I am utterly confused about that whole statement. Uber is worth more than Sony? People getting knocked out? I'm not sure what we're talking about right now.

I sort of get what the article is about based on the summary, but it is not appealing enough to warrant clicking on something (I have no idea where that link has been) that would explain the confusing summary.

I can see the physicist now, proudly standing on that wall ...

So much potential.

All this.

There are way too many applications I use that fail to do anything useful for multi-monitor setups. There's a few useful features like being able to resize window panels to customize my view better, but I want to be able to tear panels off and put them on a different monitor. To me, that is so vastly more important than just increasing resolution.

I currently use two monitors. One in landscape and one in portrait and I use them exactly how you'd expect, documents on the portrait screen, video/games/etc on the landscape screen. If I use Photoshop, it's great because I can use the landscape screen for the image and the portrait screen can hold all of my panels ... nice and out of the way. Unfortunately, this is one of the few suites that supports these tear-off panels. I have yet to find an IDE/coding environment that makes me happy in this regard (while also making me happy in others). If I could stand to use Eclipse, I would ... I just absolutely loathe it.

Dear Citizen,

We have received your complaint and have made a note to mention it at the Biannual Intrabureaucratic Government Legislative Institutional Engagement. Your concerns are our concerns. Let's discuss this further.

Sincerely,

Your loving Federal Overlord.

In the case of Pokerstars, just look up "Pokerstars rng".

Besides, this is poker, not some digital slot machine. You're not playing against the house.

Not only that, but consider that criminals in Colorado (and I'm sure Washington as well, but I can't speak for that) still consider marijuana an illicit substance worthy of criminal acts to attain and sell. We used to have the street folk in Denver hustling pot. That was their income. Now, nobody buys pot from the thugs on Colfax, because they can just go into a store and buy it. As a result, that guy on the corner of Colfax and Logan that always relied on drugs to put some food in his mouth now has to resort to other means.

What is he experienced with and what does he know? Drugs. Instead of hustling on the corner, though, now he is looking at maybe robbing a dispensary ... because hey! All that pot is worth a lot of money!

We're coming full circle here soon. I enjoy having pot be legal. What I don't enjoy is the nonsense of "legalization will reduce crime." That's just not so, since those criminals still view drugs as their choice of income and will commit the same (or potentially worse) crimes in the name of drugs. However, with enough time, the "Invisible Hand" will make its way to illicit pot dealers and they will find their market is dried up.

Now, had it never been illegal in the first place, I'm guessing we wouldn't be seeing this problem to the extent we have. It's just that the goal of reducing crime by legalizing drugs is going to take long enough to have an effect that it shouldn't be what we consider the main point of drug legalization. Our children's children will see the benefit of reduced crime from legalization, but we certainly won't. Criminals have relied on illegal drugs for so long that they are not willing to accept legalization at face value. To them, it's still the profitable item they have always dealt and they will continue the same criminal acts to attain it as they have in the past.

What's with all the questions, bro? You said you wanted to triple the cost of illegal workers which will result in much higher food prices. I never said anything about breaking the law. You simply mentioned that you wanted the labor cost to triple.

That's good. My family also owns a farm, though we are retail facing and only deal with plants. It's been in business for over 35 years and has always paid a fair wage for legal labor. Heck, we even (until just a few years ago during the '08 debacle) paid double time on Sundays. Yeah, that's right. We'd be open for six hours on Sunday and workers would be paid for 12. I'm curious how many employees you have. We have fluctuated between 20 in the winter to over 50 in the summer. Even with that many employees, it has always been manageable paying them a fair wage. Of course, it doesn't hurt that many of them are former illegals and that they are willing to perform the exhausting labor we require. In fact, the only white kids that have ever worked in the fields are myself and my brother (while at the same time being paid less than half what other workers were making). Nobody (outside of FFA circles) is going to send their kid to perform backbreaking labor in 100 degree sunshine all summer for minimum wage (or, in our case, less than minimum wage).

Of course, your small organic farm and my family's small retail nursery have very little to do with large food production farms that employ hundreds, if not thousands, with the goal of putting food on everyone's plate at a reasonable price. You ask me if violating the law is okay if the end result is cheaper prices. I'll humor you in that I'd believe that yes, it is okay if the circumstances warrant it. If the alternative is food that costs thrice what it does currently and the laborers that process that food can't even afford to buy it, then I'm all for violating the law. Not everyone is able to afford the luxury food items you're producing and I'm guessing there aren't too many people in the same wage bracket as your employees that are able to afford your products.

If the Tea Party were "center", there would have to be a drastic change of their agenda.

Personally, I believe a married gay couple should be able to grow marijuana on their property and defend it with guns. Which party is that again?

But, how will you eat? Are you okay with tripling the cost of food? Or would you be happier paying triple for your food if that meant your 16 year old nephew could get a summer job pulling weeds for $6/hour?

When I ask my gf about what she's doing at work (she's in research), she often tells me of studies that aim to prove something that is already known. If you give a rat X, it will result in Y. Literally, a majority of what she does sounds like the same things she did a year ago. We gave a rat X, and it resulted in Y.

So if you know what is going to happen already, and you've done this study before, why are you still studying the same thing? Is it because, "science is never settled?"

This sounds vaguely similar to a stance that would be adopted by the Roman-Catholic Church in regards to geocentrism.

... and the wars, I take it, are in the asteroid belt?

Anecdotes such as these remind me of how terrible of a military person I would have been.

I thank you for your service.

Pot is illegal in your jurisdiction? How quaint.