Nice try at the revisionism, but that shit don't fly in the age of Google.
Here was the Senate vote:
- 26 Dems in favor, 29 against, 1 vote not cast
- 31 Repgs in favor, 13 against, 0 uncast
See, McDonalds works not because you couldn't buy the raw materials cheaper than the finished product at McD's, but because you incorrectly assume your, or your wife's, labor is worthless. Now, if you factor in the labor cost of the meal at home, and the transportation costs of getting it all there, your healthy hamburger meal at home is probably approaching $500.00, depending upon your billable rate. I'm figuring 2 hours of time at my rate of $250.00/hr. YMMV.
There is no way I can truly make a hamburger for less than McD's can.
I eat at home not because it is cheaper, but because I want to spend the time with my family, I want to eat clean, healthy food, and I don't want to be a big strapping fat-ass with a smorgasbord of diet-related, diseases, not the least of which is e.coli.
For most of the world, and most of human history, one of the most vital statistics economists measure is calories-per-person. When you graph things like that against, say, economic freedom, there's a clear, strong relationship.
So if we graph an objectively measurable quantity (calories-per-person) against a subjective, fuzzy, undefined concept (economic freedom) we find a "clear, strong relationship."
Right. Sure we do. In the same sense that if I graph Gross Annual Income against invisible pink unicorns, I get a "clear, strong relationship." Hell, its my fantasy and my chart, so why not.
surveys show a solid 30% or so of Americans still believe that life was created by God 6000 years ago.
Wow, is it that low? I had heard statistics of well over 50%. Maybe the great idiot die-off has finally come to America.
Of course, a terrorist group wouldn't use one of the most widely-distributed types of video to conceal information in plain sight, knowing that communication with the actual target would be concealed by the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of others downloading it.
According to the story, the video wasn't on the internet in plain sight but on a digital storage device "concealed" in his underwear. Now, going from just what we know about Pakistan, coming from that country, wouldn't the porn movie be the most conspicuous thing on the disk, not the least? I suppose he could have made this slightly more obviously suspicious by tying the memory disk up in a condom and slipping it in a full bottle of tequila, but only slightly.
Even for a low IQ wannabe terrorist, would it not have been better to not put the memory card in the shorts, and, instead, hide the information steganagraphically in family pictures, a movie of a Pakistani wedding, or in an electronic Qur'an--none of which would have screamed "I'M TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING! LOOK AT ME! LOOK, LOOK!" to the equally low IQ "security" screeners?
I call bullshit on this one.
I'm like you, when I read that his websites were iO9, Gawker, and Gizmodo, I wondered how the quality of the comments could possibly be below the quality of the actual articles.
If you serve slop, don't be surprised if your guests are pigs.
ID is no less rational than aliens at Wright Pat, but neither should be fireable offenses.
Actually, ID probably is quite a bit more irrational that aliens at Wright Pat. At least in the case of the aliens, we have a number of eye-witnesses who claim to have seen the aliens or to have seen artifacts or to have seen technology they could not explain in terms of our current technology. That is the same type of proof we would rely on in criminal prosecutions. I don't know of any ID proponents who claim to have eye-witness knowledge of the creation of anything.
Remember, you need to pay trillions of dollars in taxes for defense, so the idiots we put in charge of defense can friend enemy spies on Facebook.
This sounds like a complaint from a guy who is basically saying "Development is hard, and I don't want to work to make things good". Just as well he's calling it quits, shape up or ship out I say.
Actually, what I think he is saying is that he makes 95% of his revenue from iOS yet spends 20% of his development time bug fixing Android versions, so he is dropping support for Android because it represents an insignificant market for his software. That's a financially reasonable position to take.
Even if his position were, "I'm a shitty developer who doesn't know Linux, but I know iOS, and I make 95% of my money from iOS so I'm dropping Android, that would still be a financially reasonable position to take.
I'm sure you didn't buy his software anyway, though I did on iOS, and quite enjoy it, so what's your bitch?