Ok, granted the grabbing hand is a clue. So there is a clue that you can grab it, if you are despearately moving the mouse around and watching to see if it changes. Still not sure it qualifies for the term title bar though. No visible bar, and IIRC no title present.

Honestly, the deficit was almost entirely a creation of the recession. There is no evidence that anything the federal government has done actually improved or worsened the overall economic situation. Whatever models they might use, the comparison of actual unemployment rates to their projections with and without the stimulus proves that their models are wrong. I suspect the stimulus and TARP actually slowed the rate of recovery, but it's not actually provable without an alternate reality to check it against.

It's almost always wrong to responsibility for the state of the economy to the president. Party in control of congress is generally a better target, with caveats.

I would take issue with your description of deregulation as the cause, but it's a long discussion. It's not worth the effort at this point in time, so I'll just note that what you said is a vast simplification. Trying to determine the causes seems to be a bit of a rorshach test.

What title bar? I haven't seen any clue that the top of the app is something special that you can grab onto... Just another example backing up your point about it being hidden. It's not even in Microsoft's own tutorial for using windows 8.

Do you have a cite for opposing counsel admitting it was false? Your cite to wottsupwiththat a couple of comments above does NOT provide any mention of this. Probably because it didn't happen except in your fevered imagination. Mann's counsel withdrew the claim in an amended complaint.

I'll state for the record that some of the skeptics did in fact assume that the certificate he had was false, but that was NOT the only source for the assertion that he claimed to be a Nobel Prize recipient. It's a stupid little detail the placed in his original defamation claim, and like or not stupid little details are important in the court. That doesn't make his entire claim false, but it shouldn't be that hard for you to admit that he presented a false claim. Hell, an argument that he didn't understand the distinction sounds plausible to me, except he's never acknowledge that it was a false claim as far as I can see.

No, he didn't even do that much. Rand Simberg noted that Mann tortured and molested the data just as Sandusky had done with children. That doesn't mean he things the former is just as bad as the latter. Steyn specifically didn't fully agree with the comparison but linked to it.

Actually, his original lawsuit introduced a complaint for defaming a Nobel Prize Recipient. Legally, he made that claim. Hell, his FaceBook post about the suit still describes him as a co-recipient.

"...easier to act for what they claim is the collective good...". FTFY. Given their actual track record, communist regimes are absolutely terribly at determining what is actually for the common good and/or mostly just use that as a fig leaf to do what they want.

No. That is pure ad hominem. Try actually addressing arguments on their merits instead of going "La la la i can't hear you". Who the hell gives out insightful for an undeniable fallacy?

That study is presented in a fundamentally dishonest way. 0 TLDR version: It's deceitful to label that disagrees with any portion of the alarmist agenda (disliking a carbon tax for example) as a climate change denier. Taking all groups that fit under that broad category and totaling all of their funding regardless of what percent actually goes to climate issue magnifies the deceit.

You didn't say contributing to huge numbers, you said number one cause. You can only get there if you count someone with a $1,000 medical bill, $10,000 in credit card debt, and a $200,000 mortgage as being medically caused. When you find a straw that's breaking a camel's back, the straw really isn't the primary cause of the problem.

Only the first of the 4 listed proposals included an exchange, going by the article itself. Is it really that hard to accept that you were wrong on the facts regarding a claim that you decided was HUGELY IMPORTANT?

Hint: it's usually best avoid using absolute statements. They are almost always false and will become a point of contention with anyone who disagrees with you. I didn't mention it in the previous post, but it's also not true that no one in nations with a national health care system ever declares bankruptcy for medical reasons.

For what it's worth, I think a government provided healthcare system to run in parallel with the private sector, while having plenty of it's own flaws, probably would have been better than trying to control the market for health insurance.

Three possibilities come to mind: Excessive youth unemployment, general tendencies to rebel against their parents, and regression to mean. The parents may be exceptionally free thinkers for their country of origin, but their children probably won't be. I would bet that 20% support you mentioned is higher in the populace that actually lives in a theocratic country. The youth unemployment rate in France is apparently about 22 percent, but I suppose it's a matter of opinion as to whether that's excessive or not.

Sorry, you are simply wrong about all republican proposals including exchanges.

Regarding your medical bankruptcy information, the study most commonly used do make that claim treated every bankruptcy which included a medical bill as a medical bankruptcy, no matter how small a portion of their total debts was tied to medical bills.

Try FDR not hoover for WW2, Taft did nothing to get us into WW1 that was all Wilson, Vietnam was mostly Kennedy and Johnson with only minor material support during the Eisenhower period, while Nixon escalated and then actually had us get out, the Korean war was entirely under Truman. You should actually read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States and look at the presidents at the time.

Define capitalism. If you mean our current system, then that's pretty basically not libertarian in nature. If you mean a free market, then they are absolutely correct, and I wonder why you think libertarianism should have a problem with it? The only form of economy fully compatible with personal liberty is a free market.

The issue I was referring to with hotcorners (yes, that's what I meant by hotpoints. misremembered the name) is that the options you get by mousing over the top right corner is different in desktop mode and metro mode. I don't recall on the others.

By letting me avoid Metro and letting me make 'all programs' the default view, some of my distaste for Windows 8 will be gone, although first impressions are hard to overcome. I still think the start menu is a better setup, at least if you read faster than you interpret icons and grok folder hierarchies. I will freely admit that I probably don't think like Joe user, so maybe it shouldn't be default, but I don't think it's completely asinine like you do.