This isn't just microsoft. Witness how long it took Google to allow people to bypass discussion view. Or how hard it is to use an IPOD without using Itunes to manage it. Even Mozilla's attempts to eliminate the status bar in Firefox is an example of some programmer deciding "this is the way it should be, so this is the way it is". In my personal experience, Microsoft has nothing on Apple when it comes to trying to shoehorn everyone into one approach. OTOH, I have a great deal of experience with Microsoft windows, and not so much with Apple except for my IPod.
In fairness, that's more about the individual installers than microsoft. I usually force games in particular into the games folder on the start menu, although some crappy installers force you to categorize by company inside whatever folder you actually specify.
An awful lot of dpsers lost the old habit of waiting for threat to be established BEFORE starting to attack. Some of them never had it, just as some never learned what I meant by "LoS pulling".
To be fair, the rare stunnable elites could sometimes be killed without a pocket healer or party even in the past. Doesn't actually kill your overall point. I agree with everything else you said.
It wasn't all bad. Sometimes you could have fun with it. The people I played with carried over some behavior from the EQ zek servers, and would not attack people way below them in level (except in defense), and wouldn't attack people right after they rezzed. It may have prevented some forms of friction, but being unable to talk across factions really made in impossible to try and establish norms of behavior whose violation would bring everyone else on the server down on your head.
About the only think I actually liked in Cata was the reformation of the low level content, and Vashj'ir. Everything else was meh... and since I was leveling up as a healer, I got really pissed that in the same gear, same dungeon, i was WORSE at higher levels than when I first did them. Stonecore regular was harder for me to heal at 83 than it had been at 80, and the tank had levelled and gained a bit of gear. I sort of liked that they attempted to make mana actually matter for healers again, but their implementation sucked.
One of my complaints about every expansion is that they broke their item scaling with each one. They should not have changed their formulas for the next tier of gear.
Hmm... maybe I should try EQ2. I used to play EQ until Wow came out. I miss some aspects of it. Planetside was what really burned me on SOE as a company. Great game in some ways, but it was NOT worth the same price per month as a full MMO and their implementation had issues.
I agree that they made healing and tanking at 85 too gear intensive in WoW.
You know, the white folks in those pictures after Katrina had not been observed looting what they had from a store. The blacks had. There was a reason other than racism to use different terms.
It's not quite no true Scotsman. The issue is that Scotsman does not in fact define anything incompatible with any given behavior, so pretending a Scotsman wouldn't do X and then denying evidence is faulty. Capitalist does. If someone rejects the premises of capitalism, they can't legitimately be called capitalists. It's not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy if you point out that someone isn't a Scotsman because they don't have a single ancestor from Scotland and don't live there themselves. It's also not a fallacy to say someone isn't a pacifist if they go around starting fights.
Capitalists do not compel employees. They persuade them. "If you perform work X for me, I will pay you Y" is persuasion, as there is no threat or use of force. They may be exploiting a situation such that the employee needs the money too badly to say no, but unless they actually caused that situation there is still no coercion, no matter how bad that situation is. Now, I would suggest that in light of a bad situation it is good to help someone out of it (there's a reason I'm not an objectivist) but choosing not to do so is neither good nor bad.
Do you actually have a cite for a correlation between Gini Coefficient and crime rates by country? I can find some for within the us, but there are issues with comparing gini coefficients between countries. I found one based on religious crime in particular, but not overall crime rates or violent crime rates.
The gini coefficient for income does not factor in benefits in some cases. This undercuts your basic argument.
No, they are forcefully making someone else responsible for their well being via theft. And there is a long history of robbers resorting to violence when they don't get what they want. Actual capitalists rely on voluntary cooperation for their gains. Once they resort to violence, they've given up on the free market. Unfortunately, because they pretended to be capitalists when it suited them, others thought they remained so even when they engaged in behavior that is incompatible with the original definition of the term. I'll probably have to use the phrase "free market capitalists" to keep it clear, but it's worth remembering that the actual term does not include people who engage in things like regulatory capture.
You can claim socialism is about whatever you want. Nonetheless, it requires as an intrinsic component the confiscation of some people's wealth to provide services to other people.
The reaction of people who benefit from socialist programs is generally either guilt/shame and an effort to work their way off of the service OR to convince themselves that they have a right to those services because they don't want to feel guilty about benefiting at the expense of others. Which response do you think is more common among the rioters?
I was responding to a post that indicated it was just a reaction to the austerity package. I chose my wording to mirror Tbannist's. If their reaction to a reduction in services that the government honestly can't afford is to go out and riot, then they must believe that they have some sort of intrinsic right to those benefits (ok, some may just believe that violence isn't intrinsically bad but I'm assuming those are in the minority). That belief was instilled in them by the existence of those programs. I'm not sure the riots were a response to the austerity package in the first place, but if they were, those social programs either allowed them to keep a false belief or taught it to them. I probably shouldn't have used the same wording he did merely for the purpose on contrast, because I don't actually know enough about the beliefs of the rioters. I have heard some fairly damning recordings of the statements of a few of them, but given that the sources directing me to those recordings were right wing, it may be a form of selection bias.
Remember PorkBusters? that's where these people were during republican control. They were honestly trying to get the party in power to restrain spending. They failed, since the deficit tripled in 2009. That tripling has a lot to do with much larger interest in the Tea Party than there was in PorkBusters.
You know, one of the major sparks forming the tea party was Rick Santelli's rant complaining about TARP. Really not fair to hold them responsible for it.
You know, I'm really tired of people lying about the nature of the tax cuts. The rich got about 30% of the tax cuts. The working class as a group recieved the majority of benefits, even though each individual member of that class received vastly less than the invididual rich people. There are so many more of them..
Interesting. The last links I had seen were older, and apparently before he actually showed a plan but after making promises to provide one with 2.7 trillion. The link you gave was posted after the slashdot article we are commenting on.:) Nonetheless, I retract my statement, but reserve the right to criticize his proposal if warranted. I'll have to dig a bit. The washington post article does suggest some issues with it, such as including as a cut war money that never would have been spent anyways.
The blame does not rest squarely on the house, since they brought an option to him which would extend the ceiling 6 months, more than enough to cover the current fiscal year, which only lasts until september.
The entire point of our discussion has been whether the 14th amendment actually provides the cover for an executive order raising the debt ceiling. It's clear to me that it doesn't. I don't think the president will risk #2.
It's worth remembering that failure to raise the debt ceiling does not mean automatically mean default. You left out:
4. The government partially shutsdown while continuing to pay it's existing debt with current income. Despite your suggetion otherwise, this wouldn't wouldn't be a form of hidden tax.
Hey, an awful lot of the freshman Republicans can honestly say they would have done things differently. They're from the wing of the party which lambasted Bush for profligate spending during his terms, but which the establishment tuned out.
That chart has some issues with it. The bush tax cuts may have helped cause the recovery, but the cost of the tax cuts is measured based on the recovery happening. The projection for 8 years of obama is less than the current deficit. All defense for his term is added to Bush, no defense for his term is calculated for Obama. The entire thing is predicated on the president being responsible for all policies, and that fiscal year immediately after a change of hands is fully the responsibility of the previous president (no TARP 2?). It's all bogus.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't just microsoft. Witness how long it took Google to allow people to bypass discussion view. Or how hard it is to use an IPOD without using Itunes to manage it. Even Mozilla's attempts to eliminate the status bar in Firefox is an example of some programmer deciding "this is the way it should be, so this is the way it is". In my personal experience, Microsoft has nothing on Apple when it comes to trying to shoehorn everyone into one approach. OTOH, I have a great deal of experience with Microsoft windows, and not so much with Apple except for my IPod.
In fairness, that's more about the individual installers than microsoft. I usually force games in particular into the games folder on the start menu, although some crappy installers force you to categorize by company inside whatever folder you actually specify.
In soviet Russia, Slashdot leaves you!
At least I didn't post a connection to goatse.xe in here...
An awful lot of dpsers lost the old habit of waiting for threat to be established BEFORE starting to attack. Some of them never had it, just as some never learned what I meant by "LoS pulling".
To be fair, the rare stunnable elites could sometimes be killed without a pocket healer or party even in the past. Doesn't actually kill your overall point. I agree with everything else you said.
It wasn't all bad. Sometimes you could have fun with it. The people I played with carried over some behavior from the EQ zek servers, and would not attack people way below them in level (except in defense), and wouldn't attack people right after they rezzed. It may have prevented some forms of friction, but being unable to talk across factions really made in impossible to try and establish norms of behavior whose violation would bring everyone else on the server down on your head.
About the only think I actually liked in Cata was the reformation of the low level content, and Vashj'ir. Everything else was meh... and since I was leveling up as a healer, I got really pissed that in the same gear, same dungeon, i was WORSE at higher levels than when I first did them. Stonecore regular was harder for me to heal at 83 than it had been at 80, and the tank had levelled and gained a bit of gear. I sort of liked that they attempted to make mana actually matter for healers again, but their implementation sucked.
One of my complaints about every expansion is that they broke their item scaling with each one. They should not have changed their formulas for the next tier of gear.
Hmm... maybe I should try EQ2. I used to play EQ until Wow came out. I miss some aspects of it. Planetside was what really burned me on SOE as a company. Great game in some ways, but it was NOT worth the same price per month as a full MMO and their implementation had issues.
I agree that they made healing and tanking at 85 too gear intensive in WoW.
You know, the white folks in those pictures after Katrina had not been observed looting what they had from a store. The blacks had. There was a reason other than racism to use different terms.
It's not quite no true Scotsman. The issue is that Scotsman does not in fact define anything incompatible with any given behavior, so pretending a Scotsman wouldn't do X and then denying evidence is faulty. Capitalist does. If someone rejects the premises of capitalism, they can't legitimately be called capitalists. It's not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy if you point out that someone isn't a Scotsman because they don't have a single ancestor from Scotland and don't live there themselves. It's also not a fallacy to say someone isn't a pacifist if they go around starting fights.
Capitalists do not compel employees. They persuade them. "If you perform work X for me, I will pay you Y" is persuasion, as there is no threat or use of force. They may be exploiting a situation such that the employee needs the money too badly to say no, but unless they actually caused that situation there is still no coercion, no matter how bad that situation is. Now, I would suggest that in light of a bad situation it is good to help someone out of it (there's a reason I'm not an objectivist) but choosing not to do so is neither good nor bad.
Do you actually have a cite for a correlation between Gini Coefficient and crime rates by country? I can find some for within the us, but there are issues with comparing gini coefficients between countries. I found one based on religious crime in particular, but not overall crime rates or violent crime rates.
The gini coefficient for income does not factor in benefits in some cases. This undercuts your basic argument.
No, they are forcefully making someone else responsible for their well being via theft. And there is a long history of robbers resorting to violence when they don't get what they want. Actual capitalists rely on voluntary cooperation for their gains. Once they resort to violence, they've given up on the free market. Unfortunately, because they pretended to be capitalists when it suited them, others thought they remained so even when they engaged in behavior that is incompatible with the original definition of the term. I'll probably have to use the phrase "free market capitalists" to keep it clear, but it's worth remembering that the actual term does not include people who engage in things like regulatory capture.
You can claim socialism is about whatever you want. Nonetheless, it requires as an intrinsic component the confiscation of some people's wealth to provide services to other people.
The reaction of people who benefit from socialist programs is generally either guilt/shame and an effort to work their way off of the service OR to convince themselves that they have a right to those services because they don't want to feel guilty about benefiting at the expense of others. Which response do you think is more common among the rioters?
I was responding to a post that indicated it was just a reaction to the austerity package. I chose my wording to mirror Tbannist's. If their reaction to a reduction in services that the government honestly can't afford is to go out and riot, then they must believe that they have some sort of intrinsic right to those benefits (ok, some may just believe that violence isn't intrinsically bad but I'm assuming those are in the minority). That belief was instilled in them by the existence of those programs. I'm not sure the riots were a response to the austerity package in the first place, but if they were, those social programs either allowed them to keep a false belief or taught it to them. I probably shouldn't have used the same wording he did merely for the purpose on contrast, because I don't actually know enough about the beliefs of the rioters. I have heard some fairly damning recordings of the statements of a few of them, but given that the sources directing me to those recordings were right wing, it may be a form of selection bias.
I expect this is consequence of falsely teaching people for years that someone else was responsible for their well-being.
"The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other people's money."
Many Bothans died to bring us this information.
Remember PorkBusters? that's where these people were during republican control. They were honestly trying to get the party in power to restrain spending. They failed, since the deficit tripled in 2009. That tripling has a lot to do with much larger interest in the Tea Party than there was in PorkBusters.
You know, one of the major sparks forming the tea party was Rick Santelli's rant complaining about TARP. Really not fair to hold them responsible for it.
You know, I'm really tired of people lying about the nature of the tax cuts. The rich got about 30% of the tax cuts. The working class as a group recieved the majority of benefits, even though each individual member of that class received vastly less than the invididual rich people. There are so many more of them..
Interesting. The last links I had seen were older, and apparently before he actually showed a plan but after making promises to provide one with 2.7 trillion. The link you gave was posted after the slashdot article we are commenting on. :) Nonetheless, I retract my statement, but reserve the right to criticize his proposal if warranted. I'll have to dig a bit. The washington post article does suggest some issues with it, such as including as a cut war money that never would have been spent anyways.
The blame does not rest squarely on the house, since they brought an option to him which would extend the ceiling 6 months, more than enough to cover the current fiscal year, which only lasts until september.
The entire point of our discussion has been whether the 14th amendment actually provides the cover for an executive order raising the debt ceiling. It's clear to me that it doesn't. I don't think the president will risk #2.
It's worth remembering that failure to raise the debt ceiling does not mean automatically mean default. You left out:
4. The government partially shutsdown while continuing to pay it's existing debt with current income. Despite your suggetion otherwise, this wouldn't wouldn't be a form of hidden tax.
I think some form of last minute bill is likely.
He didn't provide a plan. He stated that he was working on a plan that would do that.
Actually, the vast majority of Bush's tax cuts were for the poor and middle class.
Hey, an awful lot of the freshman Republicans can honestly say they would have done things differently. They're from the wing of the party which lambasted Bush for profligate spending during his terms, but which the establishment tuned out.
That chart has some issues with it. The bush tax cuts may have helped cause the recovery, but the cost of the tax cuts is measured based on the recovery happening. The projection for 8 years of obama is less than the current deficit. All defense for his term is added to Bush, no defense for his term is calculated for Obama. The entire thing is predicated on the president being responsible for all policies, and that fiscal year immediately after a change of hands is fully the responsibility of the previous president (no TARP 2?). It's all bogus.