The Harvard study they relied on? It's crap. Note that even your link only claimed 57%. I would dispute whether that qualifies as a VAST majority.
The self reported figure from the study came in at 29%, which is probably a better number. The 62%, and even the 57% in your link rely on a very broad definition of medical bankruptcy. Some with $500,000 in other debt and $5,001 in medical debt shouldn't really count as a medical bankruptcy.
I still consider my links to be valid examples of getting a gaming rig for less than the cost of a mac.
Since newegg combos are subject to link rot, for anyone reading this, the links were for a case, power supply, hard drive, motherboard, ram, processor combo. One was an A8 chip and the other was an A10.
It doesn't have notepad, and you have to set up an account to add it? That's crappy. I haven't used it enough to run into that, and I refuse to set up a microsoft account for a desktop computer.
I'm starting to think window 8, 8.1, and 9 should be relabled as Metro 1, 2, and 3. IIRC, the original windows didn't really take off until version 3. I can't really think of a Microsoft OS that didn't take a few iterations to get right.
1/3 is overstating the case. A lot of it is because Macs all include hardware that I couldn't care less about.
Let's take their cheapest offering, the $599 mac mini. Intel i5 2.5 ghz dual core, 500 GB hard drive, Intel HD graphics, 4 GB ram. This combo from newegg has better graphics (caveat: not familiar enough with intel HD graphics to be certain on this point, but I'd bet it's at least comparable), better hard drive, better processor for $303. Call it $403 once you add windows, so about 2/3. That's not necessarily the best one to use for comparison, just the first I came to. This one for instance is another $100, with a better processor and builtin graphics. If you don't think that qualifies as a gaming rig, throw on an actual graphics card to either combo and disable the onboard video.Might not be top end, but it should cover your gaming needs.
Ok, granted the grabbing hand is a clue. So there is a clue that you can grab it, if you are despearately moving the mouse around and watching to see if it changes. Still not sure it qualifies for the term title bar though. No visible bar, and IIRC no title present.
Honestly, the deficit was almost entirely a creation of the recession. There is no evidence that anything the federal government has done actually improved or worsened the overall economic situation. Whatever models they might use, the comparison of actual unemployment rates to their projections with and without the stimulus proves that their models are wrong. I suspect the stimulus and TARP actually slowed the rate of recovery, but it's not actually provable without an alternate reality to check it against.
It's almost always wrong to responsibility for the state of the economy to the president. Party in control of congress is generally a better target, with caveats.
I would take issue with your description of deregulation as the cause, but it's a long discussion. It's not worth the effort at this point in time, so I'll just note that what you said is a vast simplification. Trying to determine the causes seems to be a bit of a rorshach test.
What title bar? I haven't seen any clue that the top of the app is something special that you can grab onto... Just another example backing up your point about it being hidden. It's not even in Microsoft's own tutorial for using windows 8.
Do you have a cite for opposing counsel admitting it was false? Your cite to wottsupwiththat a couple of comments above does NOT provide any mention of this. Probably because it didn't happen except in your fevered imagination. Mann's counsel withdrew the claim in an amended complaint.
I'll state for the record that some of the skeptics did in fact assume that the certificate he had was false, but that was NOT the only source for the assertion that he claimed to be a Nobel Prize recipient. It's a stupid little detail the placed in his original defamation claim, and like or not stupid little details are important in the court. That doesn't make his entire claim false, but it shouldn't be that hard for you to admit that he presented a false claim. Hell, an argument that he didn't understand the distinction sounds plausible to me, except he's never acknowledge that it was a false claim as far as I can see.
No, he didn't even do that much. Rand Simberg noted that Mann tortured and molested the data just as Sandusky had done with children. That doesn't mean he things the former is just as bad as the latter. Steyn specifically didn't fully agree with the comparison but linked to it.
Actually, his original lawsuit introduced a complaint for defaming a Nobel Prize Recipient. Legally, he made that claim. Hell, his FaceBook post about the suit still describes him as a co-recipient.
"...easier to act for what they claim is the collective good...". FTFY. Given their actual track record, communist regimes are absolutely terribly at determining what is actually for the common good and/or mostly just use that as a fig leaf to do what they want.
No. That is pure ad hominem. Try actually addressing arguments on their merits instead of going "La la la i can't hear you". Who the hell gives out insightful for an undeniable fallacy?
That study is presented in a fundamentally dishonest way. 0 TLDR version: It's deceitful to label that disagrees with any portion of the alarmist agenda (disliking a carbon tax for example) as a climate change denier. Taking all groups that fit under that broad category and totaling all of their funding regardless of what percent actually goes to climate issue magnifies the deceit.
You didn't say contributing to huge numbers, you said number one cause. You can only get there if you count someone with a $1,000 medical bill, $10,000 in credit card debt, and a $200,000 mortgage as being medically caused. When you find a straw that's breaking a camel's back, the straw really isn't the primary cause of the problem.
Only the first of the 4 listed proposals included an exchange, going by the article itself. Is it really that hard to accept that you were wrong on the facts regarding a claim that you decided was HUGELY IMPORTANT?
Hint: it's usually best avoid using absolute statements. They are almost always false and will become a point of contention with anyone who disagrees with you. I didn't mention it in the previous post, but it's also not true that no one in nations with a national health care system ever declares bankruptcy for medical reasons.
For what it's worth, I think a government provided healthcare system to run in parallel with the private sector, while having plenty of it's own flaws, probably would have been better than trying to control the market for health insurance.
Three possibilities come to mind: Excessive youth unemployment, general tendencies to rebel against their parents, and regression to mean. The parents may be exceptionally free thinkers for their country of origin, but their children probably won't be. I would bet that 20% support you mentioned is higher in the populace that actually lives in a theocratic country. The youth unemployment rate in France is apparently about 22 percent, but I suppose it's a matter of opinion as to whether that's excessive or not.
Regarding your medical bankruptcy information, the study most commonly used do make that claim treated every bankruptcy which included a medical bill as a medical bankruptcy, no matter how small a portion of their total debts was tied to medical bills.
Try FDR not hoover for WW2, Taft did nothing to get us into WW1 that was all Wilson, Vietnam was mostly Kennedy and Johnson with only minor material support during the Eisenhower period, while Nixon escalated and then actually had us get out, the Korean war was entirely under Truman. You should actually read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States and look at the presidents at the time.
Define capitalism. If you mean our current system, then that's pretty basically not libertarian in nature. If you mean a free market, then they are absolutely correct, and I wonder why you think libertarianism should have a problem with it? The only form of economy fully compatible with personal liberty is a free market.
The issue I was referring to with hotcorners (yes, that's what I meant by hotpoints. misremembered the name) is that the options you get by mousing over the top right corner is different in desktop mode and metro mode. I don't recall on the others.
By letting me avoid Metro and letting me make 'all programs' the default view, some of my distaste for Windows 8 will be gone, although first impressions are hard to overcome. I still think the start menu is a better setup, at least if you read faster than you interpret icons and grok folder hierarchies. I will freely admit that I probably don't think like Joe user, so maybe it shouldn't be default, but I don't think it's completely asinine like you do.
Here's why i prefer the start menu to the start screen: I read fast. It's faster to scan an alphabetized list of folders than to try to figure out which little picture has something to do with the program I'm looking for or read the name of programs that are widely separated, in no particular order, and aren't all the same size. The start screen version of all programs isn't as bad, but I really shouldn't have to right click to get it. It should be an obvious link on the main start screen. The ability to start typing to find the program you need is still present, but there is no visual clue that the start screen supports such a feature. I'd go a little insane supporting Windows 8 without the keyboard shortcuts I know and love.
All that being said, the start screen isn't my main issue with Windows 8. I've got 3 major complaints: Mousing over a section of screen bringing up new things you can do with out any visual cues whatsoever that there's something there, those hotpoints acting differently depending on whether you are in a metro app/start screen or desktop/regular program, and generally the completely different behavior between metro and desktop modes. Especially for Metro IE and flash. Can't load flash on a site you want? Guess you need to download it. Except doing so loads adobe's version for the desktop mode, even if you downloaded it in Metro. The metro version still won't load that site you want. Please feel free to try explaining the issue to a clueless user. Next, clicking and dragging a program to the bottom in order to close it is much harder to find by experimentation than having a visible button to click to close the window. Their tutorial doesn't even mention it. I made myself check the getting started guide, and they never tell you how to close a metro app. Someone else had to tell me how to do it. Given that metro apps aren't presented as a window, I didn't even assume I'd be able to click and drag an app around while it's active. It's like they don't actually want you closing apps or something...
So, you have no actual counter arguments then? Please engage their actual points if you can. Krugman consistently argues from left just as Heritage consistently takes a right wing position. However, Political stance does not, in itself, invalidate anyone's arguments. When I'm familiar roughly with counter points, I try to find a well written example of those points regardless of the source.
More on point: Japan's problems started well before they started trying to get their budget under control, so you can't reasonably blame all of their issues on the cuts. You can make a hand wavey "They stopped just before all that government spending would have saved them", but that's one of those unprovable assertions that are oh so very common and totally useless at the same time. The counter argument, that all that spending temporarily propped up businesses until that spending stopped, at least has some sort of correspondence with actual events even though it's also basically unprovable.
Who vetted Krugman's argument before it was published in the New York Times, since you claim that happened?
Let me be clear: the constitution is not the end all be all of protecting freedom. Please do not assume motivations on my part. It remains true that gridlock mostly serves to protect freedom, and that the constitution as written helped make it possible. There is nothing inherently pro-freedom about democracy (although it's better than monarchy). The two are not synonymous. Having been passed by a pure party line vote (actually, opposition was a little bipartisan), using procedural tricks, it has very little legitimacy compared to things such as the Iraq war. Play political hardball to get something passed, and it's going to be subject to every sort of political trick people can dream up to get rid of it when the opposition gains power. As, in fact, they did in the immediate following election.
Slashdot Mirror
The Harvard study they relied on? It's crap. Note that even your link only claimed 57%. I would dispute whether that qualifies as a VAST majority.
The self reported figure from the study came in at 29%, which is probably a better number. The 62%, and even the 57% in your link rely on a very broad definition of medical bankruptcy. Some with $500,000 in other debt and $5,001 in medical debt shouldn't really count as a medical bankruptcy.
I still consider my links to be valid examples of getting a gaming rig for less than the cost of a mac.
Since newegg combos are subject to link rot, for anyone reading this, the links were for a case, power supply, hard drive, motherboard, ram, processor combo. One was an A8 chip and the other was an A10.
It doesn't have notepad, and you have to set up an account to add it? That's crappy. I haven't used it enough to run into that, and I refuse to set up a microsoft account for a desktop computer.
I'm starting to think window 8, 8.1, and 9 should be relabled as Metro 1, 2, and 3. IIRC, the original windows didn't really take off until version 3. I can't really think of a Microsoft OS that didn't take a few iterations to get right.
1/3 is overstating the case. A lot of it is because Macs all include hardware that I couldn't care less about.
Let's take their cheapest offering, the $599 mac mini. Intel i5 2.5 ghz dual core, 500 GB hard drive, Intel HD graphics, 4 GB ram. This combo from newegg has better graphics (caveat: not familiar enough with intel HD graphics to be certain on this point, but I'd bet it's at least comparable), better hard drive, better processor for $303. Call it $403 once you add windows, so about 2/3. That's not necessarily the best one to use for comparison, just the first I came to. This one for instance is another $100, with a better processor and builtin graphics. If you don't think that qualifies as a gaming rig, throw on an actual graphics card to either combo and disable the onboard video.Might not be top end, but it should cover your gaming needs.
Ok, granted the grabbing hand is a clue. So there is a clue that you can grab it, if you are despearately moving the mouse around and watching to see if it changes. Still not sure it qualifies for the term title bar though. No visible bar, and IIRC no title present.
Honestly, the deficit was almost entirely a creation of the recession. There is no evidence that anything the federal government has done actually improved or worsened the overall economic situation. Whatever models they might use, the comparison of actual unemployment rates to their projections with and without the stimulus proves that their models are wrong. I suspect the stimulus and TARP actually slowed the rate of recovery, but it's not actually provable without an alternate reality to check it against.
It's almost always wrong to responsibility for the state of the economy to the president. Party in control of congress is generally a better target, with caveats.
I would take issue with your description of deregulation as the cause, but it's a long discussion. It's not worth the effort at this point in time, so I'll just note that what you said is a vast simplification. Trying to determine the causes seems to be a bit of a rorshach test.
What title bar? I haven't seen any clue that the top of the app is something special that you can grab onto... Just another example backing up your point about it being hidden. It's not even in Microsoft's own tutorial for using windows 8.
Do you have a cite for opposing counsel admitting it was false? Your cite to wottsupwiththat a couple of comments above does NOT provide any mention of this. Probably because it didn't happen except in your fevered imagination. Mann's counsel withdrew the claim in an amended complaint.
I'll state for the record that some of the skeptics did in fact assume that the certificate he had was false, but that was NOT the only source for the assertion that he claimed to be a Nobel Prize recipient. It's a stupid little detail the placed in his original defamation claim, and like or not stupid little details are important in the court. That doesn't make his entire claim false, but it shouldn't be that hard for you to admit that he presented a false claim. Hell, an argument that he didn't understand the distinction sounds plausible to me, except he's never acknowledge that it was a false claim as far as I can see.
No, he didn't even do that much. Rand Simberg noted that Mann tortured and molested the data just as Sandusky had done with children. That doesn't mean he things the former is just as bad as the latter. Steyn specifically didn't fully agree with the comparison but linked to it.
Actually, his original lawsuit introduced a complaint for defaming a Nobel Prize Recipient. Legally, he made that claim. Hell, his FaceBook post about the suit still describes him as a co-recipient.
"...easier to act for what they claim is the collective good...". FTFY. Given their actual track record, communist regimes are absolutely terribly at determining what is actually for the common good and/or mostly just use that as a fig leaf to do what they want.
No. That is pure ad hominem. Try actually addressing arguments on their merits instead of going "La la la i can't hear you". Who the hell gives out insightful for an undeniable fallacy?
That study is presented in a fundamentally dishonest way. 0 TLDR version: It's deceitful to label that disagrees with any portion of the alarmist agenda (disliking a carbon tax for example) as a climate change denier. Taking all groups that fit under that broad category and totaling all of their funding regardless of what percent actually goes to climate issue magnifies the deceit.
You didn't say contributing to huge numbers, you said number one cause. You can only get there if you count someone with a $1,000 medical bill, $10,000 in credit card debt, and a $200,000 mortgage as being medically caused. When you find a straw that's breaking a camel's back, the straw really isn't the primary cause of the problem.
Only the first of the 4 listed proposals included an exchange, going by the article itself. Is it really that hard to accept that you were wrong on the facts regarding a claim that you decided was HUGELY IMPORTANT?
Hint: it's usually best avoid using absolute statements. They are almost always false and will become a point of contention with anyone who disagrees with you. I didn't mention it in the previous post, but it's also not true that no one in nations with a national health care system ever declares bankruptcy for medical reasons.
For what it's worth, I think a government provided healthcare system to run in parallel with the private sector, while having plenty of it's own flaws, probably would have been better than trying to control the market for health insurance.
Three possibilities come to mind: Excessive youth unemployment, general tendencies to rebel against their parents, and regression to mean. The parents may be exceptionally free thinkers for their country of origin, but their children probably won't be. I would bet that 20% support you mentioned is higher in the populace that actually lives in a theocratic country. The youth unemployment rate in France is apparently about 22 percent, but I suppose it's a matter of opinion as to whether that's excessive or not.
Sorry, you are simply wrong about all republican proposals including exchanges.
Regarding your medical bankruptcy information, the study most commonly used do make that claim treated every bankruptcy which included a medical bill as a medical bankruptcy, no matter how small a portion of their total debts was tied to medical bills.
Try FDR not hoover for WW2, Taft did nothing to get us into WW1 that was all Wilson, Vietnam was mostly Kennedy and Johnson with only minor material support during the Eisenhower period, while Nixon escalated and then actually had us get out, the Korean war was entirely under Truman. You should actually read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States and look at the presidents at the time.
Define capitalism. If you mean our current system, then that's pretty basically not libertarian in nature. If you mean a free market, then they are absolutely correct, and I wonder why you think libertarianism should have a problem with it? The only form of economy fully compatible with personal liberty is a free market.
The issue I was referring to with hotcorners (yes, that's what I meant by hotpoints. misremembered the name) is that the options you get by mousing over the top right corner is different in desktop mode and metro mode. I don't recall on the others.
By letting me avoid Metro and letting me make 'all programs' the default view, some of my distaste for Windows 8 will be gone, although first impressions are hard to overcome. I still think the start menu is a better setup, at least if you read faster than you interpret icons and grok folder hierarchies. I will freely admit that I probably don't think like Joe user, so maybe it shouldn't be default, but I don't think it's completely asinine like you do.
you could do that in 7 as well...
Here's why i prefer the start menu to the start screen: I read fast. It's faster to scan an alphabetized list of folders than to try to figure out which little picture has something to do with the program I'm looking for or read the name of programs that are widely separated, in no particular order, and aren't all the same size. The start screen version of all programs isn't as bad, but I really shouldn't have to right click to get it. It should be an obvious link on the main start screen. The ability to start typing to find the program you need is still present, but there is no visual clue that the start screen supports such a feature. I'd go a little insane supporting Windows 8 without the keyboard shortcuts I know and love.
All that being said, the start screen isn't my main issue with Windows 8. I've got 3 major complaints: Mousing over a section of screen bringing up new things you can do with out any visual cues whatsoever that there's something there, those hotpoints acting differently depending on whether you are in a metro app/start screen or desktop/regular program, and generally the completely different behavior between metro and desktop modes. Especially for Metro IE and flash. Can't load flash on a site you want? Guess you need to download it. Except doing so loads adobe's version for the desktop mode, even if you downloaded it in Metro. The metro version still won't load that site you want. Please feel free to try explaining the issue to a clueless user. Next, clicking and dragging a program to the bottom in order to close it is much harder to find by experimentation than having a visible button to click to close the window. Their tutorial doesn't even mention it. I made myself check the getting started guide, and they never tell you how to close a metro app. Someone else had to tell me how to do it. Given that metro apps aren't presented as a window, I didn't even assume I'd be able to click and drag an app around while it's active. It's like they don't actually want you closing apps or something...
So, you have no actual counter arguments then? Please engage their actual points if you can. Krugman consistently argues from left just as Heritage consistently takes a right wing position. However, Political stance does not, in itself, invalidate anyone's arguments. When I'm familiar roughly with counter points, I try to find a well written example of those points regardless of the source.
More on point: Japan's problems started well before they started trying to get their budget under control, so you can't reasonably blame all of their issues on the cuts. You can make a hand wavey "They stopped just before all that government spending would have saved them", but that's one of those unprovable assertions that are oh so very common and totally useless at the same time. The counter argument, that all that spending temporarily propped up businesses until that spending stopped, at least has some sort of correspondence with actual events even though it's also basically unprovable.
Who vetted Krugman's argument before it was published in the New York Times, since you claim that happened?
Blaming Japaneese spending cuts for their issues in the 90's is problematic.
Let me be clear: the constitution is not the end all be all of protecting freedom. Please do not assume motivations on my part. It remains true that gridlock mostly serves to protect freedom, and that the constitution as written helped make it possible. There is nothing inherently pro-freedom about democracy (although it's better than monarchy). The two are not synonymous. Having been passed by a pure party line vote (actually, opposition was a little bipartisan), using procedural tricks, it has very little legitimacy compared to things such as the Iraq war. Play political hardball to get something passed, and it's going to be subject to every sort of political trick people can dream up to get rid of it when the opposition gains power. As, in fact, they did in the immediate following election.