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


cbae cbae
  • more lawless bankers. tis the season

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @cbae: where did I claim to get rid of government entirely?

    cbae: His solution is to eliminate government so it cannot be encroached upon.

     Revisionist Historian: Exactly! That would be far cheaper then to try and regulate it.

    Comparing a position of a person in a debate to rape and rape victims is despicable, childish and rather offensive.

    Come back when you can act like an adult and provide an argument for your position.

    I presented an analogy. It's your job to prove my analogy flawed or irrelevant. And what's despicable about what I said? I didn't say you advocated the rape of women. I'm claiming your position is one of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

    • Solve the problem of car theft by only riding bicycles.
    • Solve the problem of home burglaries by getting rid of houses.
    • Solve the problem of shoplifting by getting rid of stores.
    • Solve the problem of poor public school performance by getting rid of public schools.
    • Solve the problem of patent wars by getting rid of patents.
    • Solve the problem of government being taken over by corporations by getting rid of government.

    See, I didn't reduce your position any further using some slippery slope argument. Your position can't be reduced to any further absurd scenario. It was at the absurd level to begin with. All I did was provide an analogy. Prove that it's a false analogy.


    and where did I claim it was a fallacy? It's just a very stupid and unconstructive form of debating,.


    Again, I didn't use reductio ad absurdum, but I do seem to recall somebody giving the example of a 100% tax scenario to make the case that increasing taxes is bad. Are you claiming that reductio ad absurdum  isn't stupid or unconstructive when you use it?


  • Anyone know of a good source for ​Apple/​Samsung court case (1 ​bababaillio​n)?

    , Maddus Mattus wrote


    I have tons of intellectual property.

    You can download it freely at;


    Or browse the sourcecode at;


    Unlike you, I put my money where my mouth is.

    Nice! Free controls! Thanks for contributing to my laziness. You must be a socialist at heart.

    Unfortunately, with regard to patentability, I can probably find cases of prior art for each of your controls. It's a goodwill gesture on your part to offer these, but let's not kid ourselves. If you really had patentable IP, you would patent it in a heartbeat.

  • more lawless bankers. tis the season

    , Maddus Mattus wrote



    Exactly! That would be far cheaper then to try and regulate it.


    Reductio ad absurdum. So, got anything constructive to add? Or are you just trolling again?

    First, "reductio ad absurdum" isn't a logical fallacy. When you claim: "Hey, that's reductio ad absurdum! Use some other kind of argument." You're basically saying: "Hey, that's a legitimate logical argument! I quit because I have no retort."

    Second, the argument that I used isn't really "reductio ad absurdum" anyway. Your argument to get rid of government entirely is already absurd and can't be reduced any further.


  • more lawless bankers. tis the season

    , JohnAskew wrote


    I can feel the ebow in my side along with nudge-nudge-wink-wink from the lot of them.


    When you have brokers telling their retail customers to continue to buy and hold while the trading arm of these same firms selling short  and closing out positions at the end of every trading day, you know it's a complete set-up.

    In the past, you could rely on the "greater fool" to one day get you out of a bad trading position. Now you have your own brokerage firm trying to make money at your expense. It's as bad as when real estate agents would bid on the same houses that you hired them to help you purchase several years ago when everybody want to flip houses for huge profits.

  • more lawless bankers. tis the season

    @JohnAskew: The funny thing is that Maddus has acknowledged previously that corporations are, in fact, dangerously encroaching on government. But his solution isn't to prevent this from happening by dissuading corporations through regulations, penalties, sanctions, etc.. His solution is to eliminate government so it cannot be encroached upon. IOW, instead of preventing women from being raped by punishing the rapist. Prevent rape by getting rid of women.

  • Anyone know of a good source for ​Apple/​Samsung court case (1 ​bababaillio​n)?

    , evildictait​or wrote


    It seems like your ultimate goal is really an anti-capitalist one after all.


    He's pro-capitalism, yet he's very anti-capitalist. IOW, he loves the institution of capitalism but hates the individual participant capitalist (except himself, of course). 

    I'm sure if that if he had any intellectual property worthy of a patent, he'd be singing a different tune. You don't need to build a fence around an empty lot after all.

  • more lawless bankers. tis the season

    , Maddus Mattus wrote


    He doesn't have to, the guy who caused the collision has to pay. What you as a driver need to do, is to insure yourself against the possibility that the causer of the collision is uninsured.

    Having insurance is no guarantee that you'll be compensated. Insurance is highly-regulated, and most states in the US have a Department of Insurance to oversee the insurance business because, like banks, insurance companies can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own.

    All the money does belong to them. You get the option to retrieve it and for that option you get some interest. If the bank goes bust, file a claim and stand in line. If the risk of losing your money isn't there, you act reckless with it and so will the bank. Check the recent history, reckless consumers, reckless banks, paying government.

    Uh, no. The money belongs to the account holder. The bank is paid to watch the money. When I let a valet park my car, I don't relinquish ownership of the vehicle at any point in time.


    And with the bailouts the situation stays the same. We need a bit of pain to change.

    The situation doesn't stay the same if the banks are broken up. WE shouldn't have to feel the pain. The banks should be the ones feeling the pain since they're the ones that benefited from growing so large in the first place.


    Really? Is there no way to insure against banks collapsing? Odd,..

    No, there's no way to insure against a bank collapsing. What can be insured are the accounts, but when banks collapse, there is a far greater economic impact than just the value of assets that the banks hold.

    Maybe a business opportunity there for you, be sure to get some government backing. Wink


    Again, I have no objections, as long as you do it without government.

    Gee, what a surprise. Your obsequiousness to corporations and willingness to bend over and grab your ankles for them is almost sickening. I'm sure you'd be all for government as long as a corporation were in charge of running the government.


    That's why they call them life lessons. Why should I pay you for your smashed up car by some hobo?

    If you are my family, I would, but you are a stranger. For all I know you have murdered ten people.

    That's the way insurance works. If my car gets smashed up, you help pay to get it fixed. If your car gets smashed up, I help pay to fix yours.

    The problem is when everybody's car gets smashed up at the same time AND the insurance company not only employees so many people and involved in so many non-insurance related businesses that their insolvency puts an entire nation's economy at risk. That is what is happening with banks as they grow so huge.


    This is a hard one. Should someone force me to insure, so that others are more free.

    I would say, no. The freedom of the individual is key, because the other guy is an individual as well.

    Nearly all governments are retarded, but they never start off that way. People are people, they will always take the easy way out.

    And by extension, corporations are people, and they will always take the easy way out. But their motivation goes beyond just being lazy. They're also motivated by greed.



    I don't believe it's governments place to play investment banker.


    Sure they do, but I get to vote each time I want to buy their products. Not once every four years on some vague promise that they will do a good job this term, honest! That again, is freedom!

    You think it's freedom, but it's not. When you buy products, you choose from what's available, and more often than not, it's not exactly what you want. You settle for the best one available, not the best one that could possibly exist.

    It's the same with elected officials, but being able to select new ones every 4 years is much better than not having any built-in mechanism at all to replace them. If you don't like Coke or Pepsi, good luck trying to put either of them out of business in favor of somebody else. Ain't gonna happen.



    Exactly my point, they are too big too complex and to politicized. They worry about the interests of their voters rather then the interests of their country.

    What are you smoking? They ARE supposed to worry about the interests of the voters. The interests of the voters ARE the interests of the country.

    The problem is when they forget to worry about the interests of the voters. My goodness, how confused can one person possibly be?

     In doing so they provide favors for minorities at the expense of the other minorities, till someone from different minority comes to power. They threaten with war and embargos if you do not play it by their rules. They take our money by force to fund all this and when they come up short they take some more! Meanwhile I've never been robbed on the streets, but get robbed 50% of my income legally each month. They play monetary games for the sake of unity, but spread poverty and violence. I could go on and on.

    I think have good reason to distrust them.

    First, loosen up your tinfoil hat. You have it on way too tight again.

    Second, you need to stop thinking your salary is actually 100% your salary. It's your "potential" salary if you didn't use any of the niceties provided by the government and, by extension, paid for by other taxpayers.

    Imagine if everybody's salary were halved, and all you knew of your salary was what you took home. Your employer would pay directly to the government to cover things like national defense and roads. Let's say this amount has no correlation to your earnings, but even if did you have no idea what this amount is. It's privileged information between your employer and the government.

    In such a scenario, would you think to yourself:  "Damn the government for stealing some vague amount from my company! That money should go to me! If I only knew what that amount is..."



    OMG, market failure!

    QUICK, deploy the government!

    Indeed this one isolated incident should be used to ban all private security corporations.

    Good luck getting into the office tomorrow!

    If you want to make exemptions to set the rule, how come we still have a government?

    If a company fails, it's gone.

    When a government fails, it's just still there,. Faces may have changed, but that's about it.

    So you want governments to disappear if they fail? You really do want to live in Somalia.

  • more lawless bankers. tis the season

    Give it up, Maddus. Your out-of-touch-with-reality, untenable Fantasyland will never happen. At least not in your lifetime. Go buy yourself another Ayn Rand novel and dream about it.

  • Midori code spotted on 2011 TV show

    Nice job, Mary J, er, I mean Felix. Smiley

  • Anyone know of a good source for ​Apple/​Samsung court case (1 ​bababaillio​n)?

    , Ray7 wrote


    Which ignores the fact that it takes years to take an idea from concept to product. Personally, I think it's wrong that a company can spend years and millions making something, only to have someone rip it off after only a few months on the market.

    Sure, but how ridiculous a patent is comes into play in what we think "should" happen. But that's for another thread.

    I'm sure those rounded corners took millions to design. Smiley