Oh, you're not saving the woodchucks habitat. But the mercury and other toxins in your electroncis will seep pretty easily into your areas water table. Enjoy your water!
And your stupidity and inability to foresee a logic series of events is my fault because?!?
Yes, taxes more than doubling every year for the past four years is logical and forsee-able. Since you want to help your fellow man though, why not send me some money?
Hardly. Yes, I am for a universal health care plan if not a fully socialized health care system. Why? Because right now per capita in the US we're blowing over $10k a year on health care and getting some of the lowest healthy life expectancy in the developed world. So yeah, if voting to increase taxes by $3k saves me over $6k in annual health care expenses, while increasing the quality of life for most Americans, damn right I'm going to vote for it.
I can tell you why our life expectancy is low. Because a large majority of people fucking stuff their face with crap food, blow up to 300 lbs, then have Medicare / Medicaid pay for a $45,000 gastric bypass surgery. That doesn't even count the cost of complications. If you think socialized health care will make a difference in quality of life, you're dead wrong. MORE people will continue to stuff their fat faces, MORE people will have surguries and costs will skyrocket.
When I was poor, I lived in a rent abated apartment, one of the cheapest in the city. It was a 3 mile bus ride to my office, and a 6 mile drive to my school. I had all of my health care needs provided by the VA. I ate dinner with my family often to reduce my food costs. I did everything I needed to do on as cheap of budget as I could. The State's assistance was not something spent frivilously on a toy or gadget.
And its likely you wouldn't have needed state's assistence if you had not had the baby at all or given him up for adoption. I can show you a whole trailer park of people that have NO problem wasting my tax money. They have newer cars than I do! And again, they're getting fat on food stamps and other aid, and then going to the doctor all the time because of obesity related complications.
Now, I am well on my career. I own a house with a significant amount of equity. I've renovated half off it (down to studs, joists and rafters, and back up again) on my own dime with my own sweat. We bought a new car a year or two ago now. I keep my 401k contributions going. And I pay my taxes. We're not super wealthy, but I do well enough to keep working on our house and to allow my wife to stay home with our son. The $1400 write off the State coughed up years ago is a drop in the bucket compared to the taxes they've earned from me, and will continue to earn for the years to come. All in all, I think the State made out pretty darn well on the deal.
Good for you. Here I am struggling though, because 37% of my paycheck is taken from me. Its amazing too that before you said the $1600 was a burden, yet now you're telling me how you've managed a new card and to remodel your house? Yet you still don't get it. I don't care how much the State government has, I want them to STOP taking what I earn. But hey, I guess its ok, since you were able to get going, its only costing me my chance.
For the record, I feel the minimum age of adulthood really should be something like 21, especially since college has evolved into 'High School Second Edition'. That means no voting, no joining the military, no getting married, no ZERO CREDIT CREDIT CARDS, etc. If you're not old enough to maturely handle alcohol consumption, I don't want you choosing which targets are friendly nor choosing what kind of political issues you think are 'cool'.
What the hell, why not just make it 30? 35? How about 40? You seem to forget that people have rights, no matter what age they are.
It is exactly like you said, you really do change to fit the expectations of others. In that light, which is easier, restrict the games to match that expectation or change the expectations of everyone in society for the benefit of a sub-genre of video games??
Because the easy answer leads to to a nanny police state, where we are property of a governing few? Because the longer you push off making kids grow up, the less likely they'll ever be able to handle anything adult? Do you not see how many 35 year olds are making shit choices? Ever think that's because the current crop was babied so much growing up? Yes, society needs major changes. I don't advocate forcing it to change though, but I WILL for my rights and the rights of my family and friends to be respected.
Seriously, why is this even an issue? What am I missing here, besides the desire to emancipate the down-trodden teenagers of America?
I think you're missed out on the whole civil liberties thing this country was founded upon.
I'd rather not; I'll support myself, thanks. I don't want to add to the problems. As far as choosing to live in a house that needs repairs, it wasn't like that when I bought it. You see, you actually need to maintain a house. When I bought it, taxes were lower. People like YOU keep voting to raise taxes though, to pay for things they can't afford.
And yes, I'll call you an elitist, because anyone who uses giving your child away as a 'responsible' option has never had a child to throw away themselves.
Your selfishness is astounding. Both you AND your child would have a better life, yet you're so selfish you can't comprehend that. You'd rather drag everyone down with you.
I appologize is perhaps two hundreths of a cent that you once paid in taxes went to help another human being in a rough patch in their lives, but that's the nature of our tax system. We can't keep the bastards from spending 33 cents on the dollar blowing up foreign countries and arming non-state actors in the interest of short-term goals. And we can't get them to spend more than 2 cents on the dollar trying to support low income families keep their children insured.
What a stupid comment to make. You think I support any of the military crap at all? If I had my way, 90% of the governemnt would be shut down. This point is totally irrelevent to what we were talking about.
Then you say "oh well, that's how it is?" Thanks for being a huge part of the problem in this country.
Yes, it is true that there are much bigger issues around than video game ratings, but you can't say to drop everything and just focus on iraq or whatever else.
Why not, exactly? I think we can and should drop this.
There are obviously some citizens who care about this stuff (I'm not saying I agree with them) and our government is there to handle all things like this, not just focus on one because it is more important.
So what if some citizens care? The only "solution" being thrown about is censorship, which is worse than any perceived problem. Remember, there's no proof that playing violent games makes people violent. There is evidence starting to appear that suggests otherwise though. So again, why exactly can this not wait until we stop losing hundreds of soliders a month for no good reason?
This reeks of someone at the ESRB being bought to me. The games content certainly feels like adult material. I wouldn't like to think of my kid-brother, at 16, playing it. He's nowhere near mature enough.
Huh? Yet he'll be just fine at 18? Maybe if he was expected to act mature, and handle things maturely earlier in his life, he'd actually BE more mature now.
Wow, you're calling me elitist? How nice of you to assume I never faced any hardship, that everything was handed to me. Go fuck yourself. I've been through hard times, I'm stil living paycheck to paycheck. The difference is that I haven't taken my neighbor's money, because I CHOOSE to find another way. You CHOSE to have a kid you can't take care of on your own.
I KNOW people can work and get a degree, because I had to fucking do it. Sleep, class, lab work, job, repeat. And I'm still paying loans for it.
The honest truth of the matter is that if it weren't for people like you I could afford to fix the fucking leaky roof and rotted floor in my house! What the hell, maybe I should just go on assistance too, after all I'm entitled to it aren't I?
For that matter, why are our Senators wasting time with video games when we have a war going on, torture and violation of civil rights, the dollar's value is dropping faster than a rock, AND THIS IS THE CRAP THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT!
Medicaid is paid for by the State and Federal budgets. As I Stated, Taxes. You've paid, I've paid, damn near everyone has paid into Medicaid. You may be thinking of Social Security, or some other state plan. But Medicaid is paid for via Taxes and FICA (which is just another name for Taxes).
Ok, so how again were you not taking advantage of the taxpayers?
She had private insurance, she could go to what ever doc she wanted. She is also a disabled vet and has no love for the Military or Vet doctors after two botched knee surgeries.
Which apparently was the wrong choice if you still needed help. Private insurances typically cover births.
There is a very similar option for married couples, with the difference being the recoupment options the State has. Unfortunately, this was not clearly explained when we were presented with the option, nor on the program's web site, nor in their pamphlets. When I asked both the rep from the family services and a specialist from child services the closest I got to a warning was something along the lines of 'If any one hassles you, just show them your marriage certificate after you wed and they should leave you alone'.
Typically if something is so confusing, I'll have the person I'm dealing with double check with their manager, to insure they understand it. The response you got is non-sensical; if the program is for SINGLE mothers, why would getting married after the fact relieve you of any obligations?
Yeah, because my wife, while 9 months pregnant with a pair of bummed legs, should have just said 'screw getting a degree, I'm gonna go work for GM' and pulled a living wage stamping valve covers. Heaven forbid a women completes her education and lands a serious job in this nation.
Like I said, it was you and your wife's decision to have that baby. Don't make an irresponsible choice and then cry that you're poor or disabled or whatever. Its also feasible for women to work AND go to college at the same time. It takes longer, its harder, but its an option. If she can go to class pregnant with bum legs, she can get a job doing office work as well.
As for the responsible thing, this was it. You want details? She was on the pill, I used a rubber, freak accidents happen. My son is my own, and I'll love him for ever. Adoption was never an option. I would have moved back in with the folks before that.
It certainly doesn't sound the responsible thing. You selfishly rule out adaption, which may have provided your child with a better life. You did something that caused finacial hardship on yourselves, and you expect society to bail you out. Why didn't you move back with your parents instead of getting on some Medicaid program where the whole of your state has to pay for your choice?
That's the crux of my point; you had other options, you choose the route that costs everyone because you couldn't make the harder choices. I don't think your decisions about your life should impact other people that you don't even know. You don't have a right to complain at that point.
As I said elsewhere in this thread. It's not the money that bothers me. It's over, water under the bridge. The State has it, I don't, and it's not worth investing in to get it back. It is the manner in which the Judge just openly stated that he was willing to ignore some laws just because he was not familiar with them. That's something that as the article illustrated, is still an on going issue. Many judges will take the easy road instead of the right road.
What I was driving at is perhaps the judge followed my line of reasoning in finding you guilty or liable or whatever. I think the judge did the right thing in this case; I wouldn't want a judge blindly following the law either, just as juries should not when rendering a verdict. In your case it was money, but we need that ability for other cases when people's rights hang in the balance.
Well again, another alternate conclusion to your "stats" is that you guys are simply incompetent when it comes to Windows. I think that's probably the likely explaination, because many places DO run Windows, and don't spend nearly that much time "fixing" problem on Windows. The truth is that there is quite a bit to know to administer Windows, but for some reason people think that just because you're not manually editing a text file there's no way to perform some task. That's simply not the case.
As far as supporting Vista, in this post at the bottom you clearly state that if "someone comes crying to you about Vista, you say Sorry, I told you not to buy that crap." How is that support again?
Perhaps you missed this from his previous post: "Actually we discourage the use of Vista and say that we don't really support it.... Personally I haven't even looked at Vista.... Why will I not learn it or touch Vista?... 'I told you not to buy that crap. Sorry I don't work on Vista.'"
English is my first language, but I was reading the post too fast. Not that the actual number was relevent to my comment.
Ehh, no one got screwed. This was NOT welfare. This is a medicade program, a 1 time assistance system set up to help single mothers give birth.
I think you need to research who pays for Medicare / Medicaid.
We were both military vets, so I had my health care through the VA. Her mother worked at the University, so she had coverage under her mother's insurance until she either turned 25 or got married. I was working 3/4 time as an LTE for the state and was in-elligable for benefits until my son was 3 months old. And my wife was unemployed at the time (full time student wrapping up a BS in agronomy, she banked money in the farming seasons and lived on savings over the winter).
Odd that your wife didn't have VA health care. Unfortunately that doesn't suprise me though.
So long as we did not get married, my wife was covered under her mothers insurance. So most of the pre-natal care was covered, I picked up the deductables.
No where did I say you should have gotten married, just that it seemed you were breaking the "spirit" of the program. You yourself said it was meant to help single mothers. Most take that to mean the father is not there at all for any kind of support. Indeed, there's a large number of people on social services that purposefully don't get married to get extra money (which rarely goes to the kid) yet have a live-in boyfriend. It ends up working the same as marriage, except this situation allows them to draw on a program they'd otherwise be disqualified from. I can see why states would want to stop that kind of abuse.
So the ONLY part of the entire process that was covered by the State was the actual birthing. Which I believe the total bill to Medicare (or Medicade, I can't recall which program any more) was about $3000.
Again, look at who pays for those programs. I know quite a large chunk of my paycheck does.
We did what we felt was the most responsible thing we could.
No, the most responsible thing to do would not bring a child into the world you cannot support on your own, or to put the child up for adoption so that a more able family can support them.
Further more, my wife is not seeing a dime of that money, the State takes it as it's own. So this nonsense about supporting the kid is just that, nonsense. If anything, the State's decision reduced the quality of life my child enjoys. They picked a hell of a time to sue.
She already did, when your child was born.
As for paying the State back for the Medicare program... I do it every month, it's called TAXES. And over my life as a tax paying resident of Wisconsin, I have paid well over the $3000 to the medicade program they used to help pay for my son's Birth.
No, you're not paying back. You see, I also have to put money into this system, yet I've never used it. Hopefully they are going after enough people have wrongly benefited they will not have to take quite as much out of my check next year.
By WI state laws and tax codes, a married couple's assets are considered joint assets. According to state and federal medicare laws, Mother can not be held liable for birthing expenses paid by medicare. And according to state marrage law, debt existing from prior to marrage and only hold lein against that debtor's non-joint assets. My wife is a stay at home mom. Any debt the State applied to me is immediately applied to her as well. The very laws that were written to protect women in tough positions are being used like a blunt hammer to squeze money out from anyone they can get, regardless of the situation. And on top of that, they were trying to charge me interest on top of that! Which is in direct violation of the same state laws they were suing me under.
I think the root of the problem is that the laws were meant to help single mothers, not a single child household which is what you had going on. Not married, but still able to share a living space, bills, etc. Two possible incomes, instead
Perhaps you may think the judge erred, but this is my opinion. Who knows, maybe the judge would agree with me.
You and your wife were screwing the state (i.e., your neighbors whose taxes pay for welfare) by getting her "single mother" assistance when in fact the father WAS there providing the for kid the whole time. So instead of a real single mom getting help, you got it instead.
Rightfully, the state goes after the father for support of that kid. You have to pay back the money you screwed them out of (although I suspect your wife got much more than the $1600 you had to pay).
So you have things set to auto update and install, yet its Vista's fault? The prompts can also be disabled, I'm sure they've come up for other reasons before, right?
Why would I NOT decrease a customer's reliance on a vendor's who's OS is in-secure and broken by design? I serve our customers NOT MS. MS is not our customer. They still stay our customer when they are running something else.
Unless they are running Vista, it seems.
At the end of the month I have to make a maintenance report showing where the time at the NOC is spent. We are about 40% Sun, 20% Linux and 40% Windows servers. Yet 70% of the time is spent on the Windows servers (Terminal Servers & Exchange) wheres the savings with Windoze?
Is it 70% or 40%? Those numbers don't really prove anything though, except that you guys more competent in Linux, not so much Sun or Windows.
It also shows why you shouldn't trust Microsoft products for critical work.
No, it means developers need to be aware what a reference to an object is. In this case, the objects they THOUGHT were being freed weren't because said objects were either generating or listening for events. The GC was correct in its behavior.
When you consider the investment corporations have in XP and Windows related applications, XP's stability and patchability, and plethora of decent certified engineers in the marketplace, there is no reason to move to Vista. Why bring on the headaches without any real benefit? Why do we have to re-educate users on a whole new OS and interface? Microsoft should move to a subscription-based support model for XP and begin work on its next OS -- which must include all of the features originally promised to corporate IT in the first place.
Ok, so what was the reason for anyone to move to XP? People said all the same things when XP launched, so what was the compelling reason that most have upgraded?
Not at all. They have done themselves harm. I try not to have dealings with people I deem to be dishonest. They haven't hurt me one bit though. I'm not getting frothy at the mouth about not buying Vista. I'm just saying they lied, they're dishonest, thus I don't feel I can trust them about anything else.
I don't know. See, to me it doesn't matter why they didn't port it, they're still not going to. So whether they are honest about the reason why don't want to backport it is pretty moot to me. The thing is, everyone lies to some extent. Usually about things that are trivial and that if the truth were said may cause more problems than lying. I feel like this is one of those things.
In any other case, I wouldn't have cared what their reason was. They could have said it was pygmies threatening to destroy every Taco Bell in Redmond if they back ported it. If that was the reason, I would have thought they should lay off the drugs for a bit, but I would have accepted their reason nonetheless. The reason is only relevant insofar as trust is concerned.
Well, I've already explained my take on it.
When I said "Hardly at all" that was meant to mean it happened but not to the same extent as the DX10 thing has gone over for them.
I understand, but I believe the reason is that there's now a crack that lets H2 work on XP. If people still couldn't play it on XP, I suspect we'd still be hearing about it. Or perhaps H2 is less popular in general than DX.
Maybe it was trivial. It could have been just: if( Vista ) run(); else quit(); but nonetheless that is more work than not putting it in.
Yes, but then its trivial, so who cares?
Perhaps there is nothing crappy about Vista. Maybe Vista really is a godsend. So why didn't they tell the truth? No matter what reason they gave, some people would have been upset.
Personally I'm very happy with Vista, running it at home on two computers and my workstation at work. I know its more secure (because I've had to adjust slightly to work as "normal") and its been very responsive for me, on the same hardware that was running XP.
So why lie about it and lose face? Why not just say that it would take too much time and effort and money without enough ROI?
No one lies with the belief they will get caught; otherwise it would be pointless to lie. As to why, perhaps they figured less people would be upset by their story than the truth.
I'd still like you to point out where someone has DX10 installed on XP, working with a DX10 title using DX10 features. Only when I see that will be convienced they were lying.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to pay $20 to get rid of my junk.
Yet I assume you pay for trash pickup?
Oh, you're not saving the woodchucks habitat. But the mercury and other toxins in your electroncis will seep pretty easily into your areas water table. Enjoy your water!
You find out where your local electronics recylcer is, and take it there?
And your stupidity and inability to foresee a logic series of events is my fault because?!?
Yes, taxes more than doubling every year for the past four years is logical and forsee-able. Since you want to help your fellow man though, why not send me some money?
Hardly. Yes, I am for a universal health care plan if not a fully socialized health care system. Why? Because right now per capita in the US we're blowing over $10k a year on health care and getting some of the lowest healthy life expectancy in the developed world. So yeah, if voting to increase taxes by $3k saves me over $6k in annual health care expenses, while increasing the quality of life for most Americans, damn right I'm going to vote for it.
I can tell you why our life expectancy is low. Because a large majority of people fucking stuff their face with crap food, blow up to 300 lbs, then have Medicare / Medicaid pay for a $45,000 gastric bypass surgery. That doesn't even count the cost of complications. If you think socialized health care will make a difference in quality of life, you're dead wrong. MORE people will continue to stuff their fat faces, MORE people will have surguries and costs will skyrocket.
When I was poor, I lived in a rent abated apartment, one of the cheapest in the city. It was a 3 mile bus ride to my office, and a 6 mile drive to my school. I had all of my health care needs provided by the VA. I ate dinner with my family often to reduce my food costs. I did everything I needed to do on as cheap of budget as I could. The State's assistance was not something spent frivilously on a toy or gadget.
And its likely you wouldn't have needed state's assistence if you had not had the baby at all or given him up for adoption. I can show you a whole trailer park of people that have NO problem wasting my tax money. They have newer cars than I do! And again, they're getting fat on food stamps and other aid, and then going to the doctor all the time because of obesity related complications.
Now, I am well on my career. I own a house with a significant amount of equity. I've renovated half off it (down to studs, joists and rafters, and back up again) on my own dime with my own sweat. We bought a new car a year or two ago now. I keep my 401k contributions going. And I pay my taxes. We're not super wealthy, but I do well enough to keep working on our house and to allow my wife to stay home with our son. The $1400 write off the State coughed up years ago is a drop in the bucket compared to the taxes they've earned from me, and will continue to earn for the years to come. All in all, I think the State made out pretty darn well on the deal.
Good for you. Here I am struggling though, because 37% of my paycheck is taken from me. Its amazing too that before you said the $1600 was a burden, yet now you're telling me how you've managed a new card and to remodel your house? Yet you still don't get it. I don't care how much the State government has, I want them to STOP taking what I earn. But hey, I guess its ok, since you were able to get going, its only costing me my chance.
For the record, I feel the minimum age of adulthood really should be something like 21, especially since college has evolved into 'High School Second Edition'. That means no voting, no joining the military, no getting married, no ZERO CREDIT CREDIT CARDS, etc. If you're not old enough to maturely handle alcohol consumption, I don't want you choosing which targets are friendly nor choosing what kind of political issues you think are 'cool'.
What the hell, why not just make it 30? 35? How about 40? You seem to forget that people have rights, no matter what age they are.
It is exactly like you said, you really do change to fit the expectations of others. In that light, which is easier, restrict the games to match that expectation or change the expectations of everyone in society for the benefit of a sub-genre of video games??
Because the easy answer leads to to a nanny police state, where we are property of a governing few? Because the longer you push off making kids grow up, the less likely they'll ever be able to handle anything adult? Do you not see how many 35 year olds are making shit choices? Ever think that's because the current crop was babied so much growing up? Yes, society needs major changes. I don't advocate forcing it to change though, but I WILL for my rights and the rights of my family and friends to be respected.
Seriously, why is this even an issue? What am I missing here, besides the desire to emancipate the down-trodden teenagers of America?
I think you're missed out on the whole civil liberties thing this country was founded upon.
I'd rather not; I'll support myself, thanks. I don't want to add to the problems. As far as choosing to live in a house that needs repairs, it wasn't like that when I bought it. You see, you actually need to maintain a house. When I bought it, taxes were lower. People like YOU keep voting to raise taxes though, to pay for things they can't afford.
And yes, I'll call you an elitist, because anyone who uses giving your child away as a 'responsible' option has never had a child to throw away themselves.
Your selfishness is astounding. Both you AND your child would have a better life, yet you're so selfish you can't comprehend that. You'd rather drag everyone down with you.
I appologize is perhaps two hundreths of a cent that you once paid in taxes went to help another human being in a rough patch in their lives, but that's the nature of our tax system. We can't keep the bastards from spending 33 cents on the dollar blowing up foreign countries and arming non-state actors in the interest of short-term goals. And we can't get them to spend more than 2 cents on the dollar trying to support low income families keep their children insured.
What a stupid comment to make. You think I support any of the military crap at all? If I had my way, 90% of the governemnt would be shut down. This point is totally irrelevent to what we were talking about.
Then you say "oh well, that's how it is?" Thanks for being a huge part of the problem in this country.
Yes, it is true that there are much bigger issues around than video game ratings, but you can't say to drop everything and just focus on iraq or whatever else.
Why not, exactly? I think we can and should drop this.
There are obviously some citizens who care about this stuff (I'm not saying I agree with them) and our government is there to handle all things like this, not just focus on one because it is more important.
So what if some citizens care? The only "solution" being thrown about is censorship, which is worse than any perceived problem. Remember, there's no proof that playing violent games makes people violent. There is evidence starting to appear that suggests otherwise though. So again, why exactly can this not wait until we stop losing hundreds of soliders a month for no good reason?
This reeks of someone at the ESRB being bought to me. The games content certainly feels like adult material. I wouldn't like to think of my kid-brother, at 16, playing it. He's nowhere near mature enough.
Huh? Yet he'll be just fine at 18? Maybe if he was expected to act mature, and handle things maturely earlier in his life, he'd actually BE more mature now.
People will change to fit your expectations.
Wow, you're calling me elitist? How nice of you to assume I never faced any hardship, that everything was handed to me. Go fuck yourself. I've been through hard times, I'm stil living paycheck to paycheck. The difference is that I haven't taken my neighbor's money, because I CHOOSE to find another way. You CHOSE to have a kid you can't take care of on your own.
I KNOW people can work and get a degree, because I had to fucking do it. Sleep, class, lab work, job, repeat. And I'm still paying loans for it.
The honest truth of the matter is that if it weren't for people like you I could afford to fix the fucking leaky roof and rotted floor in my house! What the hell, maybe I should just go on assistance too, after all I'm entitled to it aren't I?
For that matter, why are our Senators wasting time with video games when we have a war going on, torture and violation of civil rights, the dollar's value is dropping faster than a rock, AND THIS IS THE CRAP THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT!
Medicaid is paid for by the State and Federal budgets. As I Stated, Taxes. You've paid, I've paid, damn near everyone has paid into Medicaid. You may be thinking of Social Security, or some other state plan. But Medicaid is paid for via Taxes and FICA (which is just another name for Taxes).
Ok, so how again were you not taking advantage of the taxpayers?
She had private insurance, she could go to what ever doc she wanted. She is also a disabled vet and has no love for the Military or Vet doctors after two botched knee surgeries.
Which apparently was the wrong choice if you still needed help. Private insurances typically cover births.
There is a very similar option for married couples, with the difference being the recoupment options the State has. Unfortunately, this was not clearly explained when we were presented with the option, nor on the program's web site, nor in their pamphlets. When I asked both the rep from the family services and a specialist from child services the closest I got to a warning was something along the lines of 'If any one hassles you, just show them your marriage certificate after you wed and they should leave you alone'.
Typically if something is so confusing, I'll have the person I'm dealing with double check with their manager, to insure they understand it. The response you got is non-sensical; if the program is for SINGLE mothers, why would getting married after the fact relieve you of any obligations?
Yeah, because my wife, while 9 months pregnant with a pair of bummed legs, should have just said 'screw getting a degree, I'm gonna go work for GM' and pulled a living wage stamping valve covers. Heaven forbid a women completes her education and lands a serious job in this nation.
Like I said, it was you and your wife's decision to have that baby. Don't make an irresponsible choice and then cry that you're poor or disabled or whatever. Its also feasible for women to work AND go to college at the same time. It takes longer, its harder, but its an option. If she can go to class pregnant with bum legs, she can get a job doing office work as well.
As for the responsible thing, this was it. You want details? She was on the pill, I used a rubber, freak accidents happen. My son is my own, and I'll love him for ever. Adoption was never an option. I would have moved back in with the folks before that.
It certainly doesn't sound the responsible thing. You selfishly rule out adaption, which may have provided your child with a better life. You did something that caused finacial hardship on yourselves, and you expect society to bail you out. Why didn't you move back with your parents instead of getting on some Medicaid program where the whole of your state has to pay for your choice?
That's the crux of my point; you had other options, you choose the route that costs everyone because you couldn't make the harder choices. I don't think your decisions about your life should impact other people that you don't even know. You don't have a right to complain at that point.
As I said elsewhere in this thread. It's not the money that bothers me. It's over, water under the bridge. The State has it, I don't, and it's not worth investing in to get it back. It is the manner in which the Judge just openly stated that he was willing to ignore some laws just because he was not familiar with them. That's something that as the article illustrated, is still an on going issue. Many judges will take the easy road instead of the right road.
What I was driving at is perhaps the judge followed my line of reasoning in finding you guilty or liable or whatever. I think the judge did the right thing in this case; I wouldn't want a judge blindly following the law either, just as juries should not when rendering a verdict. In your case it was money, but we need that ability for other cases when people's rights hang in the balance.
And you think that as OEMs sell Vista pre-installed to home and business users the same situation won't come up this time around?
Well again, another alternate conclusion to your "stats" is that you guys are simply incompetent when it comes to Windows. I think that's probably the likely explaination, because many places DO run Windows, and don't spend nearly that much time "fixing" problem on Windows. The truth is that there is quite a bit to know to administer Windows, but for some reason people think that just because you're not manually editing a text file there's no way to perform some task. That's simply not the case.
As far as supporting Vista, in this post at the bottom you clearly state that if "someone comes crying to you about Vista, you say Sorry, I told you not to buy that crap." How is that support again?
Perhaps you missed this from his previous post: "Actually we discourage the use of Vista and say that we don't really support it. ... Personally I haven't even looked at Vista. ... Why will I not learn it or touch Vista? ... 'I told you not to buy that crap. Sorry I don't work on Vista.'"
English is my first language, but I was reading the post too fast. Not that the actual number was relevent to my comment.
Ehh, no one got screwed. This was NOT welfare. This is a medicade program, a 1 time assistance system set up to help single mothers give birth.
I think you need to research who pays for Medicare / Medicaid.
We were both military vets, so I had my health care through the VA. Her mother worked at the University, so she had coverage under her mother's insurance until she either turned 25 or got married. I was working 3/4 time as an LTE for the state and was in-elligable for benefits until my son was 3 months old. And my wife was unemployed at the time (full time student wrapping up a BS in agronomy, she banked money in the farming seasons and lived on savings over the winter).
Odd that your wife didn't have VA health care. Unfortunately that doesn't suprise me though.
So long as we did not get married, my wife was covered under her mothers insurance. So most of the pre-natal care was covered, I picked up the deductables.
No where did I say you should have gotten married, just that it seemed you were breaking the "spirit" of the program. You yourself said it was meant to help single mothers. Most take that to mean the father is not there at all for any kind of support. Indeed, there's a large number of people on social services that purposefully don't get married to get extra money (which rarely goes to the kid) yet have a live-in boyfriend. It ends up working the same as marriage, except this situation allows them to draw on a program they'd otherwise be disqualified from. I can see why states would want to stop that kind of abuse.
So the ONLY part of the entire process that was covered by the State was the actual birthing. Which I believe the total bill to Medicare (or Medicade, I can't recall which program any more) was about $3000.
Again, look at who pays for those programs. I know quite a large chunk of my paycheck does.
We did what we felt was the most responsible thing we could.
No, the most responsible thing to do would not bring a child into the world you cannot support on your own, or to put the child up for adoption so that a more able family can support them.
Further more, my wife is not seeing a dime of that money, the State takes it as it's own. So this nonsense about supporting the kid is just that, nonsense. If anything, the State's decision reduced the quality of life my child enjoys. They picked a hell of a time to sue.
She already did, when your child was born.
As for paying the State back for the Medicare program... I do it every month, it's called TAXES. And over my life as a tax paying resident of Wisconsin, I have paid well over the $3000 to the medicade program they used to help pay for my son's Birth.
No, you're not paying back. You see, I also have to put money into this system, yet I've never used it. Hopefully they are going after enough people have wrongly benefited they will not have to take quite as much out of my check next year.
By WI state laws and tax codes, a married couple's assets are considered joint assets. According to state and federal medicare laws, Mother can not be held liable for birthing expenses paid by medicare. And according to state marrage law, debt existing from prior to marrage and only hold lein against that debtor's non-joint assets. My wife is a stay at home mom. Any debt the State applied to me is immediately applied to her as well. The very laws that were written to protect women in tough positions are being used like a blunt hammer to squeze money out from anyone they can get, regardless of the situation. And on top of that, they were trying to charge me interest on top of that! Which is in direct violation of the same state laws they were suing me under.
I think the root of the problem is that the laws were meant to help single mothers, not a single child household which is what you had going on. Not married, but still able to share a living space, bills, etc. Two possible incomes, instead
Perhaps you may think the judge erred, but this is my opinion. Who knows, maybe the judge would agree with me.
You and your wife were screwing the state (i.e., your neighbors whose taxes pay for welfare) by getting her "single mother" assistance when in fact the father WAS there providing the for kid the whole time. So instead of a real single mom getting help, you got it instead.
Rightfully, the state goes after the father for support of that kid. You have to pay back the money you screwed them out of (although I suspect your wife got much more than the $1600 you had to pay).
So you have things set to auto update and install, yet its Vista's fault? The prompts can also be disabled, I'm sure they've come up for other reasons before, right?
What's your point? At my local hospital it looks like they use XP.
Why would I NOT decrease a customer's reliance on a vendor's who's OS is in-secure and broken by design? I serve our customers NOT MS. MS is not our customer. They still stay our customer when they are running something else.
Unless they are running Vista, it seems.
At the end of the month I have to make a maintenance report showing where the time at the NOC is spent. We are about 40% Sun, 20% Linux and 40% Windows servers. Yet 70% of the time is spent on the Windows servers (Terminal Servers & Exchange) wheres the savings with Windoze?
Is it 70% or 40%? Those numbers don't really prove anything though, except that you guys more competent in Linux, not so much Sun or Windows.
OSX doesn't spend nearly as much time doing that.
Right, since you can't change you Mac, there's no need to scan for changes.
It also shows why you shouldn't trust Microsoft products for critical work.
No, it means developers need to be aware what a reference to an object is. In this case, the objects they THOUGHT were being freed weren't because said objects were either generating or listening for events. The GC was correct in its behavior.
There is exactly one feature that is so useful in a home setting, that I still wonder why it hasn't been backported to Win2k.
They are out to make money, not give you reasons to keep on your current version of Windows.
When you consider the investment corporations have in XP and Windows related applications, XP's stability and patchability, and plethora of decent certified engineers in the marketplace, there is no reason to move to Vista. Why bring on the headaches without any real benefit? Why do we have to re-educate users on a whole new OS and interface? Microsoft should move to a subscription-based support model for XP and begin work on its next OS -- which must include all of the features originally promised to corporate IT in the first place.
Ok, so what was the reason for anyone to move to XP? People said all the same things when XP launched, so what was the compelling reason that most have upgraded?
Bleck, how can you stand to wait for that thing? Your zippy computer is constantly waiting on the POS 5400 RPM drive.
Not at all. They have done themselves harm. I try not to have dealings with people I deem to be dishonest. They haven't hurt me one bit though. I'm not getting frothy at the mouth about not buying Vista. I'm just saying they lied, they're dishonest, thus I don't feel I can trust them about anything else.
I don't know. See, to me it doesn't matter why they didn't port it, they're still not going to. So whether they are honest about the reason why don't want to backport it is pretty moot to me. The thing is, everyone lies to some extent. Usually about things that are trivial and that if the truth were said may cause more problems than lying. I feel like this is one of those things.
In any other case, I wouldn't have cared what their reason was. They could have said it was pygmies threatening to destroy every Taco Bell in Redmond if they back ported it. If that was the reason, I would have thought they should lay off the drugs for a bit, but I would have accepted their reason nonetheless. The reason is only relevant insofar as trust is concerned.
Well, I've already explained my take on it.
When I said "Hardly at all" that was meant to mean it happened but not to the same extent as the DX10 thing has gone over for them.
I understand, but I believe the reason is that there's now a crack that lets H2 work on XP. If people still couldn't play it on XP, I suspect we'd still be hearing about it. Or perhaps H2 is less popular in general than DX.
Maybe it was trivial. It could have been just: if( Vista ) run(); else quit(); but nonetheless that is more work than not putting it in.
Yes, but then its trivial, so who cares?
Perhaps there is nothing crappy about Vista. Maybe Vista really is a godsend. So why didn't they tell the truth? No matter what reason they gave, some people would have been upset.
Personally I'm very happy with Vista, running it at home on two computers and my workstation at work. I know its more secure (because I've had to adjust slightly to work as "normal") and its been very responsive for me, on the same hardware that was running XP.
So why lie about it and lose face? Why not just say that it would take too much time and effort and money without enough ROI?
No one lies with the belief they will get caught; otherwise it would be pointless to lie. As to why, perhaps they figured less people would be upset by their story than the truth.
I'd still like you to point out where someone has DX10 installed on XP, working with a DX10 title using DX10 features. Only when I see that will be convienced they were lying.