When the price of Amazon Prime and Netflix go through the roof while Hulu or some ISP video service get a big pricing and performance advantage, we will see how you feel.
As awful as Trump being president will be, I'm going to enjoy all the Trump supporters as it dawned on them just how much their little protest vote is going to fuck things up.
What was he going to say? "Look you simpering moron, my predecessor wasted billions of dollars on that very strategy, and it failed utterly. Go buy a Galaxy or iPhone for fuck's sake."
Or the fucking pricks can form their own sites. Of course fucking pricks don't have nearly as much fun harassing each other as they do harassing people who don't want to be harassed.
Absolutely correct. At its core, this crackpot theory doesn't even seem to understand what the Big Bang was. The whole point of Big Bang cosmology is that everything was, at the initial moment of the Big Bang at the same point. As to differences in CMBR temperature, those, along with the large scale structure of the observable universe are explained by quantum fluctuations in the early universe.
What this "theory" purports to explain has in fact been explained for decades. There are lots of mysteries in cosmology, but the general homogeneity with some temperature structural variation isn't among those mysteries.
Their kids will care, and will ask those Rust Belters "Why did you allow some fucking moron to screw things up, just because you didn't want to switch careers?"
1. The slave states did not secede because them thar evil Yankees wanted to end slavery within their borders, they seceded because they were losing the argument that the Western Territory, when it was carved into new states, should have an equal measure of slave states. They did this because within a few decades there would have been enough free states to push through an amendment abolishing slavery. Lincoln himself said that he would have retained slavery to end the Civil War, but would he would not do was allow slavery to be propagated beyond the states that already allowed it.
2. FDR didn't take office until 1933, by which time the depression was nearly four years on.
3. The Depression was caused by a lot of things, including a shitty gold-based currency, which the US wisely walked away. To blame the Federal Reserve alone is absurd.
It's hard to tell why you think you know so much when you don't even know the fundamentals of US history.
This message brought to by American Nazis for Trump. Tune in next week when AC Nazi describes how to build your own Zyklon B delivery system, to get rid of Liberals and people with Jewish-sounding names.
And yet the Constitution does afford the Federal government very wide powers. The IRS and the NSA aren't inherently unconstitutional agencies, even if they have been used in a fashion that many may interpret as unconstitutional. The Federal government has been doing things in ways seen as overreaching, if not outright unconstitutional since nearly the beginning (see the Alien and Sedition Acts). For chrissake, the Slave States seceded from the Union on the argument that Lincoln's election was going to lead to a massive violation of States Rights, and we all know who won that particularly argument, and, I'd argue, paved the way for the modern United States of America.
The Framers never intended that the Federal government be an impotent wart on the testicles that were the States. Quite the opposite, they had seen how an impotent Federal government in the form of the Articles of Confederation was inherently unstable and could have lead to the US flying apart, so they created a constitution that, while recognizing that internally the States did have considerable rights to oversee their own affairs, did not enjoy the sort of absolutist rights "purists" (by which I mean modern revisionists with little interest in anything the Founding FAthers may have intended) seem to believe. The Interstate Commerce Clause grants the Federal government vast powers over everything that crosses state lines (as you will note things like pollution do).
Further, if you read why the Articles of Confederation were such a failure, it was precisely because the Federal government had no power to tax, and relied upon the states, who became notorious rather quickly for not paying up, and it lead to serious currency issues. Then factor in that the idea of a central bank was first proposed by Alexander Hamilton, and the Bank Bill was passed in 1780 for the precise purposes of creating a Federally-controlled national bank to create stability.
What I'm guessing here is you know very little of the history of the UNited States, but have bought into a revisionist view as to what the Framers of the constitution and the earliest iterations of the Federal Government did to actually build a nation capable of not only sustaining itself, but enlarging its territorial and economic powers many times over. The US wouldn't exist as you recognized it if the Federal government didn't possess rather significant powers, including the powers of taxation, of having a central bank, and of being able to monitor and deal with enemies foreign and domestic.
None of that is to say that the Federal government always does right, or that citizens shouldn't demand it abide by the principles laid out in the Constitution. But the Framers were wise enough to create a series of checks and balances. They may not always work, or at least not work perfectly, but the US has endured civil and global wars with its system of government, to become the wealthiest and most powerful polity that has ever existed.
Except that wasn't the intent of the Framers, not at all. While certainly they didn't likely conceive of the enlargement of the Federal government on the scale even seen by Lincoln's time, they hardly intended the Constitution to be a dead document that reflected only their views. You can see they had even from the beginning at least some intent for a proactive federal government, as the Interstate Commerce Clause makes pretty clear. And since all the things you don't believe the Federal government should have any role in all can, and very often do, become activity between states, the very document you seem to believe should be interpreted Sola Scriptura gives the Federal government the authority to put regulations in place.
So what you really have here is your own inauthentic view of the Constitution and the proper role of the Federal government, one that, if it really existed at all, was rejected when the Confederacy lost the Battle of Appomattox Court House. But honestly, I doubt even many of the former Confederate politicians would have shared your interpretation of the Constitution, and it is my view that your interpretation is rootless, having no basis in either constitutional jurisprudence or even in the Framer's intentions. They had already had a Federal government of the kind you refer to, the aforementioned Articles of Confederation, and it was a miserable failure.
Judging by the REpublican President-Elect, is there any reason to think that the Republicans are anything but anti-environment. The man, on the face of it, appears to largely deregulate the energy sector. And what do you think much of that regulation deals with? That's right, pollutants and emissions. For chrissakes, even Reagan understood that regulation was necessary for a clean environment, and it was Nixon who brought the EPA into existence.
Many of these people have been happily voting in Republicans for years, if not decades, thus being party to their incomes being redirected to the wealthiest, so how could they meaningfully object now?
Hopefully Trump does a couple of good things as well, maybe actually getting Peter Thiel into SCOTUS, killing the EPA, reducing taxes (I am 100% for elimination of the IRS, Federal reserve bank and pretty much everything government does) but we'll see.
Roman_mir isn't merely debating how the Government should go about its business, or what it should or shouldn't do as per environmental or energy policy. He's basically arguing that he wants eliminating pretty much everything government does. So I'd say it's pretty damned fair to say he's opposed to the US Constitution as set out by the Framers, hence my observation that something like the Articles of Confederation would be more to his liking.
He'll pick the option that generates short-term revenue. The costs in the medium and long term of basically allowing all emissions to run amuck with little in the way of federal regulations will be astronomical, but I guess for a 70 year old guy worth billions of dollars, who the fuck cares? His kids will never want for anything, so they can buy fresh spring water and move to nicer climes, so basically selling the future off in return for short term gains probably is a great idea.
You strike me as the kind of person who probably believes the Articles of Confederation where a better constitution than the US Constitution.
But yes, completely destroying the Federal Government and allowing polluters and emitters free reign will just be such a boon to America. Yeah, lots of people will die from environmental poisoning, and climate change will increase its pace, costing everyone huge amounts of money in everything from higher food costs to much higher insurance premiums, but all that really counts is that your ideology wins some sort of weird hypothetical political war.
First of all, Cygwin is just horribly slow and klunky. Second of all, it doesn't give you access to WMI objects and the like, at least not in any sane way that I'm aware of.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, "racist white male" is not a group unjustly persecuted.
We are talking about a private company creating policies for posting content. Don't like those policies, create your own site.
You believe you represent a majority?
Yawn
When the price of Amazon Prime and Netflix go through the roof while Hulu or some ISP video service get a big pricing and performance advantage, we will see how you feel.
As awful as Trump being president will be, I'm going to enjoy all the Trump supporters as it dawned on them just how much their little protest vote is going to fuck things up.
So Microsoft should invest even more money into a huge money losing platform?
What was he going to say? "Look you simpering moron, my predecessor wasted billions of dollars on that very strategy, and it failed utterly. Go buy a Galaxy or iPhone for fuck's sake."
A current version of FBReader would be nice
Translation: Developers won't touch it, but who those stupid apps anyways because it's so great because.... um...
Or the fucking pricks can form their own sites. Of course fucking pricks don't have nearly as much fun harassing each other as they do harassing people who don't want to be harassed.
Absolutely correct. At its core, this crackpot theory doesn't even seem to understand what the Big Bang was. The whole point of Big Bang cosmology is that everything was, at the initial moment of the Big Bang at the same point. As to differences in CMBR temperature, those, along with the large scale structure of the observable universe are explained by quantum fluctuations in the early universe.
What this "theory" purports to explain has in fact been explained for decades. There are lots of mysteries in cosmology, but the general homogeneity with some temperature structural variation isn't among those mysteries.
Then you'd better tell your kids to forget manufacturing. It's a dead end.
Just because you can't get laid...
Their kids will care, and will ask those Rust Belters "Why did you allow some fucking moron to screw things up, just because you didn't want to switch careers?"
You're so out to lunch, you're not even wrong.
A couple of observations:
1. The slave states did not secede because them thar evil Yankees wanted to end slavery within their borders, they seceded because they were losing the argument that the Western Territory, when it was carved into new states, should have an equal measure of slave states. They did this because within a few decades there would have been enough free states to push through an amendment abolishing slavery. Lincoln himself said that he would have retained slavery to end the Civil War, but would he would not do was allow slavery to be propagated beyond the states that already allowed it.
2. FDR didn't take office until 1933, by which time the depression was nearly four years on.
3. The Depression was caused by a lot of things, including a shitty gold-based currency, which the US wisely walked away. To blame the Federal Reserve alone is absurd.
It's hard to tell why you think you know so much when you don't even know the fundamentals of US history.
This message brought to by American Nazis for Trump. Tune in next week when AC Nazi describes how to build your own Zyklon B delivery system, to get rid of Liberals and people with Jewish-sounding names.
And yet the Constitution does afford the Federal government very wide powers. The IRS and the NSA aren't inherently unconstitutional agencies, even if they have been used in a fashion that many may interpret as unconstitutional. The Federal government has been doing things in ways seen as overreaching, if not outright unconstitutional since nearly the beginning (see the Alien and Sedition Acts). For chrissake, the Slave States seceded from the Union on the argument that Lincoln's election was going to lead to a massive violation of States Rights, and we all know who won that particularly argument, and, I'd argue, paved the way for the modern United States of America.
The Framers never intended that the Federal government be an impotent wart on the testicles that were the States. Quite the opposite, they had seen how an impotent Federal government in the form of the Articles of Confederation was inherently unstable and could have lead to the US flying apart, so they created a constitution that, while recognizing that internally the States did have considerable rights to oversee their own affairs, did not enjoy the sort of absolutist rights "purists" (by which I mean modern revisionists with little interest in anything the Founding FAthers may have intended) seem to believe. The Interstate Commerce Clause grants the Federal government vast powers over everything that crosses state lines (as you will note things like pollution do).
Further, if you read why the Articles of Confederation were such a failure, it was precisely because the Federal government had no power to tax, and relied upon the states, who became notorious rather quickly for not paying up, and it lead to serious currency issues. Then factor in that the idea of a central bank was first proposed by Alexander Hamilton, and the Bank Bill was passed in 1780 for the precise purposes of creating a Federally-controlled national bank to create stability.
What I'm guessing here is you know very little of the history of the UNited States, but have bought into a revisionist view as to what the Framers of the constitution and the earliest iterations of the Federal Government did to actually build a nation capable of not only sustaining itself, but enlarging its territorial and economic powers many times over. The US wouldn't exist as you recognized it if the Federal government didn't possess rather significant powers, including the powers of taxation, of having a central bank, and of being able to monitor and deal with enemies foreign and domestic.
None of that is to say that the Federal government always does right, or that citizens shouldn't demand it abide by the principles laid out in the Constitution. But the Framers were wise enough to create a series of checks and balances. They may not always work, or at least not work perfectly, but the US has endured civil and global wars with its system of government, to become the wealthiest and most powerful polity that has ever existed.
Except that wasn't the intent of the Framers, not at all. While certainly they didn't likely conceive of the enlargement of the Federal government on the scale even seen by Lincoln's time, they hardly intended the Constitution to be a dead document that reflected only their views. You can see they had even from the beginning at least some intent for a proactive federal government, as the Interstate Commerce Clause makes pretty clear. And since all the things you don't believe the Federal government should have any role in all can, and very often do, become activity between states, the very document you seem to believe should be interpreted Sola Scriptura gives the Federal government the authority to put regulations in place.
So what you really have here is your own inauthentic view of the Constitution and the proper role of the Federal government, one that, if it really existed at all, was rejected when the Confederacy lost the Battle of Appomattox Court House. But honestly, I doubt even many of the former Confederate politicians would have shared your interpretation of the Constitution, and it is my view that your interpretation is rootless, having no basis in either constitutional jurisprudence or even in the Framer's intentions. They had already had a Federal government of the kind you refer to, the aforementioned Articles of Confederation, and it was a miserable failure.
You do understand that the universe doesn't give a flying fuck about your political beliefs, right?
Judging by the REpublican President-Elect, is there any reason to think that the Republicans are anything but anti-environment. The man, on the face of it, appears to largely deregulate the energy sector. And what do you think much of that regulation deals with? That's right, pollutants and emissions. For chrissakes, even Reagan understood that regulation was necessary for a clean environment, and it was Nixon who brought the EPA into existence.
Many of these people have been happily voting in Republicans for years, if not decades, thus being party to their incomes being redirected to the wealthiest, so how could they meaningfully object now?
Did you read the parent's post?
Roman_mir isn't merely debating how the Government should go about its business, or what it should or shouldn't do as per environmental or energy policy. He's basically arguing that he wants eliminating pretty much everything government does. So I'd say it's pretty damned fair to say he's opposed to the US Constitution as set out by the Framers, hence my observation that something like the Articles of Confederation would be more to his liking.
He'll pick the option that generates short-term revenue. The costs in the medium and long term of basically allowing all emissions to run amuck with little in the way of federal regulations will be astronomical, but I guess for a 70 year old guy worth billions of dollars, who the fuck cares? His kids will never want for anything, so they can buy fresh spring water and move to nicer climes, so basically selling the future off in return for short term gains probably is a great idea.
You strike me as the kind of person who probably believes the Articles of Confederation where a better constitution than the US Constitution.
But yes, completely destroying the Federal Government and allowing polluters and emitters free reign will just be such a boon to America. Yeah, lots of people will die from environmental poisoning, and climate change will increase its pace, costing everyone huge amounts of money in everything from higher food costs to much higher insurance premiums, but all that really counts is that your ideology wins some sort of weird hypothetical political war.
First of all, Cygwin is just horribly slow and klunky. Second of all, it doesn't give you access to WMI objects and the like, at least not in any sane way that I'm aware of.