" And Windows 8 as is is ONLY oriented towards tablets"
false.

wrong.
Netflix pays for their bandwidth. I pay for mine. Now Verizon, AT&T and others want to get paid a third time.

" Netflix doesn't give a damned about Net Neutrality,"
And AT&T, doesn't? Verizon? Google?

"they care about money"
well dur. But both of those aren't opposite.
You notice companies that will make money either way are still jumping in and saying AT&T and verizon is wrong?

" They could change their business model tomorrow to one that wasn't crushing the ISP's infrastructure "
it' snot, and the people already pay the ISPs. IF they can't handles it, then they need to get the fuck out of the kitchen.

hey there.
Laptop can be used for gaming, just not 200 dollar ones. guess what? 200 dollar desktops also can't be used for gaming.
There are a lot of laptops that an run the newest games at the highest graphic levels.

I suspect you just like to hate MS and anything they change.
Tiles make accessing everything a lot easier.
Easier to search, 1 click access to everything I use even semi-regularly.
I don't want the start button back. I'ts baffling to me anyone would want it back, at best it's two additional clicks, at worse it led to hunting around looking for something.

Are you intentionally trying very hard to miss the point or did I switch on the chinese keyboard by accident?

Clinton's private life is neither here nor there. But even if you want to bring it on, it was an individual action, not a law passed in parliament. The thing we are talking about here, however, is.

Quite frankly, comparing the passing of a law with a private sex adventure is borderline crazy.

I didn't claim the law is the morality. I do claim that it is the expression of the will of society, more or less (i.e. taking imperfections in the system into account). The corporate policies of a multinational corporation, on the other hand, are not.

I like hulu plus. There are show wouldn't have found otherwise.
Sure, maybe you aren't interested in there subscription shows, but that doesn't make it bad. It makes it bad for you.

Brooklyn 99, Life on Mars to just name 2

I saw one state that we were down 12% over the 1997 peak (not 50%), with the number steady or growing since 2009.

At least it's not team sports, where the parents assault the coaches or referees when their children lose.

I remember having a cheap chess set in the '80s that did that. I don't know if it knew which piece was which, but it knew pieces were there. It even could play you, but you had to move the pieces for the "computer". This sounds like using the same thing that was cheap 30 years ago, so it doesn't sound hard at all. But TFA made it much harder than it had to be.

So you want to be sodomized? Not everyone else shares your preferences.

Compare it to goats. It fluctuates. Compare it to real estate. It fluctuates. Pick anything you want, and it fluctuates. It's most steady against things like silver, but even then, it fluctuates.

You are presuming that it's a bank processing the transactions. I am not.

And the safety equipment as a hole [sic] also results in a large number of lives saved. It's just that the lives saved in a non-crash incident are harder to count. The safety gear on a plane has passed the actuaries. Your other example (airbags) never did.

Yes, many many airbag generations later, they've tuned down the deaths. Though most of it was from getting people to not use them. From your cite: "Deaths are about 34 percent higher than expected among child passengers younger than 10."

Even in the "safer" "de-powered" airbags. They still kill thousands of children. The only safe airbag, is the airbag in the other guy's car.

I first started investigating them when a relative suffered eye damage and broken bones in her face from an airbag in a crash she'd have otherwise walked away from. They've gotten better, but they are a great example of a failed safety device. They kill more than they save, by governmental safety rules. They do directly kill smaller people (including short people, not just children). But they also wasted massive amounts of money that would have had a larger impact spent elsewhere. We'd be better off if airbags were never mandated.

Airbags were designed for one thing:
Save the life of an "Average" sized male who is unbelted in an otherwise fatal crash. If your crash isn't sufficient to kill you, you are better off without air bags than with. If you are wearing a seatbelt, you are better off without air bags than with. If you aren't an "average" sized male, then you are better off without air bags than with.

They are deliberately *not* designed for the most common crashes. Just the most severe ones, which are less common.

Have you seen all the safety gear in an F1 car? They survive crashes into hard walls at 200+ mph. And note, no airbags. Without the government forcing them, they are calculated to be a waste, and nobody "should" have them.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/0...
http://qz.com/127861/its-time-...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
http://fortune.com/2013/09/20/...
http://www.mhpbooks.com/indepe...

Those were just the first few results from a simple google search. Why is it that every time someone asks for a citation, the "proof" is the first hit from a simple google search? In this case: "number of bookstores in the USA".

So Clinton wasn't democratically elected because the house and senate didn't confirm him?

Those goalposts are moving so fast I can't keep up with your changing argument.

That's why I'm confused as to your assertion that the law is the morality. The law is the law, no more.