What argument? Is there any argument in GGP's post beyond the premise "nVidia rocks, AMD sucks"? Not that I can see.

Seems to me a better poll for the Slashdot crowd is:

"I've been laid..."

Displaying poll results.

Never: 3477 votes / 43%
Once: 1907 votes / 23%
2 or 3 times 1281 votes / 15%
More than 3 times 453 votes / 5%
I look forward to the first time 230 votes / 2%
Who has the time to get laid? 157 votes / 1%
Does "screwed" also count? 558 votes / 6%

Funny, the first thing that came to my mind was having my ex-wife declared dead. To each his own, I guess.

LOL! It's a centuries old "Code of Conduct" that created situations like this.

lol wut? Obviously you subscribe to a non-standard definition of "infrastructure".

The rest of us know that Uber's infrastructure investments are no more than a teensy tinsy smithereen of their total balance sheet. Of course, we'll have to wait for them to go public to know for sure.

I know, right?!?!

Not only are profits irrelevant, the fact that there is not one share of Uber stock available for trade on any exchange is also irrelevant!

That's the thing about the "market cap" metric...stocks have to actually be traded (high volumes preferred) before the number means anything.

I backed up my position with multiple arguments you refused to address. I reiterated my arguments over and over, and directly asked for your response several times - yet none was forthcoming.

At this point the only reasonable conclusion is that you have no effective rebuttal, because the best you've been able to respond with so far are the same tired, predictable, redundant posts containing nothing more than your usual infantile snipes:

"Waaah! You're a child!" [stamps feet]
"uh...well, your position is retarded...so there!" [sniffle]
"Hey other guy over there...this guy's a liar with no integrity!"
"You refuse to concede, therefore you are not a legitimate opponent!" [snort]
[posts YouTube video] "Hey look! I'm the guy with the coconuts, and you're the guy with no limbs! I win!!! Yay!"

Presumably these outbursts of yours give you some sort of brief feeling of superiority, and are likely a leftover from an unresolved childhood psychological pathology that continues to dog you into adulthood. But the feeling for you is fleeting, isn't it? Whatever...your utter reliance on such immature little defense mechanisms when you're faced with intellectual defeat speaks for itself.

Please, continue to go on and have your "fun". Your unabating puerile machinations provide a different sort of entertainment for the rest of us. It's kinda like watching a slow motion train wreck, except that the train's passengers are all gleefully laughing about what a good time they're having, right up to the point where they're turned into hamburger meat.

Sigh. Yet another response with zero substance. Yet another stupid YouTube link. Yet another pathetic whimper masquerading as an argument.

Newsflash: any discussion you coconut clap into will be up to its ears in retarded, so vaya con dios, chapero.

babblebabblepsychobabble.

ONE.....MORE.....TIME: diplomatic OFFERS do not equal US POLICY.

You keep trying to put words into my mouth.You keep doing it over and over and over. This isn't cable news. Your are not now in an environment where repeating something ad infinitum eventually becomes truth. That only occurs because of limited memory....here your posts remain for all to see indefinately.

If Obama says he will give intercontinental ballistic missiles to Iran, FREE OF CHARGE, and then once the missiles have arrived on Iranian shores, Obama will personally arm them with thermonuclear warheads, and he will personally punch in the targeting codes to lay a nuclear egg on the head of the Statue of Liberty...do such pronouncements rise to the level of POLICY?

That seems to be your position. Whatever the President says, goes...right?

Stop avoiding the argument. Does US policy have to have the blessing of the legislature (as outlined in the fucking Constitution), or not. I've asked this question of you multiple times. You refuse to answer. Do you think your silence is going unnoticed to readers of this exchange? Are you that locked into a fantasy world so completely divorced from reality?

Why do you keep saying "Good day"? Is that supposed to lend some sort of weight to your continued deflections? Do you really think anyone reading this exchange is baffled by your bullshit?

Perhaps you are baffled by your own bullshit. Better lay on some more...for your own sanity, if nothing else.

One more time: a diplomatic OFFER doesn't qualify as US policy. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else thinks of its legitimacy.

Again, ONE MORE TIME: When it comes to international strategic military arrangements, diplomatic offers are not US POLICY until they have been ratified by the US LEGISLATURE.

Please, stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to reply without offering some argument as to why Constitutional law no longer governs in these matters.

What is it you think these little quips of yours do? I can tell you flat out they don't mean shit to anybody but you, and they do nothing more than highlight your lack of persuasive argument.

You know, if you'd simply issued one more illogical, "NA NA NA it isn't true!" denial of my position, I might have yielded to your wisdom. OOOO! you were so close! Oh well, maybe next time.

How many times do I have to tell you? Jesus. One more time: my position is that diplomatic offers don't rise to the level of policy, especially when it comes to big ticket items - LIKE NATIONAL FUCKING SECURITY. Comprende? I can only assume your attempted deflections from the matter under debate are an acknowledgement of defeat.

Spare me your history lessons. They have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

I didn't call you deceitful or otherwise insinuate such a thing. I simply made reference to your pussy-assed remarks to another poster who was engaging me in rational conversation. At least now you have the strength of character to finally own up to your statements directly. Good for you!

Well, sort of. All you make mention of here is my supposed dishonesty. Would it be too much for me to assume that you are retracting your insulting remarks on my intelligence and integrity?

I have not once questioned the sincerity of any offer by any administration to anybody.

When it comes to international strategic military arrangements, signed agreements are not US POLICY until they have been ratified by the US LEGISLATURE. Do you deny this? I've asked this question previously, yet I can't see where you've addressed my inquiry. Why is that?

Look, as I said to the poster to whom you previously made your pussy-assed remarks, if your definition of US policy is "whatever comes out of the chief executive's pie hole" - then I agree with everything you've said on this matter. But I reject the idea that all US policy begins and ends with the word of the president. I think the Constitution might just back me up on that.

Griping about how stubborn, dishonest, and stupid I am isn't really an effective defense of your ridiculous position. But apparently, that's all you're left with.

As good as an admittal of defeat as I've ever heard.

I absolutely buy into the notion that sharing US missile defense data/tech with the USSR/Russians has been an offer on the table (in one form or another) since Reagan. What I don't buy into is the notion that this diplomatic bargaining chip has ever risen to the level of POLICY.

I don't want to get into semantics here. If your definition of US policy is "anything that comes out of the chief executive's mouth", then I agree that coordinating/sharing/funding/whatever SDI tech with the Russians has been US policy - at least with regard to the Reagan/Clinton administrations. Others, I'm not so sure.

The reality is that there has been ZERO technological transfer of US anti-missile tech to the Russians or anybody else. Ever. If sharing anti-missile technology with the Russians has been US policy for decades, then it has to be the greatest policy failure in history. I definitely DO NOT buy into that notion.

Your position is based on the belief that offers made in the course of diplomacy rise to the level of official policy. As a practical matter - especially when such offers constitute a radical departure from the status quo, especially when such offers pose a substantial risk to US security - policy is not actuated without legislative approval. If you believe otherwise, tell me why - especially in the light of the current flap over Iran.

But instead of responding to me directly, perhaps you'd prefer to post elsewhere in this thread an insinuation that I'm an idiot and a liar without a proven track record of integrity. I think doing so would be a great testament to the nature of your character, so go for it!

Not at all. My standard is about what constitutes actual US policy vs what one administration or another decides what might become US policy through international diplomacy. Do you honestly believe that any president could simply transfer US strategic military technology to its number one enemy by executive order? Can you say "instant impeachment"? Such a radical policy would have to be backed by treaty. The executive is empowered to do a lot on its own diplomatically - but when it comes to the big stuff, treaties are the order of the day.

Turn on the news and take a look at what's going on with "policy" related to Iran right now. Does that tell you anything about what ultimately ends up as US policy? Presidents don't get to decide things of this magnitude by themselves, and the Iran deal is chickenfeed compared to giving over missile defense tech to the Russians.

The only presidents that have offered what you're talking about are Reagan (maybe) and Clinton. No other President has considered handing over missile defense tech to the Soviets/Russians to the point of technological parity with the US. But again, diplomatic offers don't rise to the level of established policy.

Even if the Russians at some point accepted these diplomatic overtures and the necessary conditions...do you really think such a deal would've been supported by the legislature then? Or now? Or ever? I took you to be too pragmatic to believe in such a pie in the sky notion. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Overtures, bargaining chips, noble ideas...all these things may be the genesis of policy. But the diplomatic landscape is littered with the corpses of ideas that didn't make the cut to make it to actual policy.

I will certainly defer to your expertise on the subject of 18 in dildos.

Ascribing to an idea is not the same thing as establishing policy. If Reagan ultimately intended to share SDI tech with the USSR (very little to support that claim), he sure as hell knew that proclaiming such a policy during his administration would have been political suicide. Clinton made reference to supporting the idea, but made no effort to make the idea policy. Even during the time of his administration, pushing such a policy would involve considerable political risk.

The most any administration has done toward sharing anything with the Russians in this area are mere overtures that some sort of coordination between our separate systems could occur, along with very limited details on certain technological capabilities. That is a far cry from handing Russia our technology lock, stock and barrel.

Remember, your position is that Russia will be given missile defense technology to the point of "parity" with the US. I don't believe Reagan himself would agree to that (much less any of his successors). None of the links you provided supports that position even remotely.

Besides, if it has been US policy to share missile defense tech with the Russians since Reagan, why hasn't it happened? I'll tell you why: aspirations only become policy when they make sense. Handing over a superior strategic military technology to a primary adversary almost never makes sense. Given the deteriorating situation between the players, I wouldn't count on it making sense anytime soon.