> I don't know why Republicans are so blind to the black and white numbers

I'm not a Rep or a Dem. I did vote for Clinton and Obama. That's irrelevant, so get your panties unbunched.

The sources you cited are about as credible as the CBO, which I can confidently say, hasn't been credible since Clinton came to office (maybe before, but I wasn't able to cross reference facts earlier). Bush and Obama have also had their way with it, so it's no big deal anymore. While everyone in finance is very much aware (despite the feeble talk about job or spending or any CBO report influencing the stock market), somehow political bulls seem to keep relying arguing over fiction. This is the American way of socialization. Repeat the same myths until a generation has passed and the lies become truth.

I'm not sure why people can't remember or don't actually comprehend one of the most obvious lies made by a Democrat (before Obama).

> Clinton actually got us to a budget *SURPLUS* briefly, but GW Bush took care of that!

Clinton laid out a plan toward a surplus, given the government made specific budgetary changes, including not increasing spending for 7 years. I can give the government a surplus too. Cut government spending by 100% There I just did it with the same optimism and power as he had to enact it (at the end of his second term).

> he was talking complete bollocks, but continue to talk bollocks. That doesn't change the reality.

That's right, it doesn't change the reality. Please present ANY evidence to the assertion that CCTV is used (even selectively) to apprehend criminals based on Citizen reports and requests for review. I would be very interested in what doesn't exist, because that is not what the CCTV is used for. CCTV is largely run by private contract, so there are fees associated with obtaining footage for investigatory purposes. It's not in the budget to chase down personal property theft...outside of vehicles and government property and vicious crimes where they are obligated to remit the relatively bad recordings by existing policy.

Studies conducted on CCTV after 2000, when there was data to be had:

Assessing the impact of CCTV (2005)
Data on London crime figures vs. number of cameras (2007 and the rehash Effects of Closed Circuit
Television Surveillance on
Crime - 2008)
CCTV and its effectiveness in tackling crime (2009 and rehashed in the aggregate review A review of recent published evidence
regarding the impact of CCTV on crime - 2009)
took about 10 minutes to find. The personal crime statistics, where they are referenced or exist, are of specific interest. Not that these show directly that there is a policy in ignoring citizen reports, but that there's evidence they are not acted upon.

Reliance on CCTV has led to falling numbers of arrests while crime rates have not changed significantly. The UK government is notorious for lying to it's own people (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-birth-rate-leaps-by-18-in-a-decade-9107483.html - magical!), so it's to be expected that some are so indoctrinated they actually believe any statistics now. You've supposedly lived in the UK through the period that CCTV has not been used for pursuing personal crime, so you're a liar or ignorant. Good luck.

> But lying about the uses it's put to isn't helpful.

> (Those personal crimes are not considered "important enough" to justify checking the video records.

He was specific and correct based on my experience in the UK of 2007.

Continue to troll away. That doesn't change the reality.

> Please explain typically means to give justification for a single statement

e.g. means "for example" (as opposed to i.e. "in other words")

When you said "please explain" it was not clear if you were not aware of the existing supporting documents and/or you wanted an explanation about how opinion pieces from that time "support" his argument. I gave a purely informative link because I certainly don't know what AC is thinking. I was just moderating and happened to see your post through +1 friend filter.

e.g. The Federalist Papers? - http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/docu...

> Did YouTube ever positively contribute to Google's bottom line?

Google bought youtube for about 1.6 Billion

Youtube annual revenue has been over that pricepoint for a few years. CPM on video has always been in dollars, not cents. CPAs frequently pass $10. With up to 3 ads per video, you can understand how google justified the first payments to content providers.

Ballpark numbers:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...

You seem ridiculously pessimistic for someone who hasn't done any research.

> The police in Canada would not arrest you for an un-returned video no matter how long you had it because it is an obvious civil matter to be resolved by small claims court

IANAL but you can read about how that's not what happened.

> Yes, you have broken the law, and the owner of the video can take you to court, but you can't go to jail unless you fail to return the video after losing your small claims case, and then you would be going to jail for contempt, not theft.

There was no small claims case, because there was no appearance in a filed report of theft. Maybe it would have been thrown out for improper venue (meaning go to small claims), but more likely the fees associated with non-returning for 2 years passes the $500 (or whatever maximum for that area) that Small Claims can arbitrate. The warrant was likely for failure to appear and summary judgement of guilt. There isn't enough information here to say definitively, but deduction gives a couple possibilities. Warrants are issued to ensure other localities can arrest and hold regardless of charges (which may not even apply in the locality they are apprehended). That's part of the purpose of a warrant. It says "this person is wanted for a crime somewhere else, bring them back to us". Warrants sometimes describe what the crime was, but often do not because it can be complicated (failure to appear as a subpoena'd witness to testify about a civil case against a public defender being at a strip club instead of in court for a 3rd party contempt case, etc.)...Where the warrant applies is always present.

You seem amusingly critical for not recognizing the basic flow of events or even understanding the subtleties of the US justice system. Nobody spent tax money to chase her down, she ended up in a police station and was nabbed for a warrant. Nothing in the video cassette case seemed improper.

> Keep in mind that it's hard to return a movie to a defunct video chain.

Keep in mind she was arrested for an outstanding warrant. Returning the video would not have invalidated that. She was released on her own recognizance.

>> That's a beautiful and inspiring speech, but nothing that you pointed out can be distilled down to X and Y chromosomes like sex can.

Um, that's exactly what he just did (2 of 3).

f(n) == true | false
ambient temperature > 32F
f(x) 1 for all born in USA

>> distilled down to X and Y chromosomes like sex can

You seem to be a bit ignorant about the topic you are arguing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

If I don't want to work on a project with an "expert", as part of my job, but I don't want to work on the project anymore because of something someone else is doing...I'd complain to my supervisor, then if I still wasn't happy, I would quit my job. If I wanted to keep my job (even if it was just to see them fail) I would manage to hobble through by doing the absolute minimum. It's not exactly controversial. How is this interesting enough to be a topic?

I've been around long enough to see ppl WHARGLBRGL about liberty all day long, but when it comes to protesting simple content inconsistency, we see total inaction. THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE NEWS FOR THIS SITE and wrongs of the past do not change that.

Please REPEAT.

This is NOT tech news.

This is NOT tech news.

> What's repugnant is to coerce a man in difficult financial position to sell parts of his body that are essential to his well being and survival.

This makes no sense as an argument. An open market legitimizes the ability to choose. The choice is still there NOW, without the proposed market (i.e. the choice is the black market today).

> How about picking the best tool for the job, rather than holding a popularity contest? Too old-fashioned?

How do you judge best tool for the job? That isn't an objective question. How would I know if Ruby is the right tool for me?

The more useful question is "what does the tool offer" and Ruby doesn't have much going for it. If you are using a tool that uses Ruby (like Gherkin), you have a compelling reason to use Ruby. The cost tradeoffs, for integrating one of the many equivalent languages, usually results in the language of least resistance. This doesn't bode well for that language as the primary driver for adoption...excepting when the language has no real competition, as happened with ECMAScript->javascript in the browser.

You want Ruby/Python/Go to become the most common language and last beyond your lifetime? Get the major browsers to integrate runtimes for those languages. What happened to browser development? Instead of speeding up rendering by 12% I would gladly trade the ability to write and serve client side code in Ruby and have Mozilla automatically (with permission) download a runtime for it. Even if the performance sucked or the features were hobbled.