You're lying. I never stated or implied that. When I call something unsubstantiated, it is only because either (this is the usual case) no substantiation was even offered at all, or what was offered was very very clearly shown to not amount to the slightest bit of substantiation. I don't have a ready example of the latter, but your posts are filled with the former.

False. Please stop lying.

You're a liar.

You're a liar.

You're a liar.

Only in one case: when my assertion is simply stating that an argument, without any evidence provided, is false. If you say "2+3=4", I do not have to provide any facts. I just say you're wrong. That is sufficient. It is up to you to provide the facts. There is nothing wrong with not providing facts, when there is no reason to do so.

No, at the time I wrote that, I did not.

You're a liar.

You're a liar. In fact, my responses are generally not to people, but to their words. Anyone using your terribly dishonest and ignorant words would get the same response. It's your words, not your nickname or anything else about you, that influence my reaction.

We've gone over this.

When you make an unsubstantiated claim, I need no evidence to say you're lying. The burden of proof is on you. That is the only time I do not back up my claims of lying, when it is in response to such a claim.

My main "allegation" is a statement of reason, not of links or facts. It is very clear that this sort of fraud is simple to execute, and hard to detect. It is therefore necessarily true that the number of specific allegations of fraud can be vastly outnumbered by the actual incidents of fraud, so the data you cite of allegations necessarily doesn't tell us the actual story.

Argue against my reasoning if you want to, but don't pretend I need to provide "links" for it.

You're a liar.

*facepalm*

We're talking about photo ID, remember? And maybe we look the same, but most people don't look the same as the people they might be voting for. You're being intentionally obtuse.

Uh. You really think most people in the bottom two quintiles don't have government photo IDs? Wow. Even the leftist Brennan Center says merely 11 pecent of people don't have it. Even if 100 percent of the top three quntiles have it (it's not that high), that means still well over half of the bottom two quintiles (almost three-fourths) have one. And even if you only want to talk about the bottom quintile, and we put all 11 percent of those people in that quntile, it'd still be just under half of them (45%). But we know that not all 11 percent are in that quintile. Even if as much as 95% of the other four quintiles have ID, that means 65% in the bottom quintile have one.

So at *worst* it is 45% of the bottom quintile that have the ID already, and it is really probably closer to 60% or more.

Sorry, who is making things up?

You said these laws make it much harder for poor people to vote. But the facts show most of them are unaffected, and most of the rest are given ample opportunity to engage in the free and easy process to get the ID.

You said the facts show there is not much fraud, but the facts actually show -- when applying reason -- that the facts are incapable of showing that, because so much of the fraud is undetectable.

You're a liar.

Actually, I still don't know who I am talking to. I cannot be bothered to scroll up to see. And I don't care.

Seriously, many people left the family farm during industrialization to work in manufacturing plants just to avoid working having to be in the sun for 16/hours a day.

Still, technology that improves working conditions is generally a good thing all around.

So you say that you were not commenting on this guy, but in general, but then you say this case confirmed it, which is only possible if you are commenting on this guy.

You suck at this.

Probably, but there is no such thing as an unregulated market. Every market, including the most theoretically free market imaginable, is regulated. And such a theoretically free market has much better and more effective regulation than a government-regulated market. In fact, government-regulated markets encourage poor goods and services much more than a free market. Look at the housing crisis, banking crisis, energy crisis, medical insurance crisis, college cost crisis, and so on. These are all problems created almost wholly by government regulation, because where government regulates, government decreases competition, and consumers -- not government -- are the main driver for low costs and high quality.

Agreed, where "well-regulated" means "consumers are able to determine the products and services they are offered and purchase," which happens best in a free market.

Again, no such thing exists, even theoretically, but that actually happens far more in a government-regulated market than a free one, where government protects businesses from their failures. Google "moral hazard," which generally doesn't exist in a free market (so long as that free market has lots of information available to consumers, and civil actions to recoup losses).

Show me evidence. You have none.

Correct. However, the facts in fact do not support your view, but mine, and I explained clearly how.

Show me. That you haven't linked to it is telling. But I will reiterate my argument, since you ignored it: most such fraud will never be detected if you don't check for ID. If I vote for my cousin who says he doesn't want to vote because he doesn't care, how will anyone ever know? How will there ever be an allegation of fraud? The data of specific allegations, because of the nature of the fraud, is necessarily going to be a small portion of the actual cases.

False. You're lying. You said it is "far more difficult" for people who "make less money working longer hours." I said it's not. For my claim to be true, it can still be slightly more difficult for a small number of people who make less money working longer hours. Given the fact that most of those people already have government-issued photo IDs, you have already lost the defense of your claim before we get into any more specifics.

Yes. And this does not justify your claim that it is "far more difficult" for those people. This only justifies a claim of being slightly more difficult for a small number of those people, as most of them have a day off they can take here and there over the months and years of lead time they have. Yes, some people cannot get time off, or it would be an unbearable economic burden to do so. But that is a tiny number of people, and you said it was far more difficult for all people who work longer hours and make less money.

And -- again -- most of them already have photo IDs. (And funny that we don't say it's racism when we require people go into the DMV to get a driver's license. ...)

False. If there were a cost, you'd complain it. Please stop lying.

In fact, every single state has the provisional ballot requirement. You just don't know what you're talking about. It's part of federal law.

No, it's not. You don't understand provisional ballots at all. It is perfectly in line with the goal. All it means is you fill out a ballot, and it is set aside and later checked for validity. So the jurisdiction would accept the ballot and then validate your identity at a later time, and it would not be counted until they could validate it. It doesn't mean your vote will count, it means you have additional opportunity to validate your identity, which is the whole point of the fraud prevention.

False. You lied, and it was a big whopper of a lie. And it is very clear that it was a lie. You said this law made it "far more difficult" to vote for people who work longer hours for less money. But most of the people you said it is "far more difficult" for are completely unaffected by the law. You lied. I can't find the stat right now, but a bit less than half of people in the lowest quintile had a driver's license, and more than half of the next quintile. Over half of the groups combined. And even if it is less than half, it is still a very large percentage that are completely unaffacted by the law.

You're lying.

So? You still have the right to do it. Stop lying.

So you admit I am right, and you're wrong. The only "evidence" that you provide is not of the market causing death at all. Your argument is like saying that breathing causes death.

Fair enough. I find your reply to my comment to be incorrect and full of opinion couched as critical observation. We have not yet arrived at an outcome, despite the sound of the article headline.

I feel like you are trying to make a point, but I don't actually see one.

False. Please stop lying. You were criticizing my response to him, which only makes any sense whatsoever if my response to him wasn't valid.

Actually, the case is not about the amount. The case is about whether companies negotiating a patent licensing deal should have to negotiate, or whether they can get a jury to set a rate (or deny one) for them (after the court wisely decided not to do so).

Microsoft was the company that *proposed* the 2.5% rate, and then had the temerity to call it exorbitant after Google accepted their offer.

We don't *need* to "work things out." We already *have* them worked out. You burn your actinides in a breeder reactor until all that's left is negligibly dangerous. You get more power out of a given unit of fuel and you end up with far less waste. What's not to like? Oh, I forgot...the Carter Era put an end to that due to "proliferation concerns." Yeah, we can't have nasty dictators in places like Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan getting nuclear weapons... ...oh, wait...

I call bullshit. I work in the nuclear power industry. The amount of screening and safeguards in place to prevent a single contaminated Kleenex from getting offsite is beyond belief. And by "contaminated" I mean something that might have a millirem's worth of stuff on it, not something seriously crapped up like you're hinting at. To intimate that substantial hunks of contaminated metals might systematically get offsite and somehow get smelted into a consumer product is so ridiculous as to be easily dismissed. Can you cite an example of "lots of radioactive steel parts" becoming cars?

Some 7,000 of them, actually, the vast majority hardback first editions. And I'm an SF writer myself.

So I'm a little off the standard deviation.

Yes.

No one.

Again: making up bullshit.

First, your stat on "actual fraudulent voting" is bullshit. The numbers the left cites are the wrong ones. They cite the number of prosecutions or convictions. But even a tiny bit of thought will lead you to understand that if someone votes for someone else without an ID, that person will most likely never be prosecuted, because they won't be caught. Hell, the fraud might never even be detected, because that would require the real voter trying to vote and then being denied. And by then, the perpetrator is long gone. But often, people would be more likely to vote on behalf of friends or family who cannot, thereby never getting caught, thereby never being included in the stats.

Indeed, we know -- as a matter of near-certainty, based on common sense -- that whatever the number of prosecutions we've had for such fraud, the actual number of fraud cases must be much larger, because the fraud is so easy to commit without being caught. Surely you cannot believe that if we aren't checking photo IDs, that we are likely to catch someone who commits such a fraud ... ? That'd be terribly stupid.

Second, there is simply zero basis for your claim that voter ID makes voting easier for anyone, let alone "without exception." It actually makes legal voting easier for no one at all, "without exception."

Third, there is simply zero basis for the claim that it makes voting "far more difficult" for the overwhelming majority of people who "make less money working longer hours." They are notified, multiple times, months or years in advance of the change, and have ample opportunity to get the (free) ID. And even if they don't before election day, they can fill out a provisional ballot, which will be counted upon providing the proper (free) qualifications.

Even for the very few people who, with all those opportunities, cannot get a photo ID, they can still vote. And for the overwhelming people who can get the photo ID, it is a simple (and free!) process, and not "far more" difficult at all. On the contrary, they generally bend over backward to make it as easy (and free!) as possible.

Plus -- again, more lies from you -- most people who work longer hours for less pay still have a driver's license already.

You're lying again. That has never happened that I am aware of, and certainly there is no serious effort afoot. Perhaps you mean that Republicans are against special protections for unions which disallow employers from firing workers who strike? That is true, of course, but it is completely different from having the right to strike. I think every employee should have the right to strike ... and every employer should have the right to fire any employee at any time for any reason.

Actually, I take that back. Every employee and employer has that constitutional, and natural, right. It's just that the government doesn't always recognize these obvious rights that we have.

You're lying. The free market has never caused any harm or death, ever. We know this, because we know it is not even capable of doing so.

So you say he wasn't -- very clearly and obviously -- lying?

Because if he was lying, your criticism of me makes no sense. If he was not lying, then please defend his claim that asking for a voter ID is for the purpose of suppressing black votes. Or that Republicans are all white. (?) Or that Romney hid his money in the Cayman Islands (he paid taxes on that money, as federal law requires; nothing was "hidden"). He lied.

It's not enough for me to say "I disagree." That's bullshit. He is not saying, "I think the free market doesn't work, and here's why." That would be something to disagree with. He is stating, as facts, things which are false, which he either does or should know are false, as a teacher promoting these ideas in a classroom.

It's typical and sad that you criticize me for not being "sociable" for calling a lie a lie, whereas this guy gets no criticism for telling those lies.

That's sort of the point though. Most of Yahoo's properties have been stagnant for years, some even for over a decade.

I've been playing fantasy football on yahoo since 2000. The update is awful, and most of the users hate it. It's added no discernible functionality, but changed a user interface that has been in place for at least ten years. While you can deride users for being 'change resistant', the fact is a consistent, usable interface is a feature.

Lots of times power users, or IT workers don't realize just how offputting a major UI revamp can be. While we get caught up in things like, "Agile", "Features", "Web x.0" most users just want to be left alone.

Really, though, I think this whole "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude is quite dumb. If you're willing to leave and learn a new platform in protest, why not stay and learn the new upgraded platform where your data already lives?

Users will stay with a platform they know, even if it isn't feature rich. The opportunity cost of switching to another platform is losing the time they've invested in learning the original platform. Once that cost is forced upon them, they might as well investigate other platforms, either out of spite, or simply because they've got to learn something new anyway.