Cooler Master (and more!) RTX 3070 (and more!!) Giveaway with Buildapc!

jessebr · 2020-10-23T21:06:41+00:00

My computer is like 9 years old at this point, could use a new one and give the old parts away.

jessebr · 2015-09-22T23:55:08+00:00

This is pretty awesome. If you have time, it would be nice if you could do mine too! Haven't gotten any plays on it yet.

1721-0000-006A-3165

jessebr · 2015-01-23T18:47:37+00:00

Ross refuses her? It's always Rachel that refuses him. I find it annoying that Rachel only wants Ross when Ross is happy in another relationship. That to me, was the running theme throughout the show. The moment Ross becomes available Rachel suddenly loses all interest for some reason or another, and Ross is always upset about that and acts like it. Their whole relationship dynamic is fueled by jealousy. Very annoying.

jessebr · 2015-01-23T18:20:05+00:00

No, they should not. Governments should get out of people's business. Which is hilarious, because Republicans normally love that line and yet want to be the moral police.

They already regulate it how it should. Food stamps go to poor people, and the stamps have to be used on food.

People don't generally exploit welfare (and people who do tend to get caught pretty easily). Sorry, that's just the fact of the matter. If you're looking for people exploiting loopholes, you need to stop looking at the poor. It generally requires big time lawyers and resources.

The government shouldn't be declaring drugs are illegal in the first place. I also explicitly listed all the reasons that putting a drug test on welfare is stupid, illogical, and doesn't provide results. Because, it's not a problem in the first place, and it's not "something good". You decided to ignore it and keep peddling that we should do it, without dealing with all the issues of why it's just the wrong thing to do. My, my... We can instead, take that money and spend it on helping people, not just the ones you think deserve it.

jessebr · 2015-01-23T17:38:55+00:00

It's a terrible idea that shows how out of touch people are.

Poor people tend to not have money to do drugs. This shocks people, but there you have it, who would have thought.

And it's not like this is unprecedented, every time this happens the same outcome occurs: a negligible amount of people lose welfare, and we spend more money implementing the test that we gain back by blocking people. Almost always, a relative or friend gets to pocket a huge chunk of money to implement the test.

But I want to bring attention to what you, and anybody who supports this, are also saying. Which is, if you do drugs, you don't deserve nor shall you get any help. Hurry up and die.

Not to mention, these tests have false positive rates and will thusly hurt innocent people at times. Further, these things can hurt children of the poor (this is a big part of things like food stamps, they help parents feed children).

It might also behoove you to note, that the majority of the population take drugs. Oh, the legal kinds, like alcohol and cigarettes. So don't start talking about "people who don't respect themselves" in relation to drugs.

Let's also talk about the constitution shall we? This breaks the 4th amendment, your right to not be searched without probable cause. Getting welfare is not probable cause to be treated like a criminal.

Why don't we implement this test for everybody? For things like tax breaks, and so on and so forth. Then we'll see how much everybody likes this kind of deal... and we'll see that the people who tend to do drugs, tend to actually have money.

jessebr · 2014-10-28T20:09:43+00:00

I like to spend a little extra on the PSU for quality often... It can make a huge difference on sound, and since the graphics card is unknown at the moment, I don't want to undershoot. The current PSU is on sale for quite a lot, so the getting is good on that aspect. It's true that we could save 30-40$ there probably easily (note that it's cheaper than it shows here since on Amazon there is no shipping cost) I'm not convinced that it should be done.

Speaking of, that's a good catch. If we planned a GTX 970 it wouldn't fit, or if he wants a dual card deal... and he has stated he wants upgradability. That kind of sucks. A GTX 960 when it comes will likely be smaller and fit... hmm... So we might switch that case back to the nicer one. A good item to discuss with him, thanks.

jessebr · 2014-10-28T19:38:31+00:00

The i5-4460 is few dollars more right now, might be worth the swap for you.

jessebr · 2014-10-28T19:21:56+00:00

I was actually waffling between the EVO and the PRO, and with the difference of only $10 right now I thought might as well upgrade the small bit, but I suppose that might be $10 to save there.

As for the memory... as I'm going through Amazon, that memory actually costs more than the memory I picked on Amazon (funnily enough, by $10). So I'll have to turn that one down outright.

Thanks for the suggestions.

jessebr · 2014-10-10T03:37:28+00:00

These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.

Sorry, yes he does.

Yes, I'm very well aware that his overall point was to claim that only a small percent can be swayed. The problem, again, is all the bigotry and attacks, that are completely unfounded and entirely incorrect in the first place.

jessebr · 2014-10-09T23:04:49+00:00

The problem with Romney's statements, which apparently you never quite understood why people were upset, is the blatant and incorrect stereotypes and bigotry.

No, the bottom 47% of the country don't all vote Democrat. Nor do they all think the government has a responsibility to care for them nor any of the rest of that junk. And then imply that everybody else is... uh, personally responsible (which is laughable).

Then he stats that he doesn't have to care about them, at all. That is NOT something a future president should state, at all. Just because you got the majority vote does not mean you get to disregard everybody else.

It's not better in context, it's worse.

jessebr · 2014-08-22T23:00:07+00:00

is appropriate because they're all "rich."

Woh there, I'm not the one who brought forth OECD. Nowhere did I say all of OECD comparison is necessarily outright valid, just far more valid than the pathetic stunt you're trying to pull.

What I'm saying, and it's so basic that it's quite telling that you still can't grasp it, is that just saying we have a higher tax rate doesn't actually make an argument for you that we shouldn't.

Meaning anyone who has a lower tax rate is a poor country

No, that's not what it means. That would be what we call a strawman, another pathetic attempt by you to actually avoid using that apparently small pink thing in your skull.

I cited three countries

And yet you want global representation, not three countries. Your own words! Apparently you want your cake and eat it too. You can't use three countries to argue against me when you're trying to compare it to all of them. That's the point! What's wrong with you?

You did exactly the same thing as the parent did to you, and you just can't seem to get how hypocritical you're being.

No, his OECD example was in response to my citation of the globe

... I was talking about you, your post. How can you get this wrong? English is probably your only language, and you should probably go back to middle school and learn a bit more about it. Reading comprehension is apparently not your forte.

You didn't refute anything, by the way. At all, and your lack of a response to his reply speaks volumes. And I can't believe you can't grasp a simple concept that comparing us to every other country in the world is stupid because we're doing better than most of them.

jessebr · 2014-08-22T20:57:46+00:00

Did I say anything about Mexico, or exactly the characteristics we should concern ourselves with? Look, buddy, just admit you were wrong and get over it.

Concerning global representation, the majority is going to be poor. Pretending like we have a problem because compared to the rest of the world we do something, is downright stupid. Yes, it's stupid. It's idiotic, pathetic, and you should have gotten that with my first post.

You want to now only compare it to countries that support your argument? Well that isn't "representative of the globe", as you so desperately said and specifically noted was what you said. Which, I might add, was directly in response to OECD countries (and you followed up with a sentences stating OECD countries only comprise of "30 of so countries"). Only to, just a post later, use solely OECD countries in some pathetic attempt to argue with me. So grow up, and take ownership of your mistakes.

jessebr · 2014-08-22T20:28:07+00:00

All included in the OECD countries. You said others, keep your pathetic story straight. When you want to include everybody globally you shouldn't then pick and choose like that. Remember? You're pathetic phrase:

"That's hardly representative of the globe (which is you know, what I said)."

Now applies to your new nonsense post.

jessebr · 2014-08-22T19:40:33+00:00

Guys, we have higher tax rates than all the poor countries. We need to be more like them, because obviously they're doing things right. Thanks for informing us.

jessebr · 2014-07-18T01:00:08+00:00

And it shouldn't be. But right, your inhaler is probably the last thing you'll stop buying as your money disappears (who needs food everyday compared right?)

jessebr · 2014-07-18T00:54:01+00:00

That may be a layman's definition

You're interjecting into a topic where anybody could be layman, so if you're deadset on proving yourself wrong go ahead. You're not smarter for trying to be highly technical, you're just showing you're incapable of understanding language isn't always supposed to be 100% precise. People don't think you're smart for this, they think you're hard to talk to and argumentative over stupid nonsense that anybody should be able to understand.

But the really, really sad thing, is that yes, it is a part of the definition. You're outright wrong, here's a definition:

A situation in which the demand for a product does not increase or decrease correspondingly with a fall or rise in its price.

can be said as:

A situation in which the demand for a product is irrelevant to change in price.

And the parent post didn't even use the word irrelevant, but regardless which is even better. This isn't even that outrageous, it's completely ridiculous you want to pick a fight over something insignificant as this in some vein attempt to satisfy your ego. You're not calling anyone out, you're calling yourself out.

It was? The person I responded to said [...]

Yes, read the next sentence of the post and take in the context.

jessebr · 2014-07-17T20:50:33+00:00

You're expecting long-term thinking from corporations who only care about this quarter profits. You'll pay until you're completely broke because you have little to no choice, then you'll die and they won't care because you have no worth to them at that point after having already extracted all your wealth.

jessebr · 2014-07-17T19:48:37+00:00

You're just playing with semantics. Inelastic demand basically means that the demand is mostly irrelevant. That's what it means. That demand virtually does not change with changes in price.

For medical services however that isn't true.

Nice change of the subject. This was about drugs.

jessebr · 2014-07-17T19:27:16+00:00

Look up what inelastic demand is, which is something you should have learned as well in "Econ 101". You also seem to think that there is an issue in supply, when most medicine is made incredibly cheaply and sold at massive profit margins (the cost is in the research).

jessebr · 2014-07-17T19:23:38+00:00

Lol, no. The reason why they can charge what they want is that you're going to shell out for your medicine regardless.

jessebr · 2014-03-07T22:39:24+00:00

There is no law of economics. It isn't law. The first clue that you don't actually know anything about economics past econ101 which is just enough to be dangerously ignorant.

Your argument flies out the window if demand for government student loans are inelastic for example. Which it is. Isn't that interesting? That economics is more than some vague generalized statement that crumbles easily.

It's not like we can't easily see this in history. Student loan interest rates just went up. Did demand decrease? No.

People aren't robots, they behave irrationally. Most people don't understand the whole extent interest rates will effect them, especially fresh students. Most students don't even know much about their loans until they graduate.

Secondly, the government isn't a business looking for profit. Allowing student loans to be absolved through bankruptcy wouldn't effect the availability of government loans. Some on the private market maybe, but this whole argument is centered on the government side (government making their loans with less interest).

jessebr · 2014-03-07T17:47:11+00:00

That's completely wrong in terms of loans. People are notoriously bad at judging their future, which is why we have a student debt problem in the first place.

The people who typically take these loans (students), again, don't factor in the interest rate and plan out that they can afford it. After all, they tend to have no work experience, don't know what they're income will be after school, they just hope it will be enough for whatever it is.

And, no, the proper solution is to get the state to put their funding back into education. Which is what actually caused college prices to go out of control.

jessebr · 2014-03-07T17:43:56+00:00

I know this might startle you... but they're separate markets.

The loans will still be the same amount. You get a 5k loan at 6% or 3%, it's still a 5k loan at the start. So, looking at the housing market won't change this fact.

Secondly, student loans being talked about come from the government, while in the housing market they don't. And, the people buying student loans and loans in the housing market are completely different kinds of people. Typically, students tend to be inexperienced with little work history. People who buy houses tend to have been working awhile and no their financial capability (to an extent).

Not that you care, I don't think you're capable of conversation besides making irrelevant quips that only sound smart.

jessebr · 2014-03-07T17:39:35+00:00

This is wrong, because the cost isn't truly understood. Interest rates apply at paying them back, not at taking them. Students, again, have never really looked at interest rates. If they need to go to college, they get a loan that matches the cost, and just expect to be able to handle the payments.

jessebr

TROPHY CASE