kimmy

In your opinion anybody who doesn't repeat the "job creators" mantra is economically ignorant, isn't that right? -k

I bumped into a guy who is exercising an "opt out" option earlier today. He pays no taxes, and receives no benefits from society. I suppose in a sense he's using public infrastructure, as he was sleeping under a bridge. If you or Pliny wish to "opt out", there is room under the bridge for a few more. -k

Yeah, it's called the "Desktop" button. You click on "Desktop", and then you're in Windows 7 and "Metro" is a distant memory. -k

I would suspect that the possibility of copycat crimes, as well as good old-fashioned ass-covering are probably equally likely explanations for why security at other events has been increased. As in, if you're in charge of security at a big event, and you don't increase security after a big incident like this, you're going to be in trouble whether extra security is actually required or not. Why marathons? Are bombers just really uncreative? Is there something special about a marathon that just wouldn't work the same at some other big gathering of people? I am sure those in authority know more about it than we do. I am sure that the people who have the responsibility for making those decisions will weigh factors that we might not know about. Do you know what three people who aren't responsible for making those decisions? John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte. Senators McCain and Graham and Ayotte are making their pitch in public. They are politicking. They're going to the press to tell US citizens that their justice officials ought to classify this person as an "enemy combatant". Why would they do that? -k

Gold standard, Ron Paul, blah blah blah, ok. ... How far? What if they went as far as making the extremely wealthy pay the same share that they used to, even up until just a couple of decades ago? What if they closed some of the tax loop-holes that let extraordinarily wealthy individuals and extremely profitable corporations pay extremely low tax rates? Wow, how radical could things get? How radical are things already when even suggesting this kind of stuff is called "class warfare"? But you've been arguing that "currency" is worthless. Why should the wealthy fear the confiscation of something that is worthless? Sure, tax the rich. Why not? Sorry to keep picking on Mitt Romney, but he's one of the few extremely wealthy individuals whose tax returns we've had the chance to look at to any degree at all. What did Willard pay? 14%. He actually only had to pay 9%, but since he'd already shot off his mouth about how he pays 14% every year, he left millions of dollars of tax breaks on the table to increase his 9% rate to 14%. Willard paid 14%... in years that we know about. What do you pay, Pliny? Unless you're a hobo, I'm betting it's more than 14%. What's wrong with talking about class warfare? Class warfare is already underway, waged by the wealthy and their puppets against the rest of society; people certainly ought to be talking about it. -k

More than just some loudmouth... McCain, Graham, and Ayotte, 3 of the more prominent Republican senators. I have to wonder, what makes this guy a "good candidate for enemy combatant status"? What makes him different from the guy who shot up the movie theatre in Aurora Colorado? Is it because he's a Muslim? Is there the belief that he might be a member of some organization? I don't see a reason why this can't be handled by the criminal justice system. -k

Canada and the US compete on fairly even playing fields when it comes to wages, safety and environmental standards, taxation, and so on. There's no need for either side to fear the other in such a relationship. But if a "warp tunnel" to India were opened up in Windsor and Detroit and a flood of $2/day labor were allowed to cross back and forth, it would be devastating for everybody who depends on wages to survive, and beneficial only to those who consider wages an expense. Maybe they can help each other if food is plentiful. But if they're stuck on that island for a long time and food becomes scarce, I bet I know who'll starve first. I have no idea where you're heading with any of that. -k

I remain perplexed and baffled by all this talk of mobile phones, tablets, "apps", and so on. Are people not aware that Windows 8 doesn't require you to use any of that? That as soon as you're at the Desktop, it's the exact same user interface they've been using all along? I honestly just don't get it. You people are being ridiculous. -k

Money can be exchanged for goods and services. If money is so unimportant, why are the wealthy and the banks and the corporations so determined to keep it? -k

I get no end of amusement from your conviction that Windows 8 must be what's causing you all this trouble, August. No, August, I'm not anticipating a massive international car heist. There will be winners when the new bridge is open, but there will also be losers. An obvious example of losers: Windsor retailers aren't going to be too excited about making it easier for Canadian shoppers to get to Detroit. We expect that the net overall effect will be positive, but it won't be positive for everybody, and there might be places and industries where it's a net negative. This will be a bridge between two groups of people who are quite equal to each other. Suppose instead that this bridge was a "warp tunnel" (or "portal" or choose some other sci-fi plot device) between Detroit and Mumbai. Is it still likely to be positive for everybody? -k

For some reason, I am hearing the famous music of "Right Said Fred" in my head as I read this. Iiiiii'm too sexy for Riyadh, Too sexy for Riyadh, Too sexy for Riyadh, Jeddah, and Dammam. -k

Personally, I use Win7 at work, Win8 at home, and switch seamlessly between them. I'm completely baffled that so many people seem unable to use Win8 when it's so easy to just use it exactly the same as Win7. That door has been wide open for a very long time; Linux and Mac OS have failed to make significant inroads and no other alternative is even worth mentioning. The door is indeed wide open for an alternative to Windows 8, and that alternative is... Windows 7. Large numbers of consumers have decided that they simply have no need to upgrade their PCs. I have been running the same hardware for years (added a new video card a couple of years ago, a solid state drive last winter, but aside from that, no hardware changes since about 2009.) It's ridiculously powerful. The operating system is the same story. I upgraded to Win8 when it arrived, because it cost $70. Cheap. But I certainly didn't need to; Win7 was entirely adequate. ...because it has created an opportunity for entrepreneurs like Stardock to innovate? If you're saying that Windows 8 is to blame for the state of the PC industry, I strongly disagree. The extent to which PC sales have stagnated represents the degree to which the PC industry as a whole has reached a crossroads. People are satisfied with their existing equipment; there's nothing driving sales of new PCs right now; gaming consoles and mobile devices are eating into the multimedia entertainment world that used to be a driver of newer/better PC equipment sales. (the last time I did upgrade my PC hardware was so that I could play Oblivion in full HD. Now, if I play computer games, it's usually on the PS3.) Of course they will. Why wouldn't they? The next update of Windows 8 will allow people to boot directly to the desktop, and then you'll have nothing to complain about. Stardock has been around for a long time; I used Stardock products to customize my old Windows XP clunker back when I was just a kimlet. Why would it bother you that Stardock has made a lot of money by providing users a way to customize their Windows 8 systems? Do you hate capitalism or something? -k

I could only watch a couple of minutes of that. A guy with a voice more annoying than Gilbert Gottfried is going to get very little leeway from me, and he spent it all when he decided to start telling me about DOS. You're going to tell your friends not to use a product you've never used because you saw a cartoon some guy made about it? -k

Van Ryswyk is entitled to run for office regardless of her views. However, she's not entitled to run for office as an NDP candidate. The NDP (as any other political party) are entitled to say who gets to (or doesn't get to) reprepresent them in an election. As for the comments themselves... well, I can say that Van Ryswyk's comments probably resonate with a lot of people here in the interior of BC. She's not getting booted because her comments make her unelectable here, it's because they would make the party look bad in other parts of the province. Here in the interior, nobody speaks french. (Except for Quebecois migrants in the "walkabout" phase of their lives. Typically young men who come looking for casual labor jobs, "work" for a day or two, and stop showing up. Unreliable and usually drunk, stoned, or hung over. Bar none, the worst laborers I have ever had the displeasure of working with.) Mandatory availability of services in French rubs a lot of people the wrong way in these parts where French probably doesn't even rank in the top 10 most used languages. And here in the interior, we rub elbows with the natives and we have plenty of reserves nearby. It tends to dispel the illusions that city-dwellers might be under. Luckily, I will never, ever run for office, so I don't have to worry about these comments coming back to haunt me. -k

Good grief, Shortlived, we had this thing called the Braidwood Inquiry that studied all of those questions in great detail. Yes, the mounties lied. Yes, there was a coverup. Intentional homicide? No. But (based on my limited understanding of the law) a charge of manslaughter might be appropriate. -k

A fertilizer plant in Texas exploded tonight. There are many serious injuries, according to this report: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/fertilizer-plant-just-exploded-waco-texas/64337/ No reason yet to assume it's anything other than an accident, but between the events in Boston, the ricin letters, and now this explosion in Texas, it's just a crazy week in America. Update, apparently 60 or more people may be dead: http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Explosion-Injuries-Reported-At-West-Fertilizer-Plant-203505331.html -k

And corporations seeking favorable laws, subsidies, and contracts. And rich-guys seeking favorable tax regulations. They're benefit-seekers too. Ditto rich-guys and corporations. -k

Everybody else is politicizing the Boston bombing, so why not try and find a gun control angle too? "It happened because of the sequester!" "No, it happened because Obama is soft on terror!" "No, it happened because of US imperialism!" "Oh yeah? What if it was radical anti-government kooks instead of Muslim kooks?" "More people died today in Palestine than in Boston and nobody even cares!" "Matt Damon!" "False flag operation! It's all a government plan to take away more freedom!" I'm disgusted too, but it's not just at this thread. -k

While I really hate contributing to thread drift and I don't understand why gun control had to be brought into this thread as well, I have to point out that the reason Derek posted the pictures was to point out that the distinction being made between "hunting" and "assault type" weapons is silly: the "tactical guns" in the first post and the "regular hunting guns" in the second post are the exact same guns. -k

Wait, what's wrong with background checks? -k

I certainly don't recall saying that "all of them" are flawed. I was referring specifically to the one Might AC referenced, claiming that people who carry guns are 4.5 more likely to be shot than people who do not carry guns. Here in BC, when we hear on the news that someone has been shot, it almost invariably turns out that both the shooter and the victim are involved in the drug trade. Gang members are going to be highly over-represented among victims of firearms homicides, and "people who carry firearms" are going to be highly over-represented among gang members. It's like noting that people who carry a lighter daily are 4.5 times more likely to die of lung cancer, and calling on a ban on lighters as a means of preventing lung cancer. It might well be true that people who carry lighters daily are 4.5 times more likely to die of lung cancer, but there is an obvious factor being overlooked, and it would be the height of dishonesty to present this as an argument in favor of banning lighters. BC doesn't have a gun problem. Certain parts of the Greater Vancouver Area have a gang problem. I remain convinced that some urbanites just don't understand that in many parts of this country, a firearm is a frequently used tool. -k

Trying to divert the topic by asking about the Christian Right and gay rights is a pretty inane non-sequitur. Then again, so was trying to divert the topic by asking about the Muslim world and gay rights. Yes, the Muslim world is not progressive and is full of a lot of hateful idiots. I think we can all agree to that. I don't think that means that Israel is always right. -k

Yes, I think the study showing people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to get shot is a new low. That argument is bad, and you should feel bad, Mighty AC. If you can find similar study that has factored out crimes committed by professional criminals against other professional criminals, I'll be more inclined to take it seriously. -k

I try not to worry about what Topaz says. I think most of us understand that the main reason Canada wants this bridge so much isn't so that more Windsorites can go shopping in Detroit on Saturday. It will be an economic benefit for Ontario, and I expect for Michigan as well. -k

Could it be that *everybody* wins? (Everybody except Manny Maroon, of course.) -k