Obama is a centrist, a moderate, pro-business Democrat. Stop claiming that he's Ralph bleeping Nader or something, and own to what you mean - that anything left of Ronald Reagan is unacceptable, because you won't accept a centrist compromise.
A: I'm not sure how good your grasp of how the U.S. Government works. Watch Schoolhouse Rock again until you understand how a bill becomes law. Short version - the health care plan wasn't secret, and your argument is based on ridiculous premises.
B: Obama is a centrist. If you fail to recognize this as truth, you may just be fringier than you thinks.
Last night was a mid-term election for the U.S. Senate and House. It wasn't actually this magic "yes-no" between Obama and all of Republicans, or a referendum on Obamacare, or any of the things it's being pressed into acting as a symbol for.
He's still the goddamn sitting president of the United States of America, and yes, the Congress and House are still obligated to compromise with the head of a branch of the fucking government. And, yes, if someone says "We're not going to compromise at all with the sitting president, and we're going to prevent anything from getting done if he won't do it entirely our way," they are being obstructionist, as surely as, for example, a president would be obstructionist if he just sat and vetoed every law his congress passed him, unless it was exactly his way.
So, yes - whether or not you agree with his politics or Obama's, Boehner is STATING that his intent is to be obstructionist. Cheer him on, fine, but stop it with this weaselly nonsense where you try and turn it into "Republicans won so you're wrong!" BS.
No, anyone who says "I'll work with him, as long as he's doing exactly what we want" is an obstructionist.
Whether you agree with Obama or not, he's been very thoroughly devoted to trying to compromise. Personally, I think that's been largely the problem with his administration, but regardless of your position on that, trying to paint him as someone unwilling to compromise is either stupid or deceptive.
On the other hand, the statement "We'll work with him, as long as he does what we want!" isn't in any way accepting the idea of a compromise. Which isn't surprising, and may even seem like good news to Boehner's supporters. But exactly as I said, it's a promise to obstruct, rather than compromise.
So, that's a big old "I'm gonna obstruct," then. Super.
Well, ignoring the fact that this isn't a technology with any sort of real censorship possibilities (scanning hardware is too ubiquitous, OCR is too weak a search tool), when was the last time you saw an expensive, top-tier, recently manufactured corporate copier in a public library? I'm guessing never, because few public libraries are going to have the funds to purchase them, and even fewer would waste the funds they have on purchasing them if they come up with the money.
The point, and only real purpose, of this technology is to prevent documents that are supposed to be confidential from being accidentally scanned. This is going to have an impact on privacy - namely, it's going to slightly enhance it, because the dumbass intern at your medical/legal/insurance provider will be prevented from faxing a document he shouldn't have to someone.
DSM-IV or GTFO.
I mean, I don't know how to put this more bluntly - no conventional, accepted definition of mental illness encompasses all religion. Period, end sentence. Whether or not you feel that religion is problematic or even outright evil, it's not a mental illness. Sorry, but facts is facts.
I concede partial points - I'd forgotten a lot of the religious aspects of the book.
I do have to say that it's not as clearly black and white as Dune being anti-religious - it seems unlikely that it would be, given that Frank Herbert was a practicing Buddhist.
And, as I think I said earlier, I'm not a big fan of organized religion. I'm just also not a fan of attacking ideas by declaring them insanity.
Except that I point out several times that his statements aren't accurate. Not in that exact line, but regardless your claim is false.
I do focus more heavily on how offensive I find his comments, because I am offended, and because I have more interest in and hope of getting him to stop being a dick than in debating whether his crack-addled idea is valid.
I'd go through and point out where I argued with him on accuracy, but I figure you need the reading practice more than I need to bother with you.
We may disagree on the meaning of words, but that's my point - you are incorrect about the meaning of the words. Your explained position does not match the accepted definitions of mental illness - therefore, if you want to be understood, it is up to you to use the phrase correctly.
I picked Count Fenring because he's an interesting minor character from a book I like - I liked the idea of a character who was one gene away from being the hero, and the position it put him in in the book. Also, I'm unclear as to where religion is being assaulted by Dune - the religious Fremen are generally portrayed much more sympathetically than the secular empire, if you want to reduce it to that. Really, the book has very little to do with religion - it's a political book, in which certain of the factions have a level of mysticism built up around their use of a spice that lets them see the future.
If I was going to subscribe to your poorly-thought out and weakly supported premise, than, as a component of the majority of human beings' thinking, religion is by definition not mental illness - it's normal mental functioning. You're the mentally ill one.
But I don't actually believe that, because your premise is crap. There isn't solid consensus on a neuropsychological foundation for religion; in fact, even the source you use mentions that such studies are rare. And, even if there are neurological elements that predispose people to religious thought, THAT DOESN'T EQUAL MENTAL ILLNESS. We have neurophysical predilections for all kinds of thought that aren't mental illness.
I'm done here. Let's just say that you're not capable of being debated with, because atheism-combined-with-virulent-anti-religious-sentiment is a delusion caused by a chemical imbalances in the brain.
By conversion potential, I simply mean persuasive power, rather than preaching. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
You don't specify "Harmless mental illness that doesn't require care of any kind and is normal, because everyone has something like that" in your earlier post. This is a cheap dodge. You are being highly offensive; believing something that is unproven or incorrect isn't mental illness - stop saying that it is. If you want to say that religion is illogical, or that it has negative effects, fine; but it's not a mental illness, however mild, and it's stupid and childish to keep trying to hold on to your offensive and inaccurate metaphor.
I can see I haven't gotten through.
Stop calling religious people mentally ill. It is offensive to both religious people and mentally ill people.
Additionally, it destroys ANY conversion power your arguments might have. Unless you're just out to spew hot, hate-scented air all over everyone, you presumably want people to listen to you, and to come around to your way of thinking. Well, when you're calling the majority of the world's population mentally ill for no good reason, and adding insults along with, your arguments that atheism is correct or logical or morally ok have no chance to take hold. People take one look at the abuse your directing at them, and say "See! Atheists are horrible people! They behave badly toward others!"
You end up reinforcing the delusions you hate so much.
And you're comparing Florida's crime rate during the middle of the war on drugs with its crime rate after, and claiming that the change is concealed carry, which is crap. I mean, come on.
I don't have any illusion that the single number that is crime rate tells any sort of compelling story about CCW's affect on crime. It's a variable with a million factors, and frankly, I'm pretty sure that CCW is a pretty minor one. It has an affect on the whether guns are available to criminals, because it does affect the availability of guns overall, but saying anything past that is certainly beyond the reach of anyone who hasn't done a lot of research, preferably original studies. And it's not a problem that is actually easy to develop conclusive studies about.
My statement was correct as it stands, and isn't meant to prove further theory. I'm not running away from anything, and I'm not going to allow you to put words in my mouth. Stop being a jackass and trying to claim that I'm making your counter-argument by fiat.
For the last time - Grishnakh claimed that crime rate is uniformly lower in states with permissive gun laws. It is not. The present tense is used in both statements. At no point have I said anything against concealed carry, open carry, or the purchasing of handguns by toddlers, for that matter. While somewhat dubious about the third, I actually don't have a problem with either of the first two. I have a problem with Grishnakh's counter-factual statement, and with his behavior towards myself and others on Slashdot.
::sigh:: Sorry, but just because you use metaphor as if it were the fact in question doesn't make it so. It's a crazy, fucked up rendition of atheism, and it's linked to a lot of different things, but no, fanatic devotion to the state doesn't count as a religion, and yes, it still counts.
Again, I have no problem with atheism - I lean in that direction myself. I have a problem with the absolutist "ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE EVIL, OR AT LEAST WORSE THAN OUR PERFECT ATHEIST GOD-SELVES!"
Except that large majorities of people are wrong about universal facts all the freaking time. Sheer numbers don't make a valid source of experimental validity, unless their claims are based in evidence. Mass faith is still faith. Nothing against it, but atheism doesn't stop being rational just because most people aren't atheists.
You do remember that this article started with a discussion of geocentrism, right?