Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

cbae cbae
  • Steve Wozniak on the watch and Seth Rogan ...

    Doesn't change the fact that Seth Rogen is a US actor.

  • Steve Wozniak on the watch and Seth Rogan ...

    @Proton2: Wow! There sure are a lot of US actors born in Canada.

  • What the win 10 titlebar means for your phone

    The stupid hamburger menu strikes again.

  • Steve Wozniak on the watch and Seth Rogan ...

    , Ian2 wrote

    So Canada has 2 actors? (I already knew about William Shatner)

    If that many.

  • Steve Wozniak on the watch and Seth Rogan ...

    , Proton2 wrote

    *snip*Seth Rogen is a Canadian actor.

    But does all of his acting in the US.

  • Hololens ideas.

    Five Nights at Freddy's AR Edition

  • If it aint broke, don't fix it

    , bondsbw wrote

    @brian.shapiro:  What I'm advocating for is to get rid of the maximized mode when the computer is set to Tablet Mode.  Full screen should be the only option, maximized mode doesn't make much sense on a tablet and just serves to get in the way.

    And don't get me wrong, both maximize and full screen are useful in desktop mode.

    TBH, I hate maximized windows even in desktop mode. I don't mind having the size maximized, but the window frame is also removed to prevent resizing. When I want a window maximized, I just want it to be as large as possible. I don't want to be prevented from resizing it.

  • crazy anti-cop culture.

    , magicalclick wrote

    Apparently the wiki said,

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_salts_(drug)

    The drugs' packaging often states "not for human consumption" in an attempt to circumvent drug prohibition laws.[

    Hmmmmmm..... Not for human consumption.

    So you clearly must have read this part:

    Bath salts is a term used in North America to describe a number of recreational designer drugs. The name derives from instances in which the drugs have been sold disguised as true bath salts.

  • crazy anti-cop culture.

    , magicalclick wrote

    *snip*
    1) okayyyyyy.....

    Good.

    2) oh I see. You don't have proof. So, you ended up trying to avoid by asking me to find a case study from before the drug law is implemented and after the drug law is implemented. Hmmmm..... That's like hmmmm 1950s or something when the law is first established? Actually I am just guessing some random old number here. Even if I have time machine to collect the data, the data is too old.

    Let me give you a clue. Whatever data they used as the basis for enacting drug laws were even more sparse than they are now, and any laws there were enacted with little or evidence for their efficacy should just as easily be repealed with little to no evidence. In a free society, the default position should be no laws that take away one's liberties. Laws that reduce one's freedoms should only be enacted when one's freedoms impinge on another's.

    As I said, the data exists that show the benefits of relaxing drug laws. What you're asking for as "proof" is simply retarded. You can't test out effects of law changes in the controlled environment of a laboratory. What's indisputable is that countries that relaxed their drug laws are not seeing an explosion of drug abuse. To the contrary, the results were seen as positive after 5 years and even after 12 years. It doesn't matter if these results are reflective of a bad economy or whatever other factors you think could have had an effect on the numbers. The benefit has been 12 years' worth of additional freedom, even if no other positive effect can be shown.


    3) hmmm.... Lolz. Seriously. This is funny.

    Not as funny as your thinking that you actually had a valid point.


    4) hmmmm.... Huh.... I am baffled and intrigued at your response. I PERSONALLY believe marijuana by its chemical is not terribly harmful based on some chemist and doctor statements.

    Which chemist's or doctor's statements? Could it be that you've already formed an opinion and you only seek out "doctor's statements" that you agree with?

    And I raise my opinion by voting for the law maker that share the same mind set. What's so wrong with such approach?

    Why are you still arguing this point? Nobody says that lawmakers shouldn't have to authority to make laws. That's why they're called "lawmakers". Duh. And your "opinion" is expressed through voting. That's why they're also called "elected officials". Duh.

    Nevertheless lawmakers don't always act on the wishes of their electorate, and their way of forming opinion can be just as misguided by confirmation bias as yours is.


    5) chill....

    I am chill, homey. That's why I said go ahead and be blissful.


    6) movie, talk later.

  • If it aint broke, don't fix it

    , Ian2 wrote

    You are a wag

    Wives and girlfriends?