A few more posts like that and you can cement your reputation as being unable to hold a civil conversation with someone without vulgarities and ad hominems.
If I have less than $250,000 in a bank, then I am guarenteed my money back. I suppose you can argue that guarentees can be broken, which is true, but so can any contract.
If there were equal evidence for each, perhaps, unfortunately for those believing in the FSM, there is not. There is simply ridicule and an amusing graph correlating pirates and global warming going for the FSM, nothing more compelling.
We use as evidence that someone once claimed to have talked to a flaming bush which was actually god and told everyone about this, which then got passed on through thousands of generations, to arrive to us today as evidence for the existence of that particular god. Is it evidence? sure. Is it good evidence? No
And if that were the entirety of the proof-- or even the most commonly cited reason for faith-- you might have a point; but it isnt. We have a large book that contains credible explanations for why people behave as they do, prophetic predictions (Israel's captivity, etc), an incident where an infamous persecutor of the church goes through an inexplicable conversion (resulting in his eventual imprisonment, where he continues to promote the faith even to his own detriment), and the risen christ appearing to several dozen observers. We have the fact that the type of literature that we recognize as "historical narrative fiction"-- which the bible would have to be, if false-- simply didnt exist when it was written. We have the fact that, if the gospels were false, scores should have come forward to dispute the accuracy of the scriptures, causing it to fade into history. And we have the fact that the Bible remains recognized as one of the most accurate histories of that time.
There are other evidences-- lots of them in fact; the one I find most compelling is the issue of the origin of matter, and how it could possibly exist without a prime mover (though the explanation is complicated enough that I wont bother posting it here to a topic I will likely not have time to revisit before my vacation).
had to show him how/where/when/why a program of his (pagedefrag.exe) had definite "rookie level" hardcodes in it.... He & I used to do work for the same companies in the 1990's, & yes, he's done some good work, no questions asked...
Im posting here because you seemed so hurt when you responded to me elsewhere.
So heres my response-- if youre so leet, and Marks a rookie, how come hes a Microsoft Fellow and youre an AC on slashdot? And being honest here, why should I, not knowing anything about you, take your claims over that of Mark Russinovich (and scores of others I could link to)?
By the way, regarding your posts on that topic, the fact that you post AC on slashdot and are vigorously trying to defend yourself in such an arena to someone you dont know and who has no standing in the dev community kind of kills your credibility. If you had like published articles on this, or even your own blog, you would gain some shreds of credbility, but posting in un-monitored comments on someone ELSES blog and arguing on slashdot dont really do much for your rep.
Its kind of why I really had no interest in seeing your response-- as wikipedia might have noted, "[citation needed]", and unfortunately you seem to HAVE no citations or credentials-- other than your unsubstantiated claim to have "known Mark from years ago". OOOh, that really tells me whether you know what youre talking about or are simply some wanna-be hack on slashdot.
I unfortunately have better things to do sometimes than go back and read posts from several days back. Sometimes I will continue the conversation, but once a post comes days later, usually Im not going to continue eagerly awaiting your burst of brilliance. Im sure if I were to ever go on vacation we could rely on you to burst into the abandoned conversation to declare victory; your contributions in that regard are appreciated.
Im glad that you were able to come up with a clever name for me, while remaining AC all the while, however; the irony of it all is delicious and nourishing.
Top 1% own 38.1% Top 96-99% own 21.3% Top 90-95% own 11.5%
You know, lets assume those stats are accurate.
This kind of thinking always struck me as third-grader thinking. Who cares if joe got two cookies and you only got one? If you didnt know he had two cookies, you wouldnt be complaining in the first place. If your salary sucks, take it up with your boss. If it doesnt, stop complaining that someone else is getting more, because it doesnt impact you.
Also, I would note that almost half of americans pay no taxes, and (from same article) the top 10% (those greedy jerks) pay 73% of all taxes. Never mind that that really doesnt square with the limited form taxes were supposed to take, we need to PUNISH them for the crime of HAVING MONEY.
You need to get those glasses fixed. According to your own link, the median income is $60,000 (not $80k), but even those are outdated 2009 figures.
That may be, and you are correct it was $60k-- which doesnt change my statement much. Your link however is dubious, if it claims that the median income for both this year and last year are the same, but are down 11k from 2009. I suspect the difference comes from that tricky phrase "For middle-class families, income fell in 2010. The median household income was.... " . Without that actually being quantified (you know, like the hard-numbers table that I provided), you really have no idea WHAT that is saying-- it opens the door for all sorts of number trickery. Tip for future stats-linking, if you actually get a table from the government rather than a media source (which carries its own bias), its a lot more credible.
You may know folks with a family of 6 making less than $40k, but I'm sure if you ask them, they'll tell you they're struggling.
Its a close relative, and hes not struggling. Thanks for speaking on their behalf, however.
According to the Dept of Agriculture, the cost of raising a (1) child went from $9,860 ten years ago to $13,830 in 2010.
Well, Im sure they know best. Im sure people actually doing the raising have no idea what it costs. It also ignores the costs society bears because of all the safety nets our society has, and ignores that making 22k doesnt mean that your buying power is limited to 22k (again, because of the safety nets). And were those nets not there, you have no way of knowing if that person would even be STUCK with only 22k.
Uhhhh - yeah, I think they have bigger fish to fry in congress. But, this really is a congressional issue. Privacy has been encroached on for a couple of decades now.
Um, no, this ISNT a congressional issue. I fail to recall a constitutional right to privacy, nor any place where it gives congress the power to mandate business privacy powers.
Really, this is a market issue-- and I dont say that because Im a wacky libertarian who thinks any and all legislation is evil, I say it because legislation is almost always the worst way to accomplish a goal-- especially when that goal can be achieved simply by voting with your wallets.
Look, this isnt hard. Kindle1 had no web browser. This kindle has a web browser, which might have privacy concerns. If its such a huge issue, DONT USE THE BROWSER, and your kindle is still a kindle. Why could Amazon's response to congressional interference not simply be, "Nuts to all of you, future kindles wont have a browser at all, enjoy your privacy". Or should Congress then mandate that they HAVE to provide a browser of the users' choice?
Do you see how it gets ridiculous super fast when you try to replace simple market mechanics with legislation?
you cannot provide evidence for fiery lime-coloured mustelidaeans with a penchant for universe-creation.
That isnt accurate, you could possibly not provide proof, but there is no hard and fast reason, were your scenario to be reality, that you couldnt find or derive evidence for it-- even if it was as basic as relying on rational deduction.
Contrary to your apparent worldview, the vast majority of folks in the lower half of the income scale in this country do not have investment portfolios and are simply struggling to feed their families or pay rent.
The median household income across all households in the US is ~$80,000. I would HARDLY call that "struggling to feed their families". I personally know folks whos median income is under $40k for a household of 6, and THEY arent even struggling (and its not because of difficulties getting a job).
Struggling to feed your family isnt really even possible in this country because of all the social safety nets we have; you can have no money, no job, no family, and no friends and STILL have a warm place to sleep and food to eat in this country (though it wouldnt really be what you would call a comfortable existence).
Really, you should come back to reality. There arent people starving to death in the streets in this country, and those who do, do because-- and my sympathies go out to them, but this is the brutal reality-- they do not take the initiative to get food. That is, it ISNT an issue of food being unavailable. The rare exceptions to this are the elderly, where their families did not make sure someone was able to care for them and feed them-- but again its not an issue of "food wasnt available" as much as "people not being able to attend to their personal basic needs".
Very clearly, since I recognize the "dont tase me bro" video as being a sensationalist video trying to smear cops (who used about the right amount of force, honestly), Im a boot licker.
It cant be that 80% of the people calling themselves victims, in almost every situation, arent actually victims (or are significantly less victimized than they claim); oh no. In these times, EVERYONE is ALWAYS being traumatized by their portfolio, the police state, Big Brother, and the corporate thugs.
Sorry, any time and in any article where someone pulls out a sob story and claims to be a victim-- be it politician, company, or individual-- I tend to be skeptical and to look for any angle that might show it to be a load of hogwash-- because most of the time it is. There are precious few cases of "im purely an innocent victim here".
Why would you need a flywheel for storage? Any time you would need power for the brakes, you have it on demand from the wheels. Drawing power would in fact slow the bike itself.
As for wires, ive never seen wires "just break down". Not sure about the alternator, either-- why couldnt you simply run off of DC current? Dont most wireless electronics these days use a transformer to convert to DC?
It really seems like this should be as simple as sticking capacitors on the wireless parts, and then providing power from peddling. Possibly you could use batteries as well, but I dont see the need.
break the law and assault peacefully protesting citizens without cause.
Theres the rub, isnt it? What makes you say the arrests were without cause? Because unsubstantiated, unofficial comments on youtube go on about the police state?
The perceived value of this app will be most for people who intentionally set up situations to make the cops react strongly, so they can have a damning youtube video to post.
I mean, it would be great if everyone had this just in case a police state were to come about (I guess), but probably 80% of the people who have this are people who would resist arrest just to get tasered so that they could go on about police brutality.
If all physical phenomena are fundamentally determined by quantum phenomena, which are random chance; then all physical phenomena would thus be determined by random chance. We do not set up physical experiments in this way-- we assume causality.
It may be that we do not understand the causes of quantum phenomena, but I am a little incredulous that someone could say "I have determined that there are no actors in this situation that I am unaware of". That is like someone trying to create a proof to show that he is never wrong-- its validity would depend on him not being wrong!
I would also ask, what causes the probabilities? If nothing, what makes that a law of the universe? And how do you differentiate a universal law from a cause, and what is the cause of said universal laws? Why should a beam splitter cause a beam of light to go in one of two directions with 50/50 probability? And how does one ensure that there are not forces that we cannot detect influencing things?
The entire thing seems like a phenomenal amount of hubris, when we assume we have accounted for all things and know that there is no explanation.
You can doubt everything, including the act of doubting, but you can't doubt that you are actually *doing* the doubting, so you must, therefore, exist.
That is in fact where I was heading with my argument. In order to forego ALL assumptions, you would have to give even that up-- which makes no sense, so we all naturally assume that we exist. I probably could have worded it better, but that was the gist of it: the second option I offered up was no real option at all.
Slashdot Mirror
A few more posts like that and you can cement your reputation as being unable to hold a civil conversation with someone without vulgarities and ad hominems.
If I have less than $250,000 in a bank, then I am guarenteed my money back. I suppose you can argue that guarentees can be broken, which is true, but so can any contract.
Gives me a return and guarentees my money will be available?
Yea, and Im saying thats not true, and that I have more evidence for the one.
However, I note that you never asked whether I did or not-- you seem to have evidence or reasons of your own that no such evidence exists.
If there were equal evidence for each, perhaps, unfortunately for those believing in the FSM, there is not. There is simply ridicule and an amusing graph correlating pirates and global warming going for the FSM, nothing more compelling.
We use as evidence that someone once claimed to have talked to a flaming bush which was actually god and told everyone about this, which then got passed on through thousands of generations, to arrive to us today as evidence for the existence of that particular god. Is it evidence? sure. Is it good evidence? No
And if that were the entirety of the proof-- or even the most commonly cited reason for faith-- you might have a point; but it isnt. We have a large book that contains credible explanations for why people behave as they do, prophetic predictions (Israel's captivity, etc), an incident where an infamous persecutor of the church goes through an inexplicable conversion (resulting in his eventual imprisonment, where he continues to promote the faith even to his own detriment), and the risen christ appearing to several dozen observers. We have the fact that the type of literature that we recognize as "historical narrative fiction"-- which the bible would have to be, if false-- simply didnt exist when it was written. We have the fact that, if the gospels were false, scores should have come forward to dispute the accuracy of the scriptures, causing it to fade into history. And we have the fact that the Bible remains recognized as one of the most accurate histories of that time.
There are other evidences-- lots of them in fact; the one I find most compelling is the issue of the origin of matter, and how it could possibly exist without a prime mover (though the explanation is complicated enough that I wont bother posting it here to a topic I will likely not have time to revisit before my vacation).
had to show him how/where/when/why a program of his (pagedefrag.exe) had definite "rookie level" hardcodes in it ....
He & I used to do work for the same companies in the 1990's, & yes, he's done some good work, no questions asked...
Im posting here because you seemed so hurt when you responded to me elsewhere.
So heres my response-- if youre so leet, and Marks a rookie, how come hes a Microsoft Fellow and youre an AC on slashdot? And being honest here, why should I, not knowing anything about you, take your claims over that of Mark Russinovich (and scores of others I could link to)?
By the way, regarding your posts on that topic, the fact that you post AC on slashdot and are vigorously trying to defend yourself in such an arena to someone you dont know and who has no standing in the dev community kind of kills your credibility. If you had like published articles on this, or even your own blog, you would gain some shreds of credbility, but posting in un-monitored comments on someone ELSES blog and arguing on slashdot dont really do much for your rep.
Its kind of why I really had no interest in seeing your response-- as wikipedia might have noted, "[citation needed]", and unfortunately you seem to HAVE no citations or credentials-- other than your unsubstantiated claim to have "known Mark from years ago". OOOh, that really tells me whether you know what youre talking about or are simply some wanna-be hack on slashdot.
I am saying that there is no logical reason that would prevent the possibility of evidence, not that evidence would necessarily follow.
If you mean to infer that I lack evidence for God, I never said that and do not lack said evidence.
I unfortunately have better things to do sometimes than go back and read posts from several days back. Sometimes I will continue the conversation, but once a post comes days later, usually Im not going to continue eagerly awaiting your burst of brilliance. Im sure if I were to ever go on vacation we could rely on you to burst into the abandoned conversation to declare victory; your contributions in that regard are appreciated.
Im glad that you were able to come up with a clever name for me, while remaining AC all the while, however; the irony of it all is delicious and nourishing.
Top 1% own 38.1%
Top 96-99% own 21.3%
Top 90-95% own 11.5%
You know, lets assume those stats are accurate.
This kind of thinking always struck me as third-grader thinking. Who cares if joe got two cookies and you only got one? If you didnt know he had two cookies, you wouldnt be complaining in the first place. If your salary sucks, take it up with your boss. If it doesnt, stop complaining that someone else is getting more, because it doesnt impact you.
Also, I would note that almost half of americans pay no taxes, and (from same article) the top 10% (those greedy jerks) pay 73% of all taxes. Never mind that that really doesnt square with the limited form taxes were supposed to take, we need to PUNISH them for the crime of HAVING MONEY.
You need to get those glasses fixed. According to your own link, the median income is $60,000 (not $80k), but even those are outdated 2009 figures.
That may be, and you are correct it was $60k-- which doesnt change my statement much. Your link however is dubious, if it claims that the median income for both this year and last year are the same, but are down 11k from 2009. I suspect the difference comes from that tricky phrase "For middle-class families, income fell in 2010. The median household income was.... " . Without that actually being quantified (you know, like the hard-numbers table that I provided), you really have no idea WHAT that is saying-- it opens the door for all sorts of number trickery. Tip for future stats-linking, if you actually get a table from the government rather than a media source (which carries its own bias), its a lot more credible.
You may know folks with a family of 6 making less than $40k, but I'm sure if you ask them, they'll tell you they're struggling.
Its a close relative, and hes not struggling. Thanks for speaking on their behalf, however.
According to the Dept of Agriculture, the cost of raising a (1) child went from $9,860 ten years ago to $13,830 in 2010.
Well, Im sure they know best. Im sure people actually doing the raising have no idea what it costs. It also ignores the costs society bears because of all the safety nets our society has, and ignores that making 22k doesnt mean that your buying power is limited to 22k (again, because of the safety nets). And were those nets not there, you have no way of knowing if that person would even be STUCK with only 22k.
Uhhhh - yeah, I think they have bigger fish to fry in congress. But, this really is a congressional issue. Privacy has been encroached on for a couple of decades now.
Um, no, this ISNT a congressional issue. I fail to recall a constitutional right to privacy, nor any place where it gives congress the power to mandate business privacy powers.
Really, this is a market issue-- and I dont say that because Im a wacky libertarian who thinks any and all legislation is evil, I say it because legislation is almost always the worst way to accomplish a goal-- especially when that goal can be achieved simply by voting with your wallets.
Look, this isnt hard. Kindle1 had no web browser. This kindle has a web browser, which might have privacy concerns. If its such a huge issue, DONT USE THE BROWSER, and your kindle is still a kindle. Why could Amazon's response to congressional interference not simply be, "Nuts to all of you, future kindles wont have a browser at all, enjoy your privacy". Or should Congress then mandate that they HAVE to provide a browser of the users' choice?
Do you see how it gets ridiculous super fast when you try to replace simple market mechanics with legislation?
you cannot provide evidence for fiery lime-coloured mustelidaeans with a penchant for universe-creation.
That isnt accurate, you could possibly not provide proof, but there is no hard and fast reason, were your scenario to be reality, that you couldnt find or derive evidence for it-- even if it was as basic as relying on rational deduction.
Contrary to your apparent worldview, the vast majority of folks in the lower half of the income scale in this country do not have investment portfolios and are simply struggling to feed their families or pay rent.
The median household income across all households in the US is ~$80,000. I would HARDLY call that "struggling to feed their families". I personally know folks whos median income is under $40k for a household of 6, and THEY arent even struggling (and its not because of difficulties getting a job).
Struggling to feed your family isnt really even possible in this country because of all the social safety nets we have; you can have no money, no job, no family, and no friends and STILL have a warm place to sleep and food to eat in this country (though it wouldnt really be what you would call a comfortable existence).
Really, you should come back to reality. There arent people starving to death in the streets in this country, and those who do, do because-- and my sympathies go out to them, but this is the brutal reality-- they do not take the initiative to get food. That is, it ISNT an issue of food being unavailable. The rare exceptions to this are the elderly, where their families did not make sure someone was able to care for them and feed them-- but again its not an issue of "food wasnt available" as much as "people not being able to attend to their personal basic needs".
Very clearly, since I recognize the "dont tase me bro" video as being a sensationalist video trying to smear cops (who used about the right amount of force, honestly), Im a boot licker.
It cant be that 80% of the people calling themselves victims, in almost every situation, arent actually victims (or are significantly less victimized than they claim); oh no. In these times, EVERYONE is ALWAYS being traumatized by their portfolio, the police state, Big Brother, and the corporate thugs.
Sorry, any time and in any article where someone pulls out a sob story and claims to be a victim-- be it politician, company, or individual-- I tend to be skeptical and to look for any angle that might show it to be a load of hogwash-- because most of the time it is. There are precious few cases of "im purely an innocent victim here".
Why would you need a flywheel for storage? Any time you would need power for the brakes, you have it on demand from the wheels. Drawing power would in fact slow the bike itself.
As for wires, ive never seen wires "just break down". Not sure about the alternator, either-- why couldnt you simply run off of DC current? Dont most wireless electronics these days use a transformer to convert to DC?
It really seems like this should be as simple as sticking capacitors on the wireless parts, and then providing power from peddling. Possibly you could use batteries as well, but I dont see the need.
Except when said government goes into the business of buying out corporations?
Oh dear, we seem to have created a loop.
Its not capitalist, which apparently is a huge draw for many.
One might wonder that more people havent flocked there, actually. Oh wait, I know why.
break the law and assault peacefully protesting citizens without cause.
Theres the rub, isnt it? What makes you say the arrests were without cause? Because unsubstantiated, unofficial comments on youtube go on about the police state?
The perceived value of this app will be most for people who intentionally set up situations to make the cops react strongly, so they can have a damning youtube video to post.
I mean, it would be great if everyone had this just in case a police state were to come about (I guess), but probably 80% of the people who have this are people who would resist arrest just to get tasered so that they could go on about police brutality.
How many of them have investments that are managed by financial managers?
Man, I wonder where you could get power from on a moving bicycle that you would like to slow down?
If all physical phenomena are fundamentally determined by quantum phenomena, which are random chance; then all physical phenomena would thus be determined by random chance. We do not set up physical experiments in this way-- we assume causality.
It may be that we do not understand the causes of quantum phenomena, but I am a little incredulous that someone could say "I have determined that there are no actors in this situation that I am unaware of". That is like someone trying to create a proof to show that he is never wrong-- its validity would depend on him not being wrong!
I would also ask, what causes the probabilities? If nothing, what makes that a law of the universe? And how do you differentiate a universal law from a cause, and what is the cause of said universal laws? Why should a beam splitter cause a beam of light to go in one of two directions with 50/50 probability? And how does one ensure that there are not forces that we cannot detect influencing things?
The entire thing seems like a phenomenal amount of hubris, when we assume we have accounted for all things and know that there is no explanation.
You can doubt everything, including the act of doubting, but you can't doubt that you are actually *doing* the doubting, so you must, therefore, exist.
That is in fact where I was heading with my argument. In order to forego ALL assumptions, you would have to give even that up-- which makes no sense, so we all naturally assume that we exist. I probably could have worded it better, but that was the gist of it: the second option I offered up was no real option at all.