Back when I wrote code, I would, when writing for myself, not document a damned thing. However, if i wrote for general purposes I would explain each section in a large amount of detail. I would even point out what kind of problems that cutting out a particular section of code would cause.
Hello, I'm Bloodoflethe, and I write code like a girl. *cries*
I would agree with you here, because you are mostly right; however, you seem to forget that the innocents that the RIAA is trying to string out need recourse, as well. Let NYCL do his thing and while the RIAA is feeling frustrated and buying more lawyers, the RMS movement can swoop in, mostly unnoticed, and take their feet out from under them.
In this way, we assist the innocents and pull off a strategic manoeuver at the same time. What's not to like?
Oh I agree. In fact I'd read the entire article before posting. It is simply that you continue to apply the term social conservatism to this. My, perhaps too subtle, point is that you are missing the whole picture in that regard. Many social conservatives are far from individualists. Honestly, it seems that most people think they are individualists but can't handle the critical thinking necessary to be functional in that particular 'ism'.
Yeah, the whole time I've been reading this, I've been thinking: "I think they mean critical thinking." Thinking critically is key to getting to the facts. They stopped teaching that in grade school many years back.
So you are both agreeing that it was about slaves now, yes?
(Hint: if they tell the people it is about slaves to get them involved, then it has, effectively, become about slaves)
If you truly want a formal debate with one or more of these posters *you* should provide the venue or at least a link to an online venue in which to debate.
It's pretty standard to the one initiating the formal debate to indicate a location.
Creole slave owners, iirc - half black. There were several blacks that owned property there too and had servants that were black.
And for some reason I'm having that weird word disassociation that comes when you see a word repeated too many times. 'Black' is starting to sound strange as a word. 'Is' does too. I mean, really, sound it out! Iiiizzzz.
I like my Mountain Dew chewy too!
On a more serious note, exercise will actually make us geeks think better - increased blood flow to the brain and all that. Proper nutrition doesn't hurt, the goodies are just a nice thing to add on top!
My turn to bite - Canada is taking the right reaction to this. Neither the medium nor the viewers are at fault for the youtube crimes. They recognize that the fault lies with and should always lie with the perpetrator of the act. There is a huge difference in someone passively clicking on a link that may or may not be real out of curiosity than a person in a crowd provoking someone to "Do it! Kick him in the nose!"
Nicely done there. I've never seen anyone on/. ever aim at clergy with a hasty generalization fallacy. Nope, not ever. Especially not as well as you did. ~
OK, let me tell you that most of the clergy I've known, including my father and grandfather never shouted sinner, never condemned a person for their wrongheaded or outright malevolent actions. These people tried to make things work out. They both used the religious, if the person was deeply religious (which you can be even if you are screwed up) or the psychological (psychiatric counseling methods and such), if the person was less religiously oriented, in order to help people control their antisocial and destructive behaviors.
They all had their own faults, and with the exception of one of them was willing to admit to nearly all of them (some faults just aren't socially acceptable to proclaim).
Go piss in your own drinking water, the world needs less virulent and blind hatred than that which you espouse.
That's a classic composition fallacy. The issue at hand is the type of pornographic material, not pornography itself.
This is not to say that I think the call for recusal is well-founded. I don't. In fact, I feel that pornography is pornography is pornography and if the persons are willing (i.e. not coerced or drugged into committing certain pornographic acts) and above the age of consent, this should be a no contest argument.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember when they released Windows RG. Ahhhh, good times...
Get off this man's lawn already!
You forgot the closing parenthesis in your equation.
I.e., said reader has poor reading comprehension based on analysis of his response, or lack thereof, to contextual observations.
There is another observation to be made about said reader, but I don't really want to go in that direction.
Back when I wrote code, I would, when writing for myself, not document a damned thing. However, if i wrote for general purposes I would explain each section in a large amount of detail. I would even point out what kind of problems that cutting out a particular section of code would cause.
Hello, I'm Bloodoflethe, and I write code like a girl. *cries*
I would agree with you here, because you are mostly right; however, you seem to forget that the innocents that the RIAA is trying to string out need recourse, as well. Let NYCL do his thing and while the RIAA is feeling frustrated and buying more lawyers, the RMS movement can swoop in, mostly unnoticed, and take their feet out from under them.
In this way, we assist the innocents and pull off a strategic manoeuver at the same time. What's not to like?
We're talking about Florida. The majority of the other states will spit him back out when he tries to buy property there.
Oh I agree. In fact I'd read the entire article before posting. It is simply that you continue to apply the term social conservatism to this. My, perhaps too subtle, point is that you are missing the whole picture in that regard. Many social conservatives are far from individualists. Honestly, it seems that most people think they are individualists but can't handle the critical thinking necessary to be functional in that particular 'ism'.
Yeah, the whole time I've been reading this, I've been thinking: "I think they mean critical thinking." Thinking critically is key to getting to the facts. They stopped teaching that in grade school many years back.
So you are both agreeing that it was about slaves now, yes? (Hint: if they tell the people it is about slaves to get them involved, then it has, effectively, become about slaves)
If you truly want a formal debate with one or more of these posters *you* should provide the venue or at least a link to an online venue in which to debate.
It's pretty standard to the one initiating the formal debate to indicate a location.
Creole slave owners, iirc - half black. There were several blacks that owned property there too and had servants that were black.
And for some reason I'm having that weird word disassociation that comes when you see a word repeated too many times. 'Black' is starting to sound strange as a word. 'Is' does too. I mean, really, sound it out! Iiiizzzz.
There needs to be a mod: -1 replied to wrong post.
That isn't evidence. That is commentary.
To be fair, I will also post what I think you are referring to: Economic Individualism
Social Conservation
I like my Mountain Dew chewy too! On a more serious note, exercise will actually make us geeks think better - increased blood flow to the brain and all that. Proper nutrition doesn't hurt, the goodies are just a nice thing to add on top!
My turn to bite - Canada is taking the right reaction to this. Neither the medium nor the viewers are at fault for the youtube crimes. They recognize that the fault lies with and should always lie with the perpetrator of the act. There is a huge difference in someone passively clicking on a link that may or may not be real out of curiosity than a person in a crowd provoking someone to "Do it! Kick him in the nose!"
Nicely done there. I've never seen anyone on /. ever aim at clergy with a hasty generalization fallacy. Nope, not ever. Especially not as well as you did. ~
OK, let me tell you that most of the clergy I've known, including my father and grandfather never shouted sinner, never condemned a person for their wrongheaded or outright malevolent actions. These people tried to make things work out. They both used the religious, if the person was deeply religious (which you can be even if you are screwed up) or the psychological (psychiatric counseling methods and such), if the person was less religiously oriented, in order to help people control their antisocial and destructive behaviors.
They all had their own faults, and with the exception of one of them was willing to admit to nearly all of them (some faults just aren't socially acceptable to proclaim).
Go piss in your own drinking water, the world needs less virulent and blind hatred than that which you espouse.
Try looking up regime before you deride its use. Sure, it is politically charged, but according to definition 2d, it is also accurate.
That's a classic composition fallacy. The issue at hand is the type of pornographic material, not pornography itself.
This is not to say that I think the call for recusal is well-founded. I don't. In fact, I feel that pornography is pornography is pornography and if the persons are willing (i.e. not coerced or drugged into committing certain pornographic acts) and above the age of consent, this should be a no contest argument.
Many do - see Deep Throat
That was one paranoid dude.
I took it as more of a hint question than an actual question, considering that this poster did not reply to the one that suggested bugmenot.
You don't parse well, do you? Let me read between the lines for you.
Accuracy without efficient dissemination is useless.
Efficient dissemination without accuracy is useless.
Each is just as potentially destructive as the other and choosing between the two is not really an option.