I would upvote if I could AC. But I would add, that to some people, killing people different than us is a good enough reason to kill our own soldiers too.
I didn't realize the purpose of the government was to make money. I agree the budget should be balanced. But still, the government at it's core should be a non-profit organization.
Well, I understood his argument to mean that the cheaper H1b visa workers were the equivalent to slaves in the current technology field. The steam engine and robots were the science that was stifled, not the part doing the science. The innovation is pursued by interested human beings with problems to overcome and efficiency to maximize.
I concur it is a strained metaphor, but the idea is that by using cheap foreign labor, the 'science' industry is stagnating because they pay people to show up to do their project, and nothing more. Pay more for innovations and interested parties who end up working harder, and the science grows by leaps and bounds. Again, I'm not clarifying things much I'll admit, but my point is that the steam-engine was the innovation that was stagnant, not the thing doing the innovating.
And you are arguing that logical fallacy definitions can be applied to opinions. If you want to get pedantic, "A ton of people disagree with you." if you assume the average male gamer weighs 200 pounds (a generous estimate) then it only takes ten people who have believed there are 24 games made in the past year for this to be factually correct.
Either way, the first poster was stating an opinion on the quality of games, the next was stating an observation that others hold a different opinion. I'm afraid you are on the wrong side of this argument AC.
For what it's worth, that's a good point. However, one or two success stories does not a free market economy make. You name me any current economy that operates as a true free market. They don't exist, because monopolies and price fixing are the natural result of the free market. Larger companies will almost always out-compete, out-price, and out-advertise smaller companies, almost.
Oh, and to the guy who suggested they use money on Star Trek in a few episodes therefore a free market economy is easily attainable... do you really think that argument makes any sense at all? It was an example of an idea, everyone knew what I was suggesting. Bit of a red herring there what?
And once you create this competition, I will be the first to sign up for your cheaper, unlimited bandwidth. The free market is as much an idealized unattainable as the Star Trek no money communism utopia. It is great, in theory, but simply put, the cost of entry into most markets is too high, and thus a truly free market will never exist, because those in the market want to keep competition to a minimum.
Pretty much the same thing can be said about democracy I suppose.
If I'm being held responsible for the charges after disputing them in both cases? Then obviously it would be more trouble for ME if the thief is spending the bank's money. I have to pay interest on that. Therefore I'm out more of MY money than if they had just spent my money to begin with.
Now, if I'm not being held responsible, I get the money back or I get the charges cancelled in either case, and neither case stands out as better. So in this situation, the logic points to the fact it is better if they steal a debit card than a credit card.
Also, if you choose 'credit' when you use your debit card somewhere, you are covered by all the bank's anti-fraud protections and money back protections as if you had used an actual credit card. It's smart, and it is free, you should do it.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, for what it's worth, I was highly disappointed on how the Baltar/Six/Roslin/Boomer dream premonition eventually panned out. All those seasons of worry and foreboding for a conversation on the bridge? Damn. Still a helluva fine show, but damn.
Also, Stargate Universe is a show I love despite my better judgement.
Just out of curiosity, isn't storing two iPads in the car the same sort of conundrum? And if you mean to remove the iPads every time you leave your car, why can't you do that with a dvd wallet?
I'm not sure if you read the article or not.. but that is EXACTLY what they did. Problem was, when the DLC was purchased it drove the total cost of the game over the original cost of a full retail brand new game.
George Bush did that? He once asked a single Democrat to formulate a bill? In eight years? Wow, he's a friggin peacemaker in the vein of Jesus himself. And Obama hasn't asked Republicans in on one in the ENTIRE 14 months he's been in office? Man, screw that guy, he must just be an asshole.
You seem to hate them because they actually hire people who aren't liberals. Apparently "non-biased" means "100% liberal".
Well, by your own account, Fox is unbalanced because "they hire people who aren't liberals". So by excluding anyone but conservatives they are therefore unbalanced.
If Fox were balanced, there would be equal numbers of conservatives and liberals liking Fox news, because both sides would be given. Also, there would be equal numbers of both groups hating Fox news for the same reason. Since that is not the case, Fox is obviously biased and unbalanced. You can find plenty of conservatives who like CNN, and plenty who hate it. Same goes for liberals.
It's almost like, if conservatives repeat something long enough, it becomes truth. If saying it once doesn't work, say it a thousand times, and shout down (and mod down) anyone with differing viewpoints.
I'm guessing you are a troll, but in the unlikely chance that you are not....
If this was purely an ideological debate, are you seriously suggesting that every single Republican in Congress has EXACTLY the same feelings on ALL the proposals made by Democrats?
Seriously? Are they clones? Pure copies somehow of each other? How many Republicans have voted for any bill Democrats have put forward? To suggest there is not an institutional obstructionism on the part of Republicans is either very blind or pure lies.
I'm so tired of Republicans acting all put-upon and oppressed. You honestly... HONESTLY.. suggest, that the Republican run Congress of the Bush years was somehow MORE bi-partisan than the leadership of this congress? What exactly did they give the democrats during those eight years? A middle finger and a shit-sandwich. That's what.
Jesus, cry me a river Conservatives.
Amen, I'm 32 and I'm convinced the reason I feel like I'm fifty is because I"m doing something I may not love, just for the paycheck, and all the days seem to blend together. I think you've hit it right on the head.
Check out some of the Bolo series of books sometime. It is about AI driven tanks that have to save humanity's ass several times from the near future to eons in the future. They will literally spend two or three pages going over the thought process of the AI as it decides it's course of action, meanwhile counting throughout: 25 milliseconds have passed..... 49 milliseconds have passed.... 78 milliseconds until estimated impact... and two pages later you find out half a second has passed.
They really are an excellent, if popcorn and coke flavored, sci fi series of books.
IMHO his understanding may be right, but it is by design the politics and social stuff is out of sync with the technological stuff. SF has to tell a story first and foremost, and the best, easiest way to do that is to use social and political hooks. Everyone with a primal monkey brain gets that stuff. But also, the reason a lot of this stuff has '1950s society in the future, or current politics of war.. in the future!' is because a large portion of SF is also meant as commentary on a way of thinking, not necessarily to wow and amaze you with technological wonderment.
Good, classically written SF takes a lot of social norms of the time, and tosses them down a slippery slope into the future. In order to make a valid comment on the current social structure in your book set in the future, you have to put an often archaic social structure in an advanced society.
Slashdot Mirror
I would upvote if I could AC. But I would add, that to some people, killing people different than us is a good enough reason to kill our own soldiers too.
Why are you a Muslim apologist? Because every single one of them is against Israel occupying the lands of Jordan,,,,
Way to make people completely dismiss your entire post in the first two sentences. Go you.
I didn't realize the purpose of the government was to make money. I agree the budget should be balanced. But still, the government at it's core should be a non-profit organization.
Well, I understood his argument to mean that the cheaper H1b visa workers were the equivalent to slaves in the current technology field. The steam engine and robots were the science that was stifled, not the part doing the science. The innovation is pursued by interested human beings with problems to overcome and efficiency to maximize.
I concur it is a strained metaphor, but the idea is that by using cheap foreign labor, the 'science' industry is stagnating because they pay people to show up to do their project, and nothing more. Pay more for innovations and interested parties who end up working harder, and the science grows by leaps and bounds. Again, I'm not clarifying things much I'll admit, but my point is that the steam-engine was the innovation that was stagnant, not the thing doing the innovating.
And you are arguing that logical fallacy definitions can be applied to opinions. If you want to get pedantic, "A ton of people disagree with you." if you assume the average male gamer weighs 200 pounds (a generous estimate) then it only takes ten people who have believed there are 24 games made in the past year for this to be factually correct.
Either way, the first poster was stating an opinion on the quality of games, the next was stating an observation that others hold a different opinion. I'm afraid you are on the wrong side of this argument AC.
For what it's worth, that's a good point. However, one or two success stories does not a free market economy make. You name me any current economy that operates as a true free market. They don't exist, because monopolies and price fixing are the natural result of the free market. Larger companies will almost always out-compete, out-price, and out-advertise smaller companies, almost.
Oh, and to the guy who suggested they use money on Star Trek in a few episodes therefore a free market economy is easily attainable... do you really think that argument makes any sense at all? It was an example of an idea, everyone knew what I was suggesting. Bit of a red herring there what?
And once you create this competition, I will be the first to sign up for your cheaper, unlimited bandwidth. The free market is as much an idealized unattainable as the Star Trek no money communism utopia. It is great, in theory, but simply put, the cost of entry into most markets is too high, and thus a truly free market will never exist, because those in the market want to keep competition to a minimum.
Pretty much the same thing can be said about democracy I suppose.
Yes, MSM sounds like quite the profitable business to be in. Free market at work and all that.
If I'm being held responsible for the charges after disputing them in both cases? Then obviously it would be more trouble for ME if the thief is spending the bank's money. I have to pay interest on that. Therefore I'm out more of MY money than if they had just spent my money to begin with.
Now, if I'm not being held responsible, I get the money back or I get the charges cancelled in either case, and neither case stands out as better. So in this situation, the logic points to the fact it is better if they steal a debit card than a credit card.
Also, if you choose 'credit' when you use your debit card somewhere, you are covered by all the bank's anti-fraud protections and money back protections as if you had used an actual credit card. It's smart, and it is free, you should do it.
Yeah, for what it's worth, I was highly disappointed on how the Baltar/Six/Roslin/Boomer dream premonition eventually panned out. All those seasons of worry and foreboding for a conversation on the bridge? Damn. Still a helluva fine show, but damn. Also, Stargate Universe is a show I love despite my better judgement.
If you were born in the country... Just sayin.
Just out of curiosity, isn't storing two iPads in the car the same sort of conundrum? And if you mean to remove the iPads every time you leave your car, why can't you do that with a dvd wallet?
which is exactly what a commercial for what is apparently a lobbying group for HFCS put in a commercial. It's from corn=it's natural.
April Fool's Day. It could all just be a joke. After all, one of the few advantages the PS3 has over the 360 is the ability to install other oses
I'm not sure if you read the article or not.. but that is EXACTLY what they did. Problem was, when the DLC was purchased it drove the total cost of the game over the original cost of a full retail brand new game.
a week after posting this throwaway comment it got modded down from a one?. That's just embarrassing whoever threw their mod points away.
George Bush did that? He once asked a single Democrat to formulate a bill? In eight years? Wow, he's a friggin peacemaker in the vein of Jesus himself. And Obama hasn't asked Republicans in on one in the ENTIRE 14 months he's been in office? Man, screw that guy, he must just be an asshole.
You seem to hate them because they actually hire people who aren't liberals. Apparently "non-biased" means "100% liberal".
Well, by your own account, Fox is unbalanced because "they hire people who aren't liberals". So by excluding anyone but conservatives they are therefore unbalanced.
If Fox were balanced, there would be equal numbers of conservatives and liberals liking Fox news, because both sides would be given. Also, there would be equal numbers of both groups hating Fox news for the same reason. Since that is not the case, Fox is obviously biased and unbalanced. You can find plenty of conservatives who like CNN, and plenty who hate it. Same goes for liberals.
It's almost like, if conservatives repeat something long enough, it becomes truth. If saying it once doesn't work, say it a thousand times, and shout down (and mod down) anyone with differing viewpoints.
I was having this exact same thought. Man, the conservatives just bubbled out of the woodwork lately, gettin the floors all slimy.
I'm guessing you are a troll, but in the unlikely chance that you are not....
If this was purely an ideological debate, are you seriously suggesting that every single Republican in Congress has EXACTLY the same feelings on ALL the proposals made by Democrats?
Seriously? Are they clones? Pure copies somehow of each other? How many Republicans have voted for any bill Democrats have put forward? To suggest there is not an institutional obstructionism on the part of Republicans is either very blind or pure lies.
I'm so tired of Republicans acting all put-upon and oppressed. You honestly... HONESTLY.. suggest, that the Republican run Congress of the Bush years was somehow MORE bi-partisan than the leadership of this congress? What exactly did they give the democrats during those eight years? A middle finger and a shit-sandwich. That's what. Jesus, cry me a river Conservatives.
HuffPo has gotten more readable. I advise seeking it out when appropriate.
You are thinking of the Revolutionary war. The Civil war was the war between the states. Some four-score and seven years later.
Amen, I'm 32 and I'm convinced the reason I feel like I'm fifty is because I"m doing something I may not love, just for the paycheck, and all the days seem to blend together. I think you've hit it right on the head.
Check out some of the Bolo series of books sometime. It is about AI driven tanks that have to save humanity's ass several times from the near future to eons in the future. They will literally spend two or three pages going over the thought process of the AI as it decides it's course of action, meanwhile counting throughout: 25 milliseconds have passed..... 49 milliseconds have passed .... 78 milliseconds until estimated impact ... and two pages later you find out half a second has passed.
They really are an excellent, if popcorn and coke flavored, sci fi series of books.
IMHO his understanding may be right, but it is by design the politics and social stuff is out of sync with the technological stuff. SF has to tell a story first and foremost, and the best, easiest way to do that is to use social and political hooks. Everyone with a primal monkey brain gets that stuff. But also, the reason a lot of this stuff has '1950s society in the future, or current politics of war.. in the future!' is because a large portion of SF is also meant as commentary on a way of thinking, not necessarily to wow and amaze you with technological wonderment.
Good, classically written SF takes a lot of social norms of the time, and tosses them down a slippery slope into the future. In order to make a valid comment on the current social structure in your book set in the future, you have to put an often archaic social structure in an advanced society.