I'll buy that for a dollar!

Wait, no I won't.

I'm confused. Isn't Texas supposed to be the state of small government, balanced budgets, and personal responsibility?

Shouldn't they just be giving the kids guns and letting them sort it out themselves?

Individual doctors (or at least the ones I know) are all about simplifying the system and making it easier for people to get basic health care.

Health "Care" corporations (the ones who buy the lobbyists and pundits that we hear about on the news) are against simplifying the system, because if it were more profitable to provide decent health care to everyone, they'd already be doing it.

This isn't a moral judgement, it's just the way large corporations work, and it's why they shouldn't be in charge of providing essential services, at least not without significant safeguards.

All depends on your definition. The economy is growing, and by that measure, we're not in a recession. Of course, anyone who is unemployed or underemployed certainly feels like we're in a recession.

The problem is the national debt has little or nothing to do with this.

My school system published a no weapons policy in the early 90s. If I'd been a bit more of a troublemaker, I would have shown up one day with no books or pencils, because any of them could be used as a weapon.

It's nice to see that the bureaucracy has finally fulfilled its own stupidity.

I don't think this is actually a change for human society. (There were always far more peasants than aristocrats.) The difference is treating these individuals as equal, causing them to have far more impact on on how things are run. And many people would argue that isn't happening anyway.

Wouldn't a compliment imply that they were giving you credit? Now, if they commented on how lucky you were to have such well-mannered children, I could understand being upset.

I predict a level of success similar to that achieved by previous attempts to replace the qwerty scheme, even ones that were arguably better. At best, it will gain a small, rabid following, that will eventually end up putting off additional converts. Of course, it's far more likely it will simply slide into obscurity.

When my dad was in High School, he (mostly for fun) helped the school implement an attendance system where each homeroom class sent in the punch cards for the students who were present at the start of the day. Someone fed each card to the computer, and the attendance was tallied. (This was the same year he was guaranteed an "A" in his computer class on condition he stop showing up - gotta love the irony there.)

Of course, students carried the punch cards to the office, so it was easy enough to slip in a card for someone who hadn't attended.

It's actually somewhat comforting to think that, more than thirty years later, nothing has changed.

I think I'll hold out for one that lets me play Civ V.

It's fascinating that in the midst of all this spin, they haven't realized that calling it "piracy" is likely to encourage the demographic containing most software pirates, and started trying to call it something else.

A few years ago, they were running anti-piracy messages before movies in my area, and when the final text came up, saying something like "Don't Pirate Movies", most of the people in the theater would yell "ARRRRRRR!"

Calling it something awesome (not as awesome as ninjas, of course, but still awesome), and talking about how well the "pirates" are doing is just encouraging them!

It never ceases to amaze me how the company that SHOULD produce some of the best code in the world (given revenue and longevity) instead seems to almost invariable produce code based on the "quickest and cheapest" principle.

The best customer service in this case would be: "What does this malicious third-party code do that causes our software to crash, and how can we fix that bug permanently." Instead, as usual, they go with, "Oh, malicious third party code makes our software crash? No cake for you, then."

I wish I could say that decisions like this will lead to MS becoming marginalized, but history doesn't seem to bear that idea out either. Pity.

Ah, right, the OTHER Avengers movie... one of the few movies that even the presence of Sean Connery couldn't redeem.

The TV series, on the other hand, is worth a look.

Tony Stark appeared in Hulk without dying or killing anyone. There's nothing that says a few characters can't float through Avengers without changing anything, and it's a long-time precedent in comic books.

And yes, James Marsters can appear as anyone, even himself.

Ah, Ivanova.

I must spend a few hours repeating the B5 mantra now.