So your complaint is that a system not originally designed for something is not quickly adapting to fulfill the role left vacant by the closure of most vocational schools? (In the US anyways.) Or that their is a trend of pushing any student through college even though their aren't enough jobs for all those students? Not to mention many of these students shouldn't have even gone to a college or university? Are you seriously complaining that they should change how they work because the "market" demands someone fulfill this role? It is being fulfilled, albeit imperfectly. If it's such an issue then more vocation style schools would appear, oh wait we have those too (ex: ITT Tech)! Plenty of us succeed by using the "old" college/university system, however passing through one of these establishments is by no means a guarantee of future success. To sum it up: most of the time, it's your own dam fault.

No. Our system is specifically designed so as not to put that much power in a single person. If you disagree with what you are asked, you do not "pick and choose" which laws to enforce (as an officer), you resign from your position as you are unable to enact the duties required of you. If enough officers "resign" they might just see a trend develop, and if the people who control the legislature (that would be us indirectly) disagree so much, do something to change it. Sitting back and claiming they are wrong is nice and all, but that's not how it works (in any system for that matter). They will not magically realize their mistake, we must, as citizens and people, insure that our values as both individual people and as a nation are represented. The "king" makes the rules, if you disagree, get a new "king".

That may be what each are attempting to do, but that's not the desired effect. Let's face it, the US is far from the ideal place for a corporation to setup shop. Especially for intangible products and intangible service based ones. How is making the corporations pay more taxes going to help the employee? It won't. They'll close some locations down, pay new employees less, and maybe even eventually up and move. Great, just lost large amounts of local, state, and federal taxes. Not to mention the economic trickle down effect in it's old location.

What they should do, is make it easier and cheaper for a corporation to move here, attract foreign corporations to come here, and encourage new local corporations/businesses. Improve the quality of the local workforce (that implies education reform). Instead of grasping for more money to waste, spend what they have wisely and try to bring more money here, not to generate more money from the same people.

I don't think you are talking about the same thing as the poster. Syntax for a seasoned programmer is rarely an issue, its overall logic flow and efficiency that we care about. While we may not succeed all the time, we tend to aim for the elegant solution that covers all our needs and has room to grow or be adapted to other projects. It's not the individual parts, its how we put them together that we spend time on.

A simple example: A bubble sort 'works', it's not the best solution but it's easy to implement and sometimes even programmers who know better inadvertently start coding something that turns into a one. However, with some thought I can determine a merge sort is better, and that I should writ it generically so I can add it to my library of handy functions.

Usually you waste less time if you stop to think first instead of plugging through code only to rewrite it constantly through out the coding session. It really still depends on the person.

Sorry to be that guy that kills it for you, but that was the point. They wanted a reboot within the Trek continuity, they figured out a way to do it. They negated all existing Star Trek continuity after the arrival of Nero; with one relatively small action the time line was irrevocably changed. (More so later in the movie.)

That whole policing time concept always struck me as pretty funny, the only time it's needed is if the time line is malleable. And if it is, you could pretty easily alter it in significant ways that could never be fixed by an observer unless they were somehow outside of the time line but could look inward. How would you know something was actually changed? From the future point of view that is "history".

And this is why time travel is considered a horrible plot device by anyone significantly nerdy.

You glossed over his point. True 100% freedom is freedom from all things, including your supposed "inherent" rights. In actuality, you do not have inherent rights as they are not some form of magical protection. They can be taken away at a moment's notice by almost anyone, they are only inherent so long as the majority of a culture agrees upon them. They are then protected by the force given to the government body those same people create. When a truly "free" person tries to kill you, do your inherent rights stop him? No, because your concept comes from a belief, a belief based upon historical cultural observation and logic; that we as individuals can benefit both our selves and our neighbors by working together instead of against one another. And while that belief is true, it does not hold any special power, no belief does. From a certain point of view, freedom can be just as scary as slavery.

Actually according to "that story" they are. The characters specifically mention the odds of two identical/genetically compatible races evolving on separate planets.

Believe it or not Roman Catholics actually support evolution (along with several other denominations). While they may still believe other less scientific ideas; at least they acknowledge ideas outside of their faith. You could argue that they essentially are no different from any other philosophical group, they just have a slightly different claim on why they are right. Stop focusing on the outlaying nut jobs; the same could be done for whatever groups you identify with.

If you want to slam different ideals that's fine, but aim your arguments correctly and don't exclude/include groups indiscriminately.

You realize that the last war to boost our economy was WW2 right? Ya know, when the entire country geared itself for wartime production. That doesn't happen anymore ya shmuck. And maybe, if people would stop treating each other like asshats we wouldn't need to ever leave our nice comfy borders. Way to pretend everyone in the world outside of the US is full of amazingly nice people that just want to be left alone.

Never said it was the land of gankers. Just that anyone could come buy and kick it, nothing artificially prevents it. It comes down to civil behavior, which in turn brings about my previous point.

Explain what part of Sandbox indicates to you complete and utter safety from "gankers"? There are areas of relative safety, of course you still have to know the rules of those places. If you want an honest descriptor, EVE is more of a social-economic simulation then an MMORPG. The power comes not from being able to gank someone, but from the massive amount of power that can be wielded through the market, industrial production, politics, and the ensuing wars these factors cause. Hell, it's technically possible for EVE to be one of the most peaceful games in existence, but the players don't choose to make it so.

So are you often disappointed when you bite into an apple and it doesn't taste like steak?

They asked about standards and it turned into bundling all major browsers with Windows OSes? Explain the leap of logic that occurred here without prompting? Even assuming they didn't prompt it in anyway, and the EU Commission just came up with it, why aren't they opposing this current extension of logic? Because they aren't benevolent, they're just in it for themselves. They are just as guilty in principle as Microsoft.

That doesn't justify their reasons for doing the current actions they are seeking. If you can't narrow the driving cause of all of this, how can you decide upon the proper course of action?

The only reason that makes sense is too facilitate their normal internet based market model, namely insuring their browser is superior so that they can design sites and net apps to work with it. Sooo essentially they just wanna take IE's place? Otherwise they would just fight for standards, somewhat like they have been (that topic is it's own can of worms). My point in arguing against this is not that I support IE, I hate it and I hate developing for it, my point is that the way they are going about it is dishonest, underhanded, and hypocritical. The only reason everyone here goes along with it is out of hate or spite.

What market? Every browser is offered for free? Where is this mythical market we keep talking about?