You try so desperately to connect those two unrelated concepts; apparently under the belief that you can force them into association by repetition alone. I would point out to you that there were actually people from the original occupy (wall st.) movement who actually wanted to run against President Lawnchair but I don't expect that would slow you down any.

The absurd analogy in your silly hashtag is absurd because you are trying to - by repetition and hand-waving alone - convince people that the two concepts are related. Now, if you wanted instead to make an argument that neither have been effective, you would have a case. However you have given plenty of reason to expect that is not the case you are trying to make.

Really? The GOP has brought to a vote in the house - by one mechanism or another - over 30 different attempts to kill off (in whole or in part) the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. If they knew that those weren't going to pass, then did they bring them to a vote intentionally to slow down what little congress was doing?

I would be genuinely interested in knowing why you are so sure of this. I don't expect that you will share that information, but I would love to know it. So far you have presented a laundry list of conspiracy theories about the POTUS but not once have you presented anything resembling a fact that would support your ambitions to throw him out.

So, then, ~35% of the public - or 80%+ of your own party - supporting impeachment are sufficient in your mind to venture down this road? Not many people would ordinarily consider such a group to be an accurate assessment of "the public".

If the GOP are invertebrates, then the democrats are - at most structurally - pond scum. They haven't stood for much of anything as a party in over a decade.

... but yet you still support going for it. You still insist that there is a case for it.

... and there's the racist card being played again. It did take you a while to go for it, but not long enough for congratulations to be in order.

At least I clicked on it. Not my fault it didn't work. What I did was still more than you have done to attempt to fill in your cavernous gaps of knowledge.

I'm sure someone's crunched the numbers and this makes sense on paper, but seriously? Porting to Itanium before x86? I know HP wants to prop up its teensy niche CPU server line, but I just can't see how to justify that. Who's going to migrate software from old VMS systems to a new one on very highly vendor-locked hardware? It seems like anything likely to ever be updated before the heat death of the universe would probably have made the jump to Linux-on-x86 years ago.

Yep. Their Code of Ethics says:

1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent.

Violation of copyrights, patents, trade secrets and the terms of license agreements is prohibited by law in most circumstances. Even when software is not so protected, such violations are contrary to professional behavior. Copies of software should be made only with proper authorization. Unauthorized duplication of materials must not be condoned.

I don't pirate software. I pay for the stuff I use when required. However, I damn sure don't respect software patents or nebulous "terms of license agreement" EULA bullshit. I'll honor them as mandated by law to keep me and my employer out of trouble (although every programmer reading this has probably violated 3 stupid patents today in the course of their job). And while the RIAA doesn't "authorize" me to rip CDs I've bought, I'm legally entitled to do so and will at my convenience.

I think my views are pretty mainstream among programmers. If the ACM wants me to join, they need to remove the requirements for me to worship pro-corporate, anti-citizen, rent-seeking behavior. I can't ethically consent to support their unethical Code of Ethics.

I don't think a EULA - even if found enforceable, which isn't a given - is carte blanche to destroy someone's livelihood.

My wife's a doctor and we recently moved to a new state with very protectionistic licensing policies. For example, you're required to have passed the medical boards within the last ten years. Doesn't matter if you're a professor of medicine at Harvard: you had to have passed the boards recently. You know, the ones new doctors take in their senior year of med school when they've been doing nothing but studying for the last for years straight and it's still fresh in their minds. So my wife, who's owned a successful practice for the last (more than 10) years had to pass the given-every-6-months test that determines whether she gets to keep doing the job that she's an expert at.

I'm writing this in sympathy for your situation, and to let you know that it apparently sucks for lots of professions. Your wife's not in it alone, and as someone who went through your role in the situation: I feel your pain. Best of luck to both of you!

I don't know about that. Say the average first year lawyer makes $60,000 (pulled directly from my butt; I have no idea what the actual number is and don't care to look). Suppose that 80% of bar takers pass the exam. That means the expected income for the next six months of a random person taking the bar is 60K * .8 * .5 = 24K. This is the number that a good lawyer could convince a judge (who is a lawyer) that these young, brilliant, aspiring lawyers should be compensated by the testing firm (who is not a lawyer).

That's not shabby pay for a fresh graduate sitting around (ahem, studying!, ahem) until the next testing period rolls around.

I'm almost certain that a company which just screwed over a bunch of protolawyers will allow free re-testing for those involved. It would probably turn very, very ugly for them if they didn't. Test takers will have to pay for travel again, which is probably significant for many of them, but they won't have to pay for test prep and fees again.

ICANN's primary objective - at least for the last 10 or so years - has been profit maximization. They have done everything they can to help registrars make more money without concern for the long-term consequences of atrociously bad decisions (such as selling gTLDs).

A pass for, or to do, what exactly? He hasn't exactly done much since. Not that he did a whole lot before...

So then are you done calling for impeachment? Even if both chambers are deep red as a result of this election, impeachment won't lead to removal before the end of Obama's term. A deep red house and senate could repeal the bailout - but they won't because their owners won't let them - and potentially pass veto-proof bills if the majority is great enough. But if their goal is to more (more) nothing, they don't need any chance in either chamber to pull that off; they've exceeded at nothing for years now.

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. I suspect it is sarcasm, but as it is also utterly fact-free I'm not sure where it comes from (other than your usual collection of conspiracy theories).

I couldn't get the article to load, it appeared that your favorite website was too busy trying to do who-knows-what to my computer (good thing I don't run windows) with their scripting. Based on the headline it looks like there is at least one columnist there who has a vague clue as to what is going on and what the bill was all about.

There is plenty of fundraising coming about on both sides with this. The point though is as much as the GOP loves to distort reality on a regular basis and has no qualms about lying to the public, this is an exceptionally blatant case of the latter. There is a long list of republicans who have been shouting for impeachment in DC for some time (some almost as long as you!) and now the orders passed down to them from above are to lie about ever demanding it, and to make that lie everywhere they possibly can.

This isn't like denying that they have made dozens of attempts in the house to repeal the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 - at least with that they can cowardly hide behind the fact that some of their repeal attempts were partial rather than full - this is just an outright party-wide lie. It just happens to work for them because they have legions of donors who are dumb enough to either believe it or not mind it.

Of course, they aren't really trying to push through impeachment under the guise of improving "credibility"...

You're rolling the dice regardless. It matters not whether your plan is a phone, a bat, a gun, or something else entirely. Guns are not 100% effective; even if you regularly practice with your gun it can still jam or misfire. You just have to decide which level of risk is acceptable to you. I personally find a bat to be an acceptable trade off as the likelihood of it accidentally killing an innocent person in my home is quite nearly zero. You might apply a different calculus to the matter.

There have been bands of criminals working together in the past as well. Even in the city closest to my home they are even more exceedingly rare than armed individuals breaking into homes - and the town where I live hasn't even had an unarmed robbery in a very very long time.

That is a possibility. I happen to be several inches above average in height myself; while I don't have enough mass to scare people just by size if I am holding something that could hurt I expect people will take notice (unless I'm being robbed by an exceptionally tall person*).

Might be worth a try, as long as they don't think it's some kind of cosplay or BDSM toy.

*I don't have an explanation for why, but exceptionally tall people don't seem to partake in much criminal activity - at least according to the crime reports I read. The vast overwhelming majority of crime reports I see report suspects in the 5'7" - 6' range in height. Granted, that is where most of the population is height-wise in this area, but if criminal activity was distributed proportionally by height I should have seen some dwarves and some giants commit some acts by now but I haven't seen any yet. I don't know if it is that people outside the mid quartile in height distribution are aware that they are easier to pick out of a line-up, or if witnesses just aren't particularly good at describing height, or something else is at play here.

Either way I do see my height as being advantageous if I should need to attempt to defend myself or my family with a bat at home. If I were short I would likely consider a different approach.

While I think that Jackson is an opportunistic jackass, resorting to racial epithets is completely unnecessary and only serves to undercut your message. Be better than this. You owe it to your society and yourself.