Slashdot Mirror

It's ok, because in their minds the sanctity of life ends after birth. Then it becomes a free for all, eveything else takes precedent, military, war, death penalty, profits, tax dollars, corporations etc.

Composition.

X = "You're asking this in a discussion about Openoffice cloning one of Microsoft's ideas? Facepalm."
C = "Prove FOSS does NOT innovate."

# X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
# Therefore claim C is false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Yea, it's funny and maybe I'm acting a little ironically, but you cannot *prove* that openoffice has never done anything innovative. That's why the original post was flame bait. It was subjective opinionated drivel.

Slippery slope is a falacy. End of discussion. /sarcasm

what on earth have people allegedly stealing from your offspring to do with blasting or not of ICBMs in NK?

I will answer that, when you or the parent can answer what Americans fleeing to other countries has to do with it.

You should maybe calm down.

Impossible. I'd have to be worked up. I'm not.

try reading this before ou continue this line of argument.

Um. That fallacy is completely irrelevant to anything I said. Think on.

what on earth have people allegedly stealing from your offspring to do with blasting or not of ICBMs in NK? You should maybe calm down. try reading this before ou continue this line of argument.

Sorry, but I prefer to live in a state with a functioning government that can actually provide for its citizens. Take a hike and go live in Somalia if you're so opposed to civilization.

False Dilemma: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

Limited government is a good idea. Our original Constitution describes it well.

Warlording and Socialism aren't the only two options.

Maybe Slashdot isn't representative of the Linux community, but if it's not-- what is?

What the fuck? Your argument is "I personally can't think of any better single representative of the large community of which this smaller community is a tiny subset, so it must be an accurate representation of the whole"? How do you even manage to type this kind of garbage without dying from the sheer amount of stupid in it?

I thought the same, although not so graphic :) Here's a nicer description of why the original statement was wrong: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

Replacing a word in a sentence isn't much of an argument. Sometimes it works, but you can also completely change the meaning of the sentence.

You would do better if you identified that actual fallacy instead of randomly hoping all moderators will figure out what you are trying to say.

How is that immediate harm and why do you think we had no danger from terrorist despite no less the 20 terrorist plots on American soil being foiled by the government within the last 8 years and the people being tried and convicted?

Losing my protection against unreasonable search isn't immediate harm? Oh, and none of those plots foiled were done so using the "new tools," it was all done with laws in place prior to 9/11. I suggest you do some research.

So if I tell 10 people to kill your family and they do it, I should be completely innocent of those crimes right? If I tell 5 people to rape you mom while you are forced to watch with your dad dismembered and spread around you, and they do it, I'm innocent because I didn't participate right?

Oh right because people are mindless sheep that blindly do whatever they are told, and therefore are not responsible for their own actions, you are. Stop with your garbage pleas to emotion, its incredibly transparent. To fully answer you question, I would blame the retards that actually listened to you, since they should no better. I'm going to go do something just become someone tells me to, sorry that you have no will of your own though.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

Get a fucking clue bat then proceed to beat yourself half to death with it.

Ya, and you call me a troll?

"Why would you need an app store specifically for Linux on netbook?"

'you' wouldn't but it would promote sales and services for the Mobile carriers, as they wouldn't be paying the Microsoft tax or 'share download revenue with the OS designer'

'Does the Linux foundation want to do an oversight .. No oversight needed'

Fallacy: Straw Man

When I was a child I had to walk 20 miles to school everyday in a snow storm, through swamps and trying to avoid crocodiles.

Yeah, I remember, when I was a child I actually had to walk to a library to borrow an actual book.

Don't do what I've done, do what I say

Sounds familiar.

Look, I'm not even saying that kids have it easy nowadays, far from it. I remember learning to program on a C-64. You could memorize all the important addresses. Your languages were BASIC and assembler. You had a grand total of 3 registers. You had no endian issues, no Unicode, nothing to install, nothing to configure. You just bought a subscription to Run magazine and started by copying the programs from it.

Things are different now, and I think it's better that it's harder and that the upcoming generation will adapt just as we did. All these guys are saying is that what made sense then doesn't make sense now, that much should be obvious, but kids are still idiots.

begging the question: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Please, use it correctly or don't use it at all.

Putting the drug debate aside, online polls always suffer from two things:

biased sample and hasty generalization

A poll at WhiteHouse.gov merely reflects the opinion of those who visited WhiteHouse.gov--nothing more and nothing less. A poll at cnn.com or foxnews.com merely reflects the opinions of those who visit those sites--nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't matter how popular the online poll is... THEY CANNOT BE GENERALIZED TO THE US POPULATION AT LARGE. And it would be unwise for an administration to make policy decisions based on informal online polls.

That's why we have the voting system. Those who vote represent legal US citizens who chose to exercise their constitutional right to vote--nothing more, nothing less.

Putting the drug debate aside, online polls always suffer from two things:

biased sample and hasty generalization

A poll at WhiteHouse.gov merely reflects the opinion of those who visited WhiteHouse.gov--nothing more and nothing less. A poll at cnn.com or foxnews.com merely reflects the opinions of those who visit those sites--nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't matter how popular the online poll is... THEY CANNOT BE GENERALIZED TO THE US POPULATION AT LARGE. And it would be unwise for an administration to make policy decisions based on informal online polls.

That's why we have the voting system. Those who vote represent legal US citizens who chose to exercise their constitutional right to vote--nothing more, nothing less.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SLIPPERY SLOPE

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

if someone uses gps tracking devices in adults in the future, it will have absolutely nothing to with their use in children now. if you use them in children, there are no implications whatsoever as to their future use in future groups. to believe so is to think other people are unable to understand the difference between children and adults. therefore, your previous bloviating about gps tracking in children leading to gps devices in SPEEDERS for fuck sake is an example of fear-addled thinking on your part of the highest retarded order

examine how you think about the issue. retract your statement about speeders. otherwise, your thinking is EXACTLY the thought processes of morons who think gays marrying leads to legalized necrophilia and evolution taught in our schools leads to atheism

just admit you fucked up, and moved on, and drop the slippery slope bullshit in all future arguments, for the sake of your own lucidity

Americans can't imagine how other people could want something different from what they have, and how could they think different from what they, Americans, think. I don't know if it's true, but it's a very interesting POV.

sounds more like a Christian view rather than just an American view, but I guess since a large portion of our population is Christian it may still hold up.

Wrong and wrong.

I would wager that you could replace the noun "Christian" with almost any other noun describing a large population of people and you'd get a very similar percentage of people who resist seeing other's POV. What you may have observed in people claiming to be Christian is likely attributed to human nature rather than being Christian (or whatever noun you wish to lob an Ad Hominem attack on).

Americans can't imagine how other people could want something different from what they have, and how could they think different from what they, Americans, think. I don't know if it's true, but it's a very interesting POV.

sounds more like a Christian view rather than just an American view, but I guess since a large portion of our population is Christian it may still hold up.

Wrong and wrong.

I would wager that you could replace the noun "Christian" with almost any other noun describing a large population of people and you'd get a very similar percentage of people who resist seeing other's POV. What you may have observed in people claiming to be Christian is likely attributed to human nature rather than being Christian (or whatever noun you wish to lob an Ad Hominem attack on).

Americans can't imagine how other people could want something different from what they have, and how could they think different from what they, Americans, think. I don't know if it's true, but it's a very interesting POV.

sounds more like a Christian view rather than just an American view, but I guess since a large portion of our population is Christian it may still hold up.

Wrong and wrong.

I would wager that you could replace the noun "Christian" with almost any other noun describing a large population of people and you'd get a very similar percentage of people who resist seeing other's POV. What you may have observed in people claiming to be Christian is likely attributed to human nature rather than being Christian (or whatever noun you wish to lob an Ad Hominem attack on).

We are all impressed with your great generalization skills.

You know that conclusion that Lord Ender just made? A bit fallacious.

You know that conclusion that Lord Ender just made? A bit fallacious.

That's a different scenario.

• Philip Morris said cigarettes were non-addicting. They didn't say they were addictive but that the addiction can be overcome. This is a possible red herring for the current discussion.
• Smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine is the same act as smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine. Committing simulated violence in a game and committing an actual act of violence against an actual person are not the same act. Any attempt at making one of these equivalent to the other, as one is a tautology and one is the very link in question, show that you are begging the question of the link from simulated violence to commission of actual acts of violence.
• Even if someone becomes physiologically addicted to committing simulated violence in a computer game, there remains a difference between that addiction and performing an actual physical act against an actual living person.
• The causal link between simulated violence in computer games and actual acts of violence is exactly what is at question. You are begging that question. (You cannot assume a priori the answer to a question and use that answer as support for answering the question. That's the fallacy of circular reasoning) or "begging the question".)
• Your use of demonizing Philip Morris and comparing myself to that company appears to be the genetic fallacy or somethign related to it.
• The press linking a few game players to crimes and that meaning all players of violent video games commit violent acts is the spotlight fallacy.
• Even if there's a correlation between players of violent video games and commissions of violent acts, one still has to consider and rule out the fallacies of confusing cause and effect, post hoc, ignoring a common cause, and even division (since the link between the two would likely to be stronger for certain types of people (like those with a mental failure distinguishing between fantasy and reality already)).
• Saying that either games cause real violence or they don't is a fallacy in itself, that of false dilemma. Surely even if playing violent video games is a contributing factor to actual violent acts, it is unlikely to be a sole or final cause. It is also unlikely to be a major cause compared to more significantly correlated contributing factors. It is unlikely to be the same level of contributing factor for people with different mentalities and different levels of faculties.

If you want to argue logically, please get your factual information correct and police your statements for logical fallacies.

That's a different scenario.

• Philip Morris said cigarettes were non-addicting. They didn't say they were addictive but that the addiction can be overcome. This is a possible red herring for the current discussion.
• Smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine is the same act as smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine. Committing simulated violence in a game and committing an actual act of violence against an actual person are not the same act. Any attempt at making one of these equivalent to the other, as one is a tautology and one is the very link in question, show that you are begging the question of the link from simulated violence to commission of actual acts of violence.
• Even if someone becomes physiologically addicted to committing simulated violence in a computer game, there remains a difference between that addiction and performing an actual physical act against an actual living person.
• The causal link between simulated violence in computer games and actual acts of violence is exactly what is at question. You are begging that question. (You cannot assume a priori the answer to a question and use that answer as support for answering the question. That's the fallacy of circular reasoning) or "begging the question".)
• Your use of demonizing Philip Morris and comparing myself to that company appears to be the genetic fallacy or somethign related to it.
• The press linking a few game players to crimes and that meaning all players of violent video games commit violent acts is the spotlight fallacy.
• Even if there's a correlation between players of violent video games and commissions of violent acts, one still has to consider and rule out the fallacies of confusing cause and effect, post hoc, ignoring a common cause, and even division (since the link between the two would likely to be stronger for certain types of people (like those with a mental failure distinguishing between fantasy and reality already)).
• Saying that either games cause real violence or they don't is a fallacy in itself, that of false dilemma. Surely even if playing violent video games is a contributing factor to actual violent acts, it is unlikely to be a sole or final cause. It is also unlikely to be a major cause compared to more significantly correlated contributing factors. It is unlikely to be the same level of contributing factor for people with different mentalities and different levels of faculties.

If you want to argue logically, please get your factual information correct and police your statements for logical fallacies.

That's a different scenario.

• Philip Morris said cigarettes were non-addicting. They didn't say they were addictive but that the addiction can be overcome. This is a possible red herring for the current discussion.
• Smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine is the same act as smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine. Committing simulated violence in a game and committing an actual act of violence against an actual person are not the same act. Any attempt at making one of these equivalent to the other, as one is a tautology and one is the very link in question, show that you are begging the question of the link from simulated violence to commission of actual acts of violence.
• Even if someone becomes physiologically addicted to committing simulated violence in a computer game, there remains a difference between that addiction and performing an actual physical act against an actual living person.
• The causal link between simulated violence in computer games and actual acts of violence is exactly what is at question. You are begging that question. (You cannot assume a priori the answer to a question and use that answer as support for answering the question. That's the fallacy of circular reasoning) or "begging the question".)
• Your use of demonizing Philip Morris and comparing myself to that company appears to be the genetic fallacy or somethign related to it.
• The press linking a few game players to crimes and that meaning all players of violent video games commit violent acts is the spotlight fallacy.
• Even if there's a correlation between players of violent video games and commissions of violent acts, one still has to consider and rule out the fallacies of confusing cause and effect, post hoc, ignoring a common cause, and even division (since the link between the two would likely to be stronger for certain types of people (like those with a mental failure distinguishing between fantasy and reality already)).
• Saying that either games cause real violence or they don't is a fallacy in itself, that of false dilemma. Surely even if playing violent video games is a contributing factor to actual violent acts, it is unlikely to be a sole or final cause. It is also unlikely to be a major cause compared to more significantly correlated contributing factors. It is unlikely to be the same level of contributing factor for people with different mentalities and different levels of faculties.

If you want to argue logically, please get your factual information correct and police your statements for logical fallacies.

That's a different scenario.

• Philip Morris said cigarettes were non-addicting. They didn't say they were addictive but that the addiction can be overcome. This is a possible red herring for the current discussion.
• Smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine is the same act as smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine. Committing simulated violence in a game and committing an actual act of violence against an actual person are not the same act. Any attempt at making one of these equivalent to the other, as one is a tautology and one is the very link in question, show that you are begging the question of the link from simulated violence to commission of actual acts of violence.
• Even if someone becomes physiologically addicted to committing simulated violence in a computer game, there remains a difference between that addiction and performing an actual physical act against an actual living person.
• The causal link between simulated violence in computer games and actual acts of violence is exactly what is at question. You are begging that question. (You cannot assume a priori the answer to a question and use that answer as support for answering the question. That's the fallacy of circular reasoning) or "begging the question".)
• Your use of demonizing Philip Morris and comparing myself to that company appears to be the genetic fallacy or somethign related to it.
• The press linking a few game players to crimes and that meaning all players of violent video games commit violent acts is the spotlight fallacy.
• Even if there's a correlation between players of violent video games and commissions of violent acts, one still has to consider and rule out the fallacies of confusing cause and effect, post hoc, ignoring a common cause, and even division (since the link between the two would likely to be stronger for certain types of people (like those with a mental failure distinguishing between fantasy and reality already)).
• Saying that either games cause real violence or they don't is a fallacy in itself, that of false dilemma. Surely even if playing violent video games is a contributing factor to actual violent acts, it is unlikely to be a sole or final cause. It is also unlikely to be a major cause compared to more significantly correlated contributing factors. It is unlikely to be the same level of contributing factor for people with different mentalities and different levels of faculties.

If you want to argue logically, please get your factual information correct and police your statements for logical fallacies.

That's a different scenario.

• Philip Morris said cigarettes were non-addicting. They didn't say they were addictive but that the addiction can be overcome. This is a possible red herring for the current discussion.
• Smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine is the same act as smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine. Committing simulated violence in a game and committing an actual act of violence against an actual person are not the same act. Any attempt at making one of these equivalent to the other, as one is a tautology and one is the very link in question, show that you are begging the question of the link from simulated violence to commission of actual acts of violence.
• Even if someone becomes physiologically addicted to committing simulated violence in a computer game, there remains a difference between that addiction and performing an actual physical act against an actual living person.
• The causal link between simulated violence in computer games and actual acts of violence is exactly what is at question. You are begging that question. (You cannot assume a priori the answer to a question and use that answer as support for answering the question. That's the fallacy of circular reasoning) or "begging the question".)
• Your use of demonizing Philip Morris and comparing myself to that company appears to be the genetic fallacy or somethign related to it.
• The press linking a few game players to crimes and that meaning all players of violent video games commit violent acts is the spotlight fallacy.
• Even if there's a correlation between players of violent video games and commissions of violent acts, one still has to consider and rule out the fallacies of confusing cause and effect, post hoc, ignoring a common cause, and even division (since the link between the two would likely to be stronger for certain types of people (like those with a mental failure distinguishing between fantasy and reality already)).
• Saying that either games cause real violence or they don't is a fallacy in itself, that of false dilemma. Surely even if playing violent video games is a contributing factor to actual violent acts, it is unlikely to be a sole or final cause. It is also unlikely to be a major cause compared to more significantly correlated contributing factors. It is unlikely to be the same level of contributing factor for people with different mentalities and different levels of faculties.

If you want to argue logically, please get your factual information correct and police your statements for logical fallacies.

That's a different scenario.

• Philip Morris said cigarettes were non-addicting. They didn't say they were addictive but that the addiction can be overcome. This is a possible red herring for the current discussion.
• Smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine is the same act as smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine. Committing simulated violence in a game and committing an actual act of violence against an actual person are not the same act. Any attempt at making one of these equivalent to the other, as one is a tautology and one is the very link in question, show that you are begging the question of the link from simulated violence to commission of actual acts of violence.
• Even if someone becomes physiologically addicted to committing simulated violence in a computer game, there remains a difference between that addiction and performing an actual physical act against an actual living person.
• The causal link between simulated violence in computer games and actual acts of violence is exactly what is at question. You are begging that question. (You cannot assume a priori the answer to a question and use that answer as support for answering the question. That's the fallacy of circular reasoning) or "begging the question".)
• Your use of demonizing Philip Morris and comparing myself to that company appears to be the genetic fallacy or somethign related to it.
• The press linking a few game players to crimes and that meaning all players of violent video games commit violent acts is the spotlight fallacy.
• Even if there's a correlation between players of violent video games and commissions of violent acts, one still has to consider and rule out the fallacies of confusing cause and effect, post hoc, ignoring a common cause, and even division (since the link between the two would likely to be stronger for certain types of people (like those with a mental failure distinguishing between fantasy and reality already)).
• Saying that either games cause real violence or they don't is a fallacy in itself, that of false dilemma. Surely even if playing violent video games is a contributing factor to actual violent acts, it is unlikely to be a sole or final cause. It is also unlikely to be a major cause compared to more significantly correlated contributing factors. It is unlikely to be the same level of contributing factor for people with different mentalities and different levels of faculties.

If you want to argue logically, please get your factual information correct and police your statements for logical fallacies.

That's a different scenario.

• Philip Morris said cigarettes were non-addicting. They didn't say they were addictive but that the addiction can be overcome. This is a possible red herring for the current discussion.
• Smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine is the same act as smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine. Committing simulated violence in a game and committing an actual act of violence against an actual person are not the same act. Any attempt at making one of these equivalent to the other, as one is a tautology and one is the very link in question, show that you are begging the question of the link from simulated violence to commission of actual acts of violence.
• Even if someone becomes physiologically addicted to committing simulated violence in a computer game, there remains a difference between that addiction and performing an actual physical act against an actual living person.
• The causal link between simulated violence in computer games and actual acts of violence is exactly what is at question. You are begging that question. (You cannot assume a priori the answer to a question and use that answer as support for answering the question. That's the fallacy of circular reasoning) or "begging the question".)
• Your use of demonizing Philip Morris and comparing myself to that company appears to be the genetic fallacy or somethign related to it.
• The press linking a few game players to crimes and that meaning all players of violent video games commit violent acts is the spotlight fallacy.
• Even if there's a correlation between players of violent video games and commissions of violent acts, one still has to consider and rule out the fallacies of confusing cause and effect, post hoc, ignoring a common cause, and even division (since the link between the two would likely to be stronger for certain types of people (like those with a mental failure distinguishing between fantasy and reality already)).
• Saying that either games cause real violence or they don't is a fallacy in itself, that of false dilemma. Surely even if playing violent video games is a contributing factor to actual violent acts, it is unlikely to be a sole or final cause. It is also unlikely to be a major cause compared to more significantly correlated contributing factors. It is unlikely to be the same level of contributing factor for people with different mentalities and different levels of faculties.

If you want to argue logically, please get your factual information correct and police your statements for logical fallacies.

That's a different scenario.

• Philip Morris said cigarettes were non-addicting. They didn't say they were addictive but that the addiction can be overcome. This is a possible red herring for the current discussion.
• Smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine is the same act as smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine. Committing simulated violence in a game and committing an actual act of violence against an actual person are not the same act. Any attempt at making one of these equivalent to the other, as one is a tautology and one is the very link in question, show that you are begging the question of the link from simulated violence to commission of actual acts of violence.
• Even if someone becomes physiologically addicted to committing simulated violence in a computer game, there remains a difference between that addiction and performing an actual physical act against an actual living person.
• The causal link between simulated violence in computer games and actual acts of violence is exactly what is at question. You are begging that question. (You cannot assume a priori the answer to a question and use that answer as support for answering the question. That's the fallacy of circular reasoning) or "begging the question".)
• Your use of demonizing Philip Morris and comparing myself to that company appears to be the genetic fallacy or somethign related to it.
• The press linking a few game players to crimes and that meaning all players of violent video games commit violent acts is the spotlight fallacy.
• Even if there's a correlation between players of violent video games and commissions of violent acts, one still has to consider and rule out the fallacies of confusing cause and effect, post hoc, ignoring a common cause, and even division (since the link between the two would likely to be stronger for certain types of people (like those with a mental failure distinguishing between fantasy and reality already)).
• Saying that either games cause real violence or they don't is a fallacy in itself, that of false dilemma. Surely even if playing violent video games is a contributing factor to actual violent acts, it is unlikely to be a sole or final cause. It is also unlikely to be a major cause compared to more significantly correlated contributing factors. It is unlikely to be the same level of contributing factor for people with different mentalities and different levels of faculties.

If you want to argue logically, please get your factual information correct and police your statements for logical fallacies.

It does not Beg the question

Your logic is astounding.

Do you want to do your job for free?
Strawman.

Do you want to not get paid for any work you do?
Strawman.

If not, then you support copyright restrictions. Because violation of copyright is exactly the same thing as hiring someone but not paying them.
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

All that means is that the law is wrong. Goading someone into killing themselves is murder.

Or at the very least, manslaughter. It's definitely very, very wrong.

I have no idea why you brought up anarchy. I am advocating that we change our Justice system to actually mete out justice. That doesn't sound like anarchy to me.

In this case, the prosecution used tortured logic and applied an almost entirely unrelated law. Interpreting that law in this way makes millions of otherwise innocent people into criminals. That is not justice.

Justice based on how the Jury feels is anarchy. It's the definition of mob rule. You either have very articulate laws that spell out when and where something is wrong/right, or you end up with total chaos.

It is not justice to allow a murderer to go free. Technicalities are not justice.

“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.” — Benjamin Franklin [Cite]

In your world, pushing someone off a cliff is OK because you didn't kill them. After all, is it your fault they hit the ground?

Making ridiculous strawman arguments only makes you look like hyperventilating internet flamebait. The "new hotness" in internet scams is to impersonate your Facebook friends for fun and profit. It's insidiously clever social engineering and easily accomplished. This is a real issue that needs to be addressed by real legislation, not grandstanding DAs convicting someone in isolated cases on odd technicalities that will affect millions of otherwise innocent people.

Something that can't be unethical or ethical is probably going to be more ethical than something that is unethical. In other words, if robots are neutral and humans are either evil or good, neutral is more good than evil.

You just said it can't be ethical, so how can it be more ethical? You consider neutral to be a one dimensional midpoint on a line between good and evil... half a glass of water, so to speak. This is a false dilemma.

Logically speaking, neutral is neither good nor evil so it cannot be more good than evil. Good, Evil, and Neutral are three tips on an equilateral triangle. Neutral is no closer to good than evil. They represent three logical extremes.

You can go to hell, you and your slippery slope fallacy!

Straw man
If you really believe the last line of your post, then you are more foolish than the woman this article is about. I would love to hear you tell Ravi Zacharias or Josh McDowell to their faces that they don't understand logic.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

I request you don't make special pleading for Linux when not providing sources or even anecdotal evidence. People using a certain OS don't automatically get a free pass as being "more knowledgeable" - especially considering the advocacy of Linux users trying to turn their friends on to the product. The fact you call out the corporate environment shows that there's a huge market that needs/uses file sharing (and the associated network services: print sharing, discovery, etc).

I wasn't stating that all people without a clue use it, but that there are those who do. My parents use it for business, my "friends without a clue" use it so they can break copyright law more easily ("oh, you downloaded ASDF cd? can I get that from your computer?") and share documents between laptop and desktop.

On top of all this, Vista has network separation that doesn't turn some of this stuff on depending on what network you choose This means file sharing isn't on for public networks, but is for home and work, because those cases have been found to be needed by enough home users to justify turning it on.

The difference between dummy text and "deception" is that the dummy text is not supposed to end up published. It seems likely that this article was published by accident, which makes it likely that this is in fact dummy text. I did not read any part of the parent's post that defended the publishing of propaganda.

Your argument is known as "begging the question."

1) Dummy text and deception differ in that dummy text isn't intended to be published.
2) The article was accidentally published.
3) Therefore the text in the article was dummy text and can't be an attempt at deception.

That's nonsense. You presuppose that scripted events can't be accidentally released and that the accidental release of the article proves that it's not deliberate falsehood. Your logic is built on a foundation of sand.

Just because the article was published by accident doesn't mean that what's in the article isn't propaganda that was going to go out later if the accident hadn't occurred. The level of specific detail -- including conversations and comments on the timing of events -- suggest a finished story, reporting on facts that could not be determined until after the events actually happened. Frankly, the effort at scripting the story before it happened smacks of a disregard for what would come later.

If they'd published it after the launch, most people would not have known -- after all, the conversations between the craft and ground control are unlikely to be independently recorded by observers and double-checked. Fact is, there's little chance they would've gotten caught, so why not fake things? Only their slip in publishing let people know that it was going on.

Frankly, we have every reason to be suspicious of a state-run newspaper in an autocratic country reporting on events deeply tied up in national pride.

Perhaps you wrote your reply in advance, not reading what you replied to, and accidentally posted it.

Cute. Do they still give gold stars for cleverness at your grade level?

I think it was implicit in the above post that one who *voluntarily chooses* to buy an iPhone 3G is then forced to buy the 3G data plan, regardless of whether they have 3G access. No one is forcing you to inhale air, either.

Cf. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

Congratulations! You've committed one of the same logical fallacies that Holocaust deniers commit. Your parents must be very proud!

What's with all the bad ethics of people on slashdot? It's okay to steal wifi because the network door was left open. It's okay to steal stuff because someone else did it. Duh.

If something is morally, ethically, and legally wrong, it'll still be that way when you do it. That's where the "Two Wrongs don't make a Right" cliche came from.

Christians to become Pro-Reason post Apocalypse.

I know that this post was sarcastic and that the collective slashdot crowd is generally anti-Christian, but the sweeping generalizations are getting old.

Repeat after me:

Just because some Christians (albeit a very vocal group) seem to fear science/reason, doesn't mean that all Christians do (see biased sample, Composition, hasty generalization, and Straw Man fallacies).

Christians to become Pro-Reason post Apocalypse.

I know that this post was sarcastic and that the collective slashdot crowd is generally anti-Christian, but the sweeping generalizations are getting old.

Repeat after me:

Just because some Christians (albeit a very vocal group) seem to fear science/reason, doesn't mean that all Christians do (see biased sample, Composition, hasty generalization, and Straw Man fallacies).

Christians to become Pro-Reason post Apocalypse.

I know that this post was sarcastic and that the collective slashdot crowd is generally anti-Christian, but the sweeping generalizations are getting old.

Repeat after me:

Just because some Christians (albeit a very vocal group) seem to fear science/reason, doesn't mean that all Christians do (see biased sample, Composition, hasty generalization, and Straw Man fallacies).

Christians to become Pro-Reason post Apocalypse.

I know that this post was sarcastic and that the collective slashdot crowd is generally anti-Christian, but the sweeping generalizations are getting old.

Repeat after me:

Just because some Christians (albeit a very vocal group) seem to fear science/reason, doesn't mean that all Christians do (see biased sample, Composition, hasty generalization, and Straw Man fallacies).

http://www.qualityinformationpublishers.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=219

Here is a rather cheap video that will satisfy your search for the truth. Though i'm sure you can find many free sources online as well.

Also, visit a concentration camp in Germany if you can. I've been to several.

As far as factual information about the number dead? Who knows really.. but transcripts like http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Session-03-07.html seem to give you a glimpse at truely factual information.

Thank you, Captain Logical Fallacy.

Or are you suggesting that my being a Flexdisk employee (I'm not, but let's assume I am), this somehow affects whether or not discs have to be returned, or that rental discs cost a lot of money if they get damaged.

Disclaimer: I'm new here!

Why, precisely does it matter as whom he posts? Even if all these accounts are, as is apparently the consensus, belonging to twitter, shouldn't you be rebutting his POINTS instead of his name? You spend two and a half paragraphs attacking his accounts, and half of one line giving a statement that says, in essense "oh, yeah, and your argument doesn't make sense either." Sounds like an ad hominem to me.

If I were someone coming in without an opinion, I would see someone making a statement backed up by data, as much as you may contest its validity, followed immediately by an unprovoked attack on the person who made the statement.

Like I said, I'm new here. Care to tell me why, exactly, you choose to respond against the man instead of against his data?

Great ad hominem attack there. You are truly an example of class and allure.

I don't think you understand Ad hominem. Ad hominem is to justify my position by attacking the the opponent instead of his position. "They're wrong because they're stupid" is ad hominem. My statement is perfectly logical... "They are wrong because their scheme is producing predictable results that are opposite of their stated goals. Clearly they are stupid." Is a perfectly logical argument.

They claim biofuel will reduce/recycle CO2, therefore making the planet more habitable for us and improve the environment. Instead, they are making the life on Earth less habitable to man (starvation) destroying the environment (dead zone in the gulf of Mexico), and it is quite likely they are achieving the exact opposite of their stated goal (creating more CO2 than using fossil fuels exclusively)

I pointed this out a year ago. Their failure was easy to predict, and now they are blaming fat people?!? There's your logical fallacy....

Fine. That may well be true. But what does that have to do with anything? As you should probably already know, dismissing his teachings or doctrine because of that is a classical logical fallacy.