If I don't personally assemble the bits on punchcards by hand, I don't trust anything! I figure I should have my trusted JVM ready to go in about forty years...

No one said Microsoft actually knew how to gain market share. The old tools of threatening OEMs with a fate worse than death don't work any more, so Redmond is a bit of a fish out of water.

I don't think that means what you think it means.

First problem, the gambler's fallacy refers to a mistaken belief that a random process that has locally shifted away from its mean somehow "owes" the universe a return to its mean. After a long losing streak, the gambler erroneously believes he has a better chance of a win.

Second, for the gambler's fallacy to apply, you need an independent random process. Specifically, if the randomness in question has a history to it, the gambler's fallacy doesn't apply as a fallacy - The deck of cards with all the non-face cards played out really does "owe" you a 20 or a blackjack (Hmm, do aces count as face cards? Whatever - You get the point).

In this case, you want something more like confirmation bias or a sunk cost fallacy - Though neither of those quite properly applies to what I described, because I haven't ignored evidence contrary to my opinion (quite the opposite, I've weighed it heavily), and I haven't needed to keep pumping more money into my BTC position to keep it afloat (again, contrary to that, I've steadily syphoned money out and what remains just keeps going up in value).


It's a zero sum game, their gain will be matched by the losses of ordinary punters like you.

You have the first clause right, though you use it as though you don't realize that makes it 2.5% per year better than USD, which systematically loses value over time.

As for the second half of that - If BTC entirely collapsed tomorrow, I've already done better than break even on my original investment. Except, haters like you don't seem to get that my "investment" consists of having fun (and $50 in electricity, but hell, I've paid more for a single concert ticket). I got to play a part in the success of the first viable non-commodity non-government currency. I got to learn OpenCL as a result of tweaking miners to squeeze every possible hash out of my GPU. I got to watch my "just for laughs" investment turn into the price of a new car (if I hadn't slowly spent most of what I had over time) - And no, I don't regret spending it at $4/BTC, at $30/BTC, at $200/BTC, because I got involved for the idea, not because I someday hoped to get rich fleecing morons out of their dollars in exchange for worthless ($0.10 each, when I started) bits in a shared transaction record.

I'd say that you're buying into the whole "governments are bad, mkay..." syndrome that affects a large swath of the population these days

If by "these days" you mean "all of human history and experience", then yes.

Or Google hoses things as they have done in the past. One can yank an extreme out of the air for either side. One well known thing is Google will data mine.

Ah, a gun hater misrepresenting stand your ground. Who would have thought?

Webster's Unabridged: anarchism - "A political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint." Apparently you are not the anarchist you envision yourself to be.

When you let your politics run your logic, this is the result. In one word, wrong.

Hint to you: Don't kite checks.

Pedantry of that nature indicates you already know you have no real argument.

I am also in the Bible belt, and the condoms are out there for anyone to pick up. I believe the biggest issue with contraception is people are embarrassed to buy it because they don't want people to know about their sex life. This leads to either theft, no sex, or pregnancy depending on the individual.

But that's not the same as the OP and other posters saying that contraception isnt' available unless ACA or the like is in place.

It's out there always has been, just a matter of people getting it. I think they mean to say, it only matters if someone else is PAYING for it.

Conflating availability with who is footing the bill.

Are you sure you paid into the unemployment fund? Most self employed do not, even though they think they do. If you did, then you should be eligible for unemployment.

I am 100% positive.

I have an "S" corp, I paid myself salary with the taxes and I paid the employer side of all those taxes too. I filled out the parts for unemployment, state and fed taxes.

I was told all the way through my appeals that sure I'd paid it, but the law said I couldn't get it in the state of LA.

People who are poor don't have the same choices you do.

They're not buying 60" televisions.

I guess you aren't driving by the same projects I am, seeing said 60" TVs through the open doors of the apartments, while they're sitting on the porch.

And as for the rest of it...hey, life is tough.

Were it local-governor-care instead, would that really make you substantially happier? How so?

Because, you could have more of a say in how your state enacts or doesn't enact it.

If you didn't like that state's solution, you could move to one that more closely shares your views on life and how much they want to make you pay for someone else's life.

Unless you were one of the millions of people who have a precondition.

I did/still do.