Not all the time, according to speakout.com, which I cannot paste due to Chrome, bah.
Yes, I know that can happen and has happened, but the point is it's a subjective hard-to-verify excuse. "Oh, I wasn't threatening, I was joking! He's just overreacting!"
Is that what htis is? Meh, probably not. Hence the "torn" part of my post. But I'd rather not, at some point, get threatened, have my threatener stopped short of something he might have done, and have him get off because he was "joking.";)
On one hand... it seems odd to get arrested, convicted, etc., for a joke.
On the other hand, saying "oh come on guys, it was just a joke!" seems like it could easily turn into the "insanity" plea. True in some cases, but easy to claim for pretty much anything.
You're saying that the current Office is "demonstrably worse" than the 1985 version? I am having a very hard time taking that seriously:) But, for argument's sake: please demonstrate.
Also, when you say "worse," what do you mean? More RAM usage? More disk usage? Performance? Usability? Functionality?
Current user interface on "windoze" is nice. I like it. Please define, objectively, "garbage," otherwise your anecdotal "I hate it!" is just as worthless as my anecdotal "I like it."
I could always one-up the anecdotal evidence argument: I am comparing to extensive gnome usage (Ubuntu 10.10) and limited kde 4x usage (Sabayon). I'm able to move around and quicker in Windows. I like the pinned-to-taskbar program thing. Jumplists are nice on occasion.
Well, I thought we were talking about tech, innovation, useful programs, etc. I didn't know you wanted only profitability. I am not sure how to measure some of their services, like the aforementioned Windows Live Mesh, in terms of profitability, since it is free.
Yes, they have subsidized other products, and yet still continue to make them and improve them. Sure, the Kinect thing isn't profitable yet... but was that the initial accusation? that MS's profitability had stagnated? Just because something isn't profitable doesn't mean it's not a good product.
As for "Windoze" 7 (your post a bit below this)... no, it's not a new product. Who said it was? Do you really want a completely new OS right now? Is a Linux distro trash, too, because it's not profitable and because it's an old operating system?
Windows 7 is an improvement. So far, in my anecdotal experience, it has outperformed XP, has better hardware compatibility, has some nice usability tweaks, is more stable, and appears to be more secure by default.
But to say it's stagnated is an overstatement. Windows 7 was decent. Windows Live Essentials is pretty decent (and free). Windows Live Mesh is pretty nice. That new kinect thing seems to have gotten favorable first impressions. Even IE 9 seems like it's going to be a huge improvement (perfect? of course not, but huge improvement).
Could they be better? Oh, definitely. Did they have rough years? Totally. Could they have done better? Of course. Are they actually "stagnated" right now? I don't really see that.
f(x) means that you start with x, do whatever "f" does to x, and end up with a different value at the end. So, if f(x) = x*2, then f(4) = 8.
That's pretty much the same thing that programming functions (or subroutines) do. You define what the function does to the given inputs, and return the value when you're done. Sure, programming functions are a bit more complex and you can do stuff without any inputs, etc., but the general idea is the same, isn't it?
I already posted this I thought... not sure where it went... I might be double posting. Bother.
The Roman Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception is the teaching that Mary was born without original sin. It is not the teaching of the virgin birth of Jesus.
The Roman Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception is the teaching that Mary was born without original sin. The "virgin birth," referring to Christ, is not the Immaculate Conception.
I disagree with the revenge-from-love. Perhaps the hate of one who caused the suffering is "motivated" by the love for the sufferer... but I don't think people want revenge (or become vengeful) simply because you love the sufferer. There is nothing you can do, out of love, for someone who died; but you can be moved to hate for the one who killed, and thus be moved to revenge.
And yes, revenge, according to the Bible, is not to be carried out personally.:)
I see a distinction between hate and apathy, yes. And if that were the legal distinction, I might be able to along with you...
But:
Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.
Also, some of what you describe (e.g., burglary) - isn't that differentiated with "pre-meditated?" And, lastly - how do you have "revenge" without hate? I don't think you can combine a desire for revenge with "apathy" terribly successfully.
Nor, IMO, can "gang wars" be completely apathetic. You don't tend to go to war unless you have some sort of... uh, negative passion (hate?) for the person you are warring against. However, I grant that there are times where you may not actually be feeling a distinct passion of "hate" - like you mention, contract killing or burglary.
But, here's the rub. I'm arguing about the current laws regarding "hate crimes." You appear to be arguing for the idea of "hate" crime. So it seems we may, in the end, agree on what "hate" crimes are. Perhaps I mistakenly thought you were defending the current implementation of "hate" crime laws.
Because, clearly, people murder other people while loving them.
If you want to call it something, call it "Racism Motivated Crime" or "Sexism Motivated Crime" or "Anti-Establishment Motivated Crime" or something like that.
Otherwise, it sounds like "hate" is something that happens when you're racist or sexist. Sure, hate happens then, but hate happens without racism, sexism, anti-academiaism, anti-establishmentism, etc. Hate can happen because you got in my way on the freeway.
(I'm not saying I hate people based on any of those things, just using myself as an example:))
You appear to disagree. Are you more left or more right?:)
I listen to NPR... in general, they seem to at least try to give both sides. It seems to me, though, that most of the commentators/show folks are somewhat more left than I am, and generally more supportive of, if I were to name a party, Democrats than Republicans. They also seem to have certain... issues/agendas that they do push, though they aren't necessarily conservative or liberal.
I fail to see how I was being partisan or sexist. I said nothing about her being a woman. And I didn't even say I was Republican or wanted to somehow defend the Republicans. Can't I be critical of something or someone in government without being accused of partisanship and sexism?
Yes, what she said is a fact; but I can cherry-pick statistics and prove my point shockingly close to an election that happens to be favoring the other party, too. Facts can be misused, misconstrued, twisted, and distorted, yet remain "true" facts. Truth has not become partisan; picking which truths and facts you use and how you use them has.
As for the budget review and whatnot... ok, so maybe the committee doesn't have direct control over the budget. On the other hand, how long has it been a Democrat-held (I only point fingers at Democrats right now because Feinstein, who was critical of this spending, is one) Congress? How much has the budget increased since then?
I believe it was 2006 when the Democrats gained the majority in the House and Senate. So, how much has the spending gone up in the last 4 years? Well, according to one link I posted, it's was around $44b in 2005 and around $50b in 2007. By 2010, it was $80b.
1998: ~$23b
2005: ~$44b
2007: ~$50b
2010: ~$80b
My point? A Democrat majorty in the house and senate, and by 2009, a Democrat House, Senate, and Presidency has not stalled the spending. It has essentially doubled since 2005. But that would point the fingers more at the Democrat-held Congress of the last 4ish years, whereas blaming it on the last "decade" automatically brings to mind the previous President and his party.
Is it still true? Yes. But it's misleading. A true fact used to shift blame for something her own party is apparently just as at fault in...
Generally, I agree. Frankly, I'm pretty conservative... especially fiscally... but I'd have to say I'm a bit more socially moderate than most "conservatives." But honestly... I'd rather have an honest centrist or even socialist-leaning than dishonest Republican/conservative/whatever. Unfortunately, it seems all the honest people get killed before they get to Washington or something.:P
There do seem to be some honest, genuinely nice "politicians." Like... two. Or something like that.
It looks like in 2005, it was $44 billion... so, presumably, between 2005 and the present, it doubled. According to one story, it was at $50 billion in 2007... meaning, from 2007 to present, it gained $30 billion? It seems hard to blame that on Bush and the Republicans, since that's only two years of Bush and no years of Republican SIC chairmanship.
It seems fairly clear that with "the last decade" they are trying to blame it on (who would've guessed?) Bush.
The chairs of the committee have been:
2009-2010: Feinstein (D)
2007-2008: Rockefeller (D)
2005-2006: Roberts (R)
2003-2004: Roberts (R)
2001-2002: Graham (D)
I wonder how much the budget went up from 2001-2003 and from 2007-present, since Democrats chaired it then? I find it hard to pin this down on either party...
My point is that we've had fewer accidental bomb issues than power plant issues... so technically, they're somewhat correct in fearing the plants more than bombs. Of course, that could be because we haven't been allowed to build many since the 70s:P
Slashdot Mirror
Not all the time, according to speakout.com, which I cannot paste due to Chrome, bah.
Yes, I know that can happen and has happened, but the point is it's a subjective hard-to-verify excuse. "Oh, I wasn't threatening, I was joking! He's just overreacting!"
Is that what htis is? Meh, probably not. Hence the "torn" part of my post. But I'd rather not, at some point, get threatened, have my threatener stopped short of something he might have done, and have him get off because he was "joking." ;)
On one hand... it seems odd to get arrested, convicted, etc., for a joke.
On the other hand, saying "oh come on guys, it was just a joke!" seems like it could easily turn into the "insanity" plea. True in some cases, but easy to claim for pretty much anything.
You're closing it wrong.
Oh, shoot, wrong product...
Uhhh. Me breaking into your house is simply "trespassing" now? Hum. I suppose taking your computer would be simply "borrowing without asking first" ;)
You're saying that the current Office is "demonstrably worse" than the 1985 version? I am having a very hard time taking that seriously :) But, for argument's sake: please demonstrate.
Also, when you say "worse," what do you mean? More RAM usage? More disk usage? Performance? Usability? Functionality?
Current user interface on "windoze" is nice. I like it. Please define, objectively, "garbage," otherwise your anecdotal "I hate it!" is just as worthless as my anecdotal "I like it."
I could always one-up the anecdotal evidence argument: I am comparing to extensive gnome usage (Ubuntu 10.10) and limited kde 4x usage (Sabayon). I'm able to move around and quicker in Windows. I like the pinned-to-taskbar program thing. Jumplists are nice on occasion.
Well, I thought we were talking about tech, innovation, useful programs, etc. I didn't know you wanted only profitability. I am not sure how to measure some of their services, like the aforementioned Windows Live Mesh, in terms of profitability, since it is free.
Yes, they have subsidized other products, and yet still continue to make them and improve them. Sure, the Kinect thing isn't profitable yet... but was that the initial accusation? that MS's profitability had stagnated? Just because something isn't profitable doesn't mean it's not a good product.
As for "Windoze" 7 (your post a bit below this)... no, it's not a new product. Who said it was? Do you really want a completely new OS right now? Is a Linux distro trash, too, because it's not profitable and because it's an old operating system?
Windows 7 is an improvement. So far, in my anecdotal experience, it has outperformed XP, has better hardware compatibility, has some nice usability tweaks, is more stable, and appears to be more secure by default.
I'm not going to defend all of MS.
But to say it's stagnated is an overstatement. Windows 7 was decent. Windows Live Essentials is pretty decent (and free). Windows Live Mesh is pretty nice. That new kinect thing seems to have gotten favorable first impressions. Even IE 9 seems like it's going to be a huge improvement (perfect? of course not, but huge improvement).
Could they be better? Oh, definitely. Did they have rough years? Totally. Could they have done better? Of course. Are they actually "stagnated" right now? I don't really see that.
Different, yes, but similar.
f(x) means that you start with x, do whatever "f" does to x, and end up with a different value at the end. So, if f(x) = x*2, then f(4) = 8.
That's pretty much the same thing that programming functions (or subroutines) do. You define what the function does to the given inputs, and return the value when you're done. Sure, programming functions are a bit more complex and you can do stuff without any inputs, etc., but the general idea is the same, isn't it?
Doesn't piratebay use other people's work to make a profit, though?
Because all the normal people try to get out of jury duty. ;)
I already posted this I thought... not sure where it went... I might be double posting. Bother.
The Roman Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception is the teaching that Mary was born without original sin. It is not the teaching of the virgin birth of Jesus.
The Roman Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception is the teaching that Mary was born without original sin. The "virgin birth," referring to Christ, is not the Immaculate Conception.
I disagree with the revenge-from-love. Perhaps the hate of one who caused the suffering is "motivated" by the love for the sufferer... but I don't think people want revenge (or become vengeful) simply because you love the sufferer. There is nothing you can do, out of love, for someone who died; but you can be moved to hate for the one who killed, and thus be moved to revenge.
And yes, revenge, according to the Bible, is not to be carried out personally. :)
I see a distinction between hate and apathy, yes. And if that were the legal distinction, I might be able to along with you...
But:
Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.
Also, some of what you describe (e.g., burglary) - isn't that differentiated with "pre-meditated?" And, lastly - how do you have "revenge" without hate? I don't think you can combine a desire for revenge with "apathy" terribly successfully.
Nor, IMO, can "gang wars" be completely apathetic. You don't tend to go to war unless you have some sort of ... uh, negative passion (hate?) for the person you are warring against. However, I grant that there are times where you may not actually be feeling a distinct passion of "hate" - like you mention, contract killing or burglary.
But, here's the rub. I'm arguing about the current laws regarding "hate crimes." You appear to be arguing for the idea of "hate" crime. So it seems we may, in the end, agree on what "hate" crimes are. Perhaps I mistakenly thought you were defending the current implementation of "hate" crime laws.
Because, clearly, people murder other people while loving them.
If you want to call it something, call it "Racism Motivated Crime" or "Sexism Motivated Crime" or "Anti-Establishment Motivated Crime" or something like that.
Otherwise, it sounds like "hate" is something that happens when you're racist or sexist. Sure, hate happens then, but hate happens without racism, sexism, anti-academiaism, anti-establishmentism, etc. Hate can happen because you got in my way on the freeway.
(I'm not saying I hate people based on any of those things, just using myself as an example :))
A cynical, angry, rude comedian. Just the person I want to tell me how I should live my life and whether or not I should vote.
Who would have thought he would attempt to justify his own non-voting by putting down those who do? Shocking.
You appear to disagree. Are you more left or more right? :)
I listen to NPR ... in general, they seem to at least try to give both sides. It seems to me, though, that most of the commentators/show folks are somewhat more left than I am, and generally more supportive of, if I were to name a party, Democrats than Republicans. They also seem to have certain ... issues/agendas that they do push, though they aren't necessarily conservative or liberal.
I fail to see how I was being partisan or sexist. I said nothing about her being a woman. And I didn't even say I was Republican or wanted to somehow defend the Republicans. Can't I be critical of something or someone in government without being accused of partisanship and sexism?
Yes, what she said is a fact; but I can cherry-pick statistics and prove my point shockingly close to an election that happens to be favoring the other party, too. Facts can be misused, misconstrued, twisted, and distorted, yet remain "true" facts. Truth has not become partisan; picking which truths and facts you use and how you use them has.
As for the budget review and whatnot... ok, so maybe the committee doesn't have direct control over the budget. On the other hand, how long has it been a Democrat-held (I only point fingers at Democrats right now because Feinstein, who was critical of this spending, is one) Congress? How much has the budget increased since then?
I believe it was 2006 when the Democrats gained the majority in the House and Senate. So, how much has the spending gone up in the last 4 years? Well, according to one link I posted, it's was around $44b in 2005 and around $50b in 2007. By 2010, it was $80b.
My point? A Democrat majorty in the house and senate, and by 2009, a Democrat House, Senate, and Presidency has not stalled the spending. It has essentially doubled since 2005. But that would point the fingers more at the Democrat-held Congress of the last 4ish years, whereas blaming it on the last "decade" automatically brings to mind the previous President and his party.
Is it still true? Yes. But it's misleading. A true fact used to shift blame for something her own party is apparently just as at fault in...
Generally, I agree. Frankly, I'm pretty conservative ... especially fiscally ... but I'd have to say I'm a bit more socially moderate than most "conservatives." But honestly ... I'd rather have an honest centrist or even socialist-leaning than dishonest Republican/conservative/whatever. Unfortunately, it seems all the honest people get killed before they get to Washington or something. :P
There do seem to be some honest, genuinely nice "politicians." Like ... two. Or something like that.
You decide like this:
1. Increasing debt means American public, in general, is unhappy with spending more.
2. Look for area where not-my-party has increased spending.
3. Decide it's bad.
4. Bonus points: be chair of committee so that you can imply that if your party remains in power, your party can fix it.
Source for the 2007 budget bit.
It looks like in 2005, it was $44 billion... so, presumably, between 2005 and the present, it doubled. According to one story, it was at $50 billion in 2007... meaning, from 2007 to present, it gained $30 billion? It seems hard to blame that on Bush and the Republicans, since that's only two years of Bush and no years of Republican SIC chairmanship.
It seems fairly clear that with "the last decade" they are trying to blame it on (who would've guessed?) Bush.
The chairs of the committee have been:
I wonder how much the budget went up from 2001-2003 and from 2007-present, since Democrats chaired it then? I find it hard to pin this down on either party...
Heh ... actually, it's pretty clear, IMO, if you read the Gospels. I think this is thread is mostly due to my communication errors :)
My point is that we've had fewer accidental bomb issues than power plant issues... so technically, they're somewhat correct in fearing the plants more than bombs. Of course, that could be because we haven't been allowed to build many since the 70s :P