Sorry, but where in your constitution does it say that... the government has a right to redefine marriage?
Oh, it's been implied since 1896 when we forced Utah to change their definition of marriage to match our current one if they wanted to be a state. That's probably why some folk from Utah get so bent out of shape (in the form of heavy financial support) about anyone else wanting the definition to be something else -- they've got one-man one-woman Stockholm Syndrome.
In case you weren't just trolling, the definition of marriage has changed constantly throughout history, and each time, a generation later everyone pretends it's never changed.
Johnathan Schwartz, the last pre-sale Sun CEO, pretty much opened up Java the language to open source prior to leaving and prior to the sale to Oracle. No way legally Oracle can get that worm put back in the box.
I think (unfortunately) you're really underestimating the army of lawyers Oracle is willing to throw at this problem -- or maybe you're thinking that because, legally, Oracle may not have a leg to stand on they can't still get what they want.
Sue enough people for long enough -- even if you ultimately lose every case -- and some will figure it's easier/cheaper to just buy Oracle off; others will move to another platform.
I realize there are "free" parts of.Net, including the express editions of visual studio but there are already arguably superior equivalents available in the Java community.
With that in mind, it seems probable that Microsoft is playing for time.
It seems pretty well standard that manufacturing costs of just about everything video game hardware related go down over time, for various reasons. If they're selling the Kinect at cost right now, they won't be in a year -- so if they can push off people repurposing the unit a little down the road, they can get to a point in which they're making a profit even if someone buys a Kinect and no 360/games.
But I thought most of the value of open source was that you could inspect the guts of something yourself and fix it if it was broken?
Seriously, I feel like open source advocates should be happy whenever a force in the closed-source world takes a step, no matter how small, in their direction -- instead what actually happens is it's never open source enough.
Your vision of everyone being forced to pick a plan that covers all 50 states isn't remotely happening, so that's an awful lot of words on an obvious strawman.
If that doesn't seem like a serious downside to you, or if you think the people that government workers have to deal with are pretty much the same people in business have to deal with, I urge you to seek out a government job.
Having worked briefly in that industry I wouldn't do it again without a much more serious pay increase than I would actually get for doing it. I'll stay in the private sector where the people I deal with are (for example) generally are house-trained, thank you very much.
I'd never root for something that's bad for our country, but it certainly would be karmic if they were blamed for not being able to accomplish anything because of the other party obstructing them.
Hey, I'm not saying it was a good or conservative idea -- just that the picture of the health care bill of something that contains zero Republican ideas is disingenuous at best.
When you say the Fed's now deciding what's best for all 50 states, that certainly does simplify a very complex legal situation to the point of uselessness.
You clearly don't have the faintest inkling of how much the health insurance laws vary -- and still do vary from state to state, or the depth to which they each subdivide things in wholly different ways from each other.
You might as well say that every state now has the same population and size, too, with each citizen being precisely the same height, weight, age, and gender. It would be no less ridiculous and wrong.
"Reasonable" people then point out most of the bill hasn't gone into effect yet, and that it can't be affecting prices.
No one said anything of this form upthread (though something was said that maybe you could construe as that if you weren't paying enough attention), so I'm going back to: Which post did you mean to respond to, because I don't think you got the right one.
Again, there were 40 Republicans until Scott Brown was elected at the beginning of 2010, which is not enough to maintain a filibuster.
You have it a little backwards; it's not that you need 40 people to vote to continue a filibuster, but you need 60 to vote for cloture to end it.
Counting the independents that caucused with the Democrats as being with them, there was an almost exactly 1 month window in which they had those 60 votes.
Boehner has never taken an earmark and will probably be the next speaker of the house, and Rand Paul has been elected...
Fiscal conservatism amounts to a lot more than that.
For example, actually reducing the debt/deficit by a significant amount vs. talking about it or making it a lot worse. I don't consider Reagan, for example, to have remotely been a fiscal conservative.
It also, to me, requires that reduction happen in a responsible/sustainable/realistic way. E.g., you can cut the hell out of the deficit by raising the tax rate to 100%... for one year, but you've permanently destroyed the economy in the process. I want solutions that actually address the problems and don't just kick them down the road.
I guess you were dismissing votes for Democrats with equal regularity if you cared at all about fiscal conservatism...
Because they were not fiscally conservative ideas, and the movement of Republicans away from fiscal conservatism is what got the Republicans removed from power in the first place.
Eh, what's new about that?
Republicans have always (in my lifetime, anyway) been the party of talking about fiscal conservatism but (at best) doing nothing about it. The day they build some actual credibility there is the day I vote for them more than occasionally.
I think we're arguing at cross purposes here; you're discussing what you would like to happen, and I'm discussing what actually would happen whether you or I like it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but where in your constitution does it say that ... the government has a right to redefine marriage?
Oh, it's been implied since 1896 when we forced Utah to change their definition of marriage to match our current one if they wanted to be a state. That's probably why some folk from Utah get so bent out of shape (in the form of heavy financial support) about anyone else wanting the definition to be something else -- they've got one-man one-woman Stockholm Syndrome.
In case you weren't just trolling, the definition of marriage has changed constantly throughout history, and each time, a generation later everyone pretends it's never changed.
Way to Poe's Law the thread. :(
Johnathan Schwartz, the last pre-sale Sun CEO, pretty much opened up Java the language to open source prior to leaving and prior to the sale to Oracle. No way legally Oracle can get that worm put back in the box.
I think (unfortunately) you're really underestimating the army of lawyers Oracle is willing to throw at this problem -- or maybe you're thinking that because, legally, Oracle may not have a leg to stand on they can't still get what they want.
Sue enough people for long enough -- even if you ultimately lose every case -- and some will figure it's easier/cheaper to just buy Oracle off; others will move to another platform.
I realize there are "free" parts of .Net, including the express editions of visual studio but there are already arguably superior equivalents available in the Java community.
Ugh. Eclipse. Do not want.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
You can write damn near anything in JavaScript if you really want to, but the better question is if you should.
And yes, that includes half (but only half!) of the stuff you'll find done in JavaScript in web apps.
With that in mind, it seems probable that Microsoft is playing for time.
It seems pretty well standard that manufacturing costs of just about everything video game hardware related go down over time, for various reasons. If they're selling the Kinect at cost right now, they won't be in a year -- so if they can push off people repurposing the unit a little down the road, they can get to a point in which they're making a profit even if someone buys a Kinect and no 360/games.
But I thought most of the value of open source was that you could inspect the guts of something yourself and fix it if it was broken?
Seriously, I feel like open source advocates should be happy whenever a force in the closed-source world takes a step, no matter how small, in their direction -- instead what actually happens is it's never open source enough.
We have a mailwoman, so that'd be a pretty good trick. :)
Our kids would seem to provide physical evidence otherwise. :)
My wife is straight, attractive, shares most of my interests, and, yes, sometimes paints D&D minis.
Somebody has to win the nerd lottery, right?
If you're going to spend those many words on revisionist history, wouldn't it be better to pick less recent history?
(No, I'm not objecting to the part you think I am.)
Your vision of everyone being forced to pick a plan that covers all 50 states isn't remotely happening, so that's an awful lot of words on an obvious strawman.
But they also have to deal with the public.
If that doesn't seem like a serious downside to you, or if you think the people that government workers have to deal with are pretty much the same people in business have to deal with, I urge you to seek out a government job.
Having worked briefly in that industry I wouldn't do it again without a much more serious pay increase than I would actually get for doing it. I'll stay in the private sector where the people I deal with are (for example) generally are house-trained, thank you very much.
know
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
I'd never root for something that's bad for our country, but it certainly would be karmic if they were blamed for not being able to accomplish anything because of the other party obstructing them.
Hey, I'm not saying it was a good or conservative idea -- just that the picture of the health care bill of something that contains zero Republican ideas is disingenuous at best.
When you say the Fed's now deciding what's best for all 50 states, that certainly does simplify a very complex legal situation to the point of uselessness.
You clearly don't have the faintest inkling of how much the health insurance laws vary -- and still do vary from state to state, or the depth to which they each subdivide things in wholly different ways from each other.
You might as well say that every state now has the same population and size, too, with each citizen being precisely the same height, weight, age, and gender. It would be no less ridiculous and wrong.
Except:
"Reasonable" people then point out most of the bill hasn't gone into effect yet, and that it can't be affecting prices.
No one said anything of this form upthread (though something was said that maybe you could construe as that if you weren't paying enough attention), so I'm going back to: Which post did you mean to respond to, because I don't think you got the right one.
That has... absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. What did you mean to post this in response to?
As someone who's actually worked in the health care industry, you've simplified a complex situation to the point of uselessness.
That is to say, your model does not represent reality closely enough to draw any useful parallels or conclusions.
Again, there were 40 Republicans until Scott Brown was elected at the beginning of 2010, which is not enough to maintain a filibuster.
You have it a little backwards; it's not that you need 40 people to vote to continue a filibuster, but you need 60 to vote for cloture to end it.
Counting the independents that caucused with the Democrats as being with them, there was an almost exactly 1 month window in which they had those 60 votes.
Any conservative voices are modded as trolls.
Generally it's because they're actually trolling, or moderation ultimately sorts it out.
If you put up a reasoned post here and try to back up your arguments with fact, no matter your viewpoint, it probably won't end up modded down.
If you post one sentence that regurgitates someone else's logical fallacy of a talking point, yeah, that tends to get modded down.
Boehner has never taken an earmark and will probably be the next speaker of the house, and Rand Paul has been elected...
Fiscal conservatism amounts to a lot more than that.
For example, actually reducing the debt/deficit by a significant amount vs. talking about it or making it a lot worse. I don't consider Reagan, for example, to have remotely been a fiscal conservative.
It also, to me, requires that reduction happen in a responsible/sustainable/realistic way. E.g., you can cut the hell out of the deficit by raising the tax rate to 100%... for one year, but you've permanently destroyed the economy in the process. I want solutions that actually address the problems and don't just kick them down the road.
I guess you were dismissing votes for Democrats with equal regularity if you cared at all about fiscal conservatism...
If it were the only thing I cared about, sure.
Because they were not fiscally conservative ideas, and the movement of Republicans away from fiscal conservatism is what got the Republicans removed from power in the first place.
Eh, what's new about that?
Republicans have always (in my lifetime, anyway) been the party of talking about fiscal conservatism but (at best) doing nothing about it. The day they build some actual credibility there is the day I vote for them more than occasionally.
I think we're arguing at cross purposes here; you're discussing what you would like to happen, and I'm discussing what actually would happen whether you or I like it or not.