Nobody I know ever got a Zynga game outside of facebook besides Words with Friends on the iPhone.
I play Chess with friends all the time (as well as Words with friends.) Between the two, I've usually got 4-5 games going with people I know. And I'm not on Facebook, never have been, never expect to be.
So maybe it's more about who you know than a general case you can make.
They'll just be another crappy company making crapy flash games
Funny, I was under the impression that Flash didn't run under IOS, and therefore the WWF and CWF apps couldn't be Flash. Perhaps I am mistaken?
When you do, wait until an ultracap company announces an ultracap that has battery-equivalant energy, cost and cubic space consumption. Then put ALL your money right there. You can thank me later.:)
Why shouldn't we support someone favorable to our interests over someone favorable to our enemies?
There's a significant difference between "support" and "install by force."
As to why, once you really annoy them by imposing your will by force, they tend to respond. Not necessarily in ways you will see as reasonable or balanced. Like flying into buildings, killing thousands of people. At which point tertiary consequences arise, such as your own government going dumb-fuck-insane, stomping all over your constitutional rights, impeding travel, and generally fucking up life for everyone.
Being a player in geopolitics [give the US the right to decide who rules a country],
No. You're confusing the willingness to arbitrarily use power in service of one's own goals with the right to do so, which can only come from consent of the governed, which the US most assuredly did not get from Iranians, or pretty much anyone else it has interfered with.
Please stop doing that.
Aside from being wrong, it blinds you to why other countries resent the US, and why they feel they have legitimate reasons to act against US interests.
Our rights-free meddling has almost entirely stripped the legitimacy from our foreign policy.
Your generation is just fine. The generation before you is annoyed by you, you'll be annoyed by the generation after you, and so it goes. Change becomes more difficult to accommodate with age, I can honestly report.
If it takes someone years to explain why I should like something, it isn't worth liking.
OK.... however, the less education you acquire, the larger the number of categories that will fall into "takes too long to explain."
The ultimate consequences are left as an exercise for the student. Oh. I forgot. You're an anti-student. Well, guess you're just not going to see it coming, then.:)
An individual plan costs $450/mo for a single person.
...and prior to the ACA, here in good ol USA, the insurance companies were free to (a) refuse you outright, (b) drop you if they thought you were costing them too much, (c) refuse to cover pre-existing conditions.
If insurance companies had designed their business around the actuarial details for the whole population, they would have been able to offer a fair and reasonable product. Unfortunately, short of regulation that forced them to, they didn't do that. Now they will, because although the US has an enormous number of heartless, selfish fucks who are truly so stupid they don't understand that a healthy population is better for everyone, they're finally fading out into the minority, and we finally have a solution — admittedly poor, we'd be far better off without insurance companies at all — but many more people will be able to get healthcare, which is a step in the right direction.
President Obama loves small businesses so much that he's driving them bankrupt with expensive mandatory health insurance regulations.
You realize that businesses of the size you typically find in small towns aren't required to do anything in particular by the ACA, right? You know that there's a threshold of 50 employees below which, the ACA is pretty toothless, right?
Of course you do. You wuz just pulling our legs, you wascal! Making sure we knew that the ACA was very careful about not driving small businesses bankrupt.
You may now crawl back under your bridge, M. Troll.
The problem where you (and I) live is population density. There used to be an advantage for a local business that counteracted that; accessibility. That has evaporated. If you have the net and UPS, FedEx or even the mails you're 1-day out from almost anything you need to be. Hell, Amazon shipped me a riding lawnmower under Amazon Prime, meaning, I paid no shipping past my yearly Amazon prime fee. And they still beat the local hardware store on price by hundreds of dollars.
The businesses that will almost always survive include lumberyards, grocery, fuel, doctors, restaurants, mechanics, plumbers, electricians, contractors, bars, feed, ag... businesses along those lines.
Comic stores, bookstores, high end stereo retailers, clothing stores, pet shops, basically any niche business that doesn't have a direct tie to the locality (a rock shop can survive in a rural locality that has unusual and coveted minerals if it is accessible from a well traveled road, for instance)... these are stressed from the moment they open their doors.
We live in a time when the economic position of most people is a lot lower than they would like it to be; to the point where many people have no savings, etc. To expect them to "buy locally" is, I think, a form of mild insanity. Either on the part of the person with such expectations, or on the part of the poor bastard who decides it'd be a good idea, even though they can hardly pay their bills.
Does a small business collapsing hurt the local economy? Not in the long term. If a business can't survive, it's likely to default on debts, dispose of part or all of its inventory at a loss, pay employees less, pay lower taxes, etc.
What a local economy needs isn't a business that depends on nepotism and insularity to survive; it needs businesses that are tuned to address local needs in ways and means that a distant business cannot. This simply does not include retail stores that sell... well, just about anything, unless those things are typically emergency needs -- I really will pay extra for the parts to fix a water leak right now, and sure enough, there are businesses here that are happy to accommodate me, while they do untoward things to my wallet. Because the tradeoff is of the class of being without water for a couple days, or spending an extra $20...$30 for the parts I need locally -- and having the water off for only minutes or hours.
Consequently, I think what you and I will see is an eventual settling out where the wisdom slowly accumulates about what kind of businesses can actually survive in bumfuck, and then we'll see fewer complaints about the local clothing store going out of business; such a business has no more rational place in a rural community today than does a buggy whip manufacturer. The nature of retail has changed, and no amount of insane "buy local" will fix that because it is almost impossible to find a population in a rural area that is able to be unconcerned about spending more money than required to purchase any particular thing.
Perusing the statements of the US administration at the instantiation of each effort, It's clear that both wars were pursued under the aegis of a general "get the terrorist" mentality that was the product of 9/11.
Iraq stands out in that it didn't even have a tenuous connection to 9/11. Afghanistan... well, again, the public narrative was "get Bin Ladin", which you'll note was not accomplished by warring on Afghanistan, and further, that having gotten him, we didn't stop warring.
I'm simply pointing out that the actions that were taken don't suit the actual data. Any theory you create from those data points is your own. I didn't offer one. I find it enlightening to look at the data we have, and the actions we take, and compare those with the public narrative. I also find it enlightening to follow the money, in the cui bono sense of "follow."
To the person who suggested we attacked Iraq over WMDs... Iraq had no WMDs, unless you want to class some old gas shells as WMDs, in which case, ok, they had them, but no, that's no justification for attacking them because they posed zero credible threat.
To the person who suggested we attacked Afghanistan because of Bin Ladin... that's actually pretty silly. That's like attacking London because some miscreant went to school at the war college. Also, we got Bin Ladin. You'll note we're still playing large-scale military games in Afghanistan.
o 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian o The superstition driving the group is rooted in Saudi Arabia o Osama bin Laden - Saudi Arabian o Osama's brother in law, Jamal Khalifa - Saudi Arabian - partially bankrolled the 9/11 group o Saudi Prince Naif, the interior minister, and Saudi Prince Sultan also partially bankrolled the 9/11 group o 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Inquiry report dealing with Saudi Arabian connections have been censored
Slashdot Mirror
I play Chess with friends all the time (as well as Words with friends.) Between the two, I've usually got 4-5 games going with people I know. And I'm not on Facebook, never have been, never expect to be.
So maybe it's more about who you know than a general case you can make.
Funny, I was under the impression that Flash didn't run under IOS, and therefore the WWF and CWF apps couldn't be Flash. Perhaps I am mistaken?
When you do, wait until an ultracap company announces an ultracap that has battery-equivalant energy, cost and cubic space consumption. Then put ALL your money right there. You can thank me later. :)
I can't afford a yacht, or even a Lambo. I don't feel left out or discriminated against on that basis.
Seems to me like that's a waste of perfectly good outrage. :)
No, it's not. But it doesn't excuse our actions, either.
There's a significant difference between "support" and "install by force."
As to why, once you really annoy them by imposing your will by force, they tend to respond. Not necessarily in ways you will see as reasonable or balanced. Like flying into buildings, killing thousands of people. At which point tertiary consequences arise, such as your own government going dumb-fuck-insane, stomping all over your constitutional rights, impeding travel, and generally fucking up life for everyone.
No. You're confusing the willingness to arbitrarily use power in service of one's own goals with the right to do so, which can only come from consent of the governed, which the US most assuredly did not get from Iranians, or pretty much anyone else it has interfered with.
Please stop doing that.
Aside from being wrong, it blinds you to why other countries resent the US, and why they feel they have legitimate reasons to act against US interests.
Our rights-free meddling has almost entirely stripped the legitimacy from our foreign policy.
Your generation is just fine. The generation before you is annoyed by you, you'll be annoyed by the generation after you, and so it goes. Change becomes more difficult to accommodate with age, I can honestly report.
Unicorns? You just drop a teapot on them. From orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
OK.... however, the less education you acquire, the larger the number of categories that will fall into "takes too long to explain."
The ultimate consequences are left as an exercise for the student. Oh. I forgot. You're an anti-student. Well, guess you're just not going to see it coming, then. :)
If insurance companies had designed their business around the actuarial details for the whole population, they would have been able to offer a fair and reasonable product. Unfortunately, short of regulation that forced them to, they didn't do that. Now they will, because although the US has an enormous number of heartless, selfish fucks who are truly so stupid they don't understand that a healthy population is better for everyone, they're finally fading out into the minority, and we finally have a solution — admittedly poor, we'd be far better off without insurance companies at all — but many more people will be able to get healthcare, which is a step in the right direction.
You realize that businesses of the size you typically find in small towns aren't required to do anything in particular by the ACA, right? You know that there's a threshold of 50 employees below which, the ACA is pretty toothless, right?
Of course you do. You wuz just pulling our legs, you wascal! Making sure we knew that the ACA was very careful about not driving small businesses bankrupt.
You may now crawl back under your bridge, M. Troll.
The problem where you (and I) live is population density. There used to be an advantage for a local business that counteracted that; accessibility. That has evaporated. If you have the net and UPS, FedEx or even the mails you're 1-day out from almost anything you need to be. Hell, Amazon shipped me a riding lawnmower under Amazon Prime, meaning, I paid no shipping past my yearly Amazon prime fee. And they still beat the local hardware store on price by hundreds of dollars.
The businesses that will almost always survive include lumberyards, grocery, fuel, doctors, restaurants, mechanics, plumbers, electricians, contractors, bars, feed, ag... businesses along those lines.
Comic stores, bookstores, high end stereo retailers, clothing stores, pet shops, basically any niche business that doesn't have a direct tie to the locality (a rock shop can survive in a rural locality that has unusual and coveted minerals if it is accessible from a well traveled road, for instance)... these are stressed from the moment they open their doors.
We live in a time when the economic position of most people is a lot lower than they would like it to be; to the point where many people have no savings, etc. To expect them to "buy locally" is, I think, a form of mild insanity. Either on the part of the person with such expectations, or on the part of the poor bastard who decides it'd be a good idea, even though they can hardly pay their bills.
Does a small business collapsing hurt the local economy? Not in the long term. If a business can't survive, it's likely to default on debts, dispose of part or all of its inventory at a loss, pay employees less, pay lower taxes, etc.
What a local economy needs isn't a business that depends on nepotism and insularity to survive; it needs businesses that are tuned to address local needs in ways and means that a distant business cannot. This simply does not include retail stores that sell... well, just about anything, unless those things are typically emergency needs -- I really will pay extra for the parts to fix a water leak right now, and sure enough, there are businesses here that are happy to accommodate me, while they do untoward things to my wallet. Because the tradeoff is of the class of being without water for a couple days, or spending an extra $20...$30 for the parts I need locally -- and having the water off for only minutes or hours.
Consequently, I think what you and I will see is an eventual settling out where the wisdom slowly accumulates about what kind of businesses can actually survive in bumfuck, and then we'll see fewer complaints about the local clothing store going out of business; such a business has no more rational place in a rural community today than does a buggy whip manufacturer. The nature of retail has changed, and no amount of insane "buy local" will fix that because it is almost impossible to find a population in a rural area that is able to be unconcerned about spending more money than required to purchase any particular thing.
The word you're looking for is: "doused"
Dowse, Dowsing, Dowsed: superstitious practice, performed by the clueless
Douse, Dousing, Doused: get a lotta wet stuff on ya.
Daos: really bad romanization of the Chinese wu "Tao", trying to make it mean multiple ways (no plurals to be had.)
Daws: Typically heard in multiple-cat households
I'd have thought it would be really, really uncomfortable to go dowsing in gasoline. And will a dowsing rod even work in gasoline?
And what, pray tell, are you dowsing yourself for? Cooties? Wouldn't the gasoline have already killed them?
Also, a really studly solar flare...
I don't mean to rain on your parade, but that seems a bit precipitate.
You know, there was a time when "vaporware" was a bad thing.
What's to understand? It's a series of tubes, right? Let's craft some legislation!
Sorry, into the gorge with you.
Right then, Next?
Perusing the statements of the US administration at the instantiation of each effort, It's clear that both wars were pursued under the aegis of a general "get the terrorist" mentality that was the product of 9/11.
Iraq stands out in that it didn't even have a tenuous connection to 9/11. Afghanistan... well, again, the public narrative was "get Bin Ladin", which you'll note was not accomplished by warring on Afghanistan, and further, that having gotten him, we didn't stop warring.
That's certainly the public narrative. That it doesn't match up with the data — even a little bit — is what I find interesting.
I'm simply pointing out that the actions that were taken don't suit the actual data. Any theory you create from those data points is your own. I didn't offer one. I find it enlightening to look at the data we have, and the actions we take, and compare those with the public narrative. I also find it enlightening to follow the money, in the cui bono sense of "follow."
To the person who suggested we attacked Iraq over WMDs... Iraq had no WMDs, unless you want to class some old gas shells as WMDs, in which case, ok, they had them, but no, that's no justification for attacking them because they posed zero credible threat.
To the person who suggested we attacked Afghanistan because of Bin Ladin... that's actually pretty silly. That's like attacking London because some miscreant went to school at the war college. Also, we got Bin Ladin. You'll note we're still playing large-scale military games in Afghanistan.
And consider these interesting 9/11 facts:
o 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian
o The superstition driving the group is rooted in Saudi Arabia
o Osama bin Laden - Saudi Arabian
o Osama's brother in law, Jamal Khalifa - Saudi Arabian - partially bankrolled the 9/11 group
o Saudi Prince Naif, the interior minister, and Saudi Prince Sultan also partially bankrolled the 9/11 group
o 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Inquiry report dealing with Saudi Arabian connections have been censored
So Bush attacked... Iraq.
Go figure, eh?
Metric, or Imperial?
...taking them to the vet and "chipping" them.