It seems to me that I'm perfectly aware of its proper usage
Why, because Google's rankings said so?
No guy, you aren't. Someone else showed you that already, you just thought you found away around admitting you were ignorant. Didn't work, mostly because I'm not a moron who thinks Google rankings mean a damned thing. You, however, appear to be exactly that kind of moron...
If you think the war was won a long time ago, why aren't we rebuilding the country yet?
We are. The fact that it's not fast enough, or widespread enough, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Honestly, I don't know why I'm bothering to reply, as your questions make it clear you're not intelligent enough to understand the situation, and are only parroting the things others have drilled into you.
We're being slowly bleed dry in Iraq right now because this administration can't see the difference between actual terrorists who have a grudge against America and insurgents who just want us out of their country.
Here's what I know. If a country invaded my country, and I wanted them out, I'd do what they asked until they left. Acting like shooting at our troops is ok because they claim they want us to leave ignores the reality that they could get us to leave just by playing along and then change things after we left.
They claim they want us to leave. They are lying, and you're too thick to see it.
They DO NOT want us to leave, because if we did, they wouldn't have anyone to blame for the mess that their country is. Right now they have a convenient scapegoat.
The authoritative study of civilian casualties was done by a group from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
No, a study that has been repeatedly criticized and debunked was done by Johns Hopkins. No part of it was "authoritative" unless you mean it was an "authoritative" example of how to totally fuck up a survey.
The "iraq body count" guys are just counting dead listed in press releases.
No, that is wrong. If you plan to discuss the subject, and not seem like you're intentionally lying, you should educate yourself. As it is, you appear to be intentionally lying.
Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.
NOT press releases. The difference is easily understood and obvious. Usually at least.
1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent2: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
By this definition, they are insurgents.
And for your reference, "usually" doesn't mean "always". Your definition says "usually", but you pretend it means something along the lines of "always".
Why act like precision in definitions matter to you when you're obviously willing to play fast and loose when it suits you?
The Iraq Body Count project (IBC), who compiles a database of reported civilian deaths, has criticised the Lancet's estimate of 601,000 violent deaths[30] out of the Lancet estimate of 654,965 total excess deaths related to the war. The IBC argues that the Lancet estimate is suspect "because of a very different conclusion reached by another random household survey, the Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 (ILCS), using a comparable method but a considerably better-distributed and much larger sample." IBC also enumerates several "shocking implications" which would be true if the Lancet report were accurate, e.g. "Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued" and claims that these "extreme and improbable implications" and "utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas" are some of several reasons why they doubt the study's estimates. IBC states that these consequences would constitute "extreme notions".[31]
Jon Pedersen of the Fafo Institute[33] and research director for the ILCS survey, which estimated approximately 24,000 (95% CI 18,000-29,000) war-related deaths in Iraq up to April 2004, expressed reservations about the low pre-war mortality rate used in the Lancet study and about the ability of its authors to oversee the interviews properly as they were conducted throughout Iraq. Petersen has been quoted saying he thinks the Lancet numbers are "high, and probably way too high. I would accept something in the vicinity of 100,000 but 600,000 is too much."[34]
Debarati Guha-Sapir, director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels, was quoted in an interview for Nature.com saying that Burnham's team have published "inflated" numbers that "discredit" the process of estimating death counts. "Why are they doing this?" she asks. "It's because of the elections."[35]. However, another interviewer a week later paints a more measured picture of her criticisms: "She has some methodological concerns about the paper, including the use of local people -- who might have opposed the occupation -- as interviewers. She also points out that the result does not fit with any she has recorded in 15 years of studying conflict zones. Even in Darfur, where armed groups have wiped out whole villages, she says that researchers have not recorded the 500 predominately violent deaths per day that the Johns Hopkins team estimates are occurring in Iraq. But overall Guha-Sapir says the paper contains the best data yet on the mortality rate in Iraq."[36]
Fred Kaplan of Slate criticized the first Lancet study and has again raised concerns about the second.[37][38] Kaplan argues that the second study has made some improvements over the first, such as "a larger sample, more fastidious attention to data-gathering procedures, a narrower range of uncertainty", and writes that "this methodology is entirely proper if the sample was truly representative of the entire population--i.e., as long as those households were really randomly selected." He cites the low pre-war mortality estimate and the "main street bias" critique as two reasons for doubting that the sample in this study was truly random. And he concludes saying that the question of the war's human toll is "a question that the Lancet study doesn't really answer".
Sorry chum....p. That's discredited, whether you like the conclusions or not.
You'd realize that you are the only one, in this conversation at least.
And what, exactly, did you think posting links to comments by people as stupid as you proves? I'll happily stipulate that you're not the only stupid person ANYWHERE, but what does that have to do with this conversation?
Apart from proving me right about you I mean?
And I like how, when challenged, you link to my posts instead of addressing the issue. You start a conversation, get refuted, then run away and show your ass on the way out. At least you admitted I was right about your intellect.
That's a textbook example of the prejudicial fallacy.
The only moving of goalposts or deflections from topic (along with adhominems) are from your response."
All right, where's the "adhominem (sic)"? Prove what you said is true or admit you're lying. I didn't even ADDRESS the "goalpost" and, predictably, you accuse ME of moving them. Amazing that you'd think such a tactic would work.
"I would answer your question, but you'll move the goalposts again.
In short, you're not staying on topic, I suspect because you have nothing that can refute OP, so you try to change the definition of the terms used.
Very disingenuous on your part, but not even a little surprising."
Ok, where is the "adhominem (sic)"? WELL? There isn't one, so you're a liar (which incidentally is ALSO not an ad hominem as it is true).
You're a disingenuous, mentally deficient, logically stunted troll, and I caught you.
My bill was never over $50, I never went over my minutes, and when AT&T bought them I had a $150 bill the first month, with another $450 added the next!
Forgive me for being skeptical, but honestly, I don't believe you. Care to explain how this is possible using something other than inflammatory remarks and exclamation points?
Yet they ridicule the French and other countries whos workers act, to less radical degree, by temporarily withdrawing their services in protest at single insignificant issues in the workplace, while also crippling the country and completely discounting how their selfish actions destroy the lives of others
Add to that the government enforced laziness, and you should have a good idea of why.
Are they conditioned to believe that protesting is somehow less dignified than quitting?
It is. Especially when what you're protesting is on the level of things like softer toilet paper. Like I said, insignificant.
Or are they just racists?
What race are the French exactly? Or are you just ignorant?
You're completely ignoring the context of the French work environment. In doing so, your objection comes off as ill-informed and intentionally inflammatory, which it probably is, hence your posting AC.
Is there anything that the state could do in "public" where you would finally say, "that's enough"?
In regards to surveillance, no.
How about in order to move from city block to city block you have to stop and present yourself for a full-body search, fingerprint, retinal scan, and DNA sample?
That's not surveillance by any definition, especially the legal one. What a disgustingly childish and transparent attempt on your part.
Can you make your point without the straw men? I doubt it.
So you point is... we should all just stick our heads in the sand because it happens all the time and we should just blissfully ignore it?
Is your point then that you are personally incapable of finding a middle ground between ignore it and POST EVERY SINGLE FUCKING INSTANCE OF ANYTHING COPYRIGHT RELATED AS EVEN THE MOST MUNDANE MATTERS ARE WORTHY OF EXTENDED DISCOURSE?
Maybe, if people are made aware of specific instances of "special interest groups" lobbying for laws that benefit them to the detriment of everybody else, some of them will pick up a pen and write to their representatives to express their opposition?
Maybe if you were smarter you'd realize they're already aware and don't care, so bashing everyone over the head constantly does nothing but desensitize.
My prediction is that your cynicism - and the further erosion of your liberties that you experience as a result of it - will lead to feelings of hopelessness and despair, but that's just a guess.
Far more prominent is the argument for shorter copyright terms, as a means of encouraging artistic productivity
Bullshit. I read the threads on this subject constantly, and you're simply wrong.
That's the kind of argument that I see repeated time and again on Slashdot
Yeah, that's called an "expectancy effect" and all it means is that you're not sophisticated enough to realize you're unconsciously filtering all the other posts which don't meet that criteria.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, because Google's rankings said so?
No guy, you aren't. Someone else showed you that already, you just thought you found away around admitting you were ignorant. Didn't work, mostly because I'm not a moron who thinks Google rankings mean a damned thing. You, however, appear to be exactly that kind of moron...
Then using it as a way to discredit someone else makes you an even bigger douchebag.
We are. The fact that it's not fast enough, or widespread enough, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Honestly, I don't know why I'm bothering to reply, as your questions make it clear you're not intelligent enough to understand the situation, and are only parroting the things others have drilled into you.
Here's what I know. If a country invaded my country, and I wanted them out, I'd do what they asked until they left. Acting like shooting at our troops is ok because they claim they want us to leave ignores the reality that they could get us to leave just by playing along and then change things after we left.
They claim they want us to leave. They are lying, and you're too thick to see it.
They DO NOT want us to leave, because if we did, they wouldn't have anyone to blame for the mess that their country is. Right now they have a convenient scapegoat.
No, a study that has been repeatedly criticized and debunked was done by Johns Hopkins. No part of it was "authoritative" unless you mean it was an "authoritative" example of how to totally fuck up a survey.
No, that is wrong. If you plan to discuss the subject, and not seem like you're intentionally lying, you should educate yourself. As it is, you appear to be intentionally lying.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/lancet100000/
NOT press releases. The difference is easily understood and obvious. Usually at least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_desert_shield#Diplomacy.2FOperation_Desert_Shield
The US peacefully occupied Saudi Arabia. Being ignorant and tossing around "Orwell" sure seems to get rated pretty high around here.
Better get to it then, you've got a whole threads worth to try it out on.
By this definition, they are insurgents.
And for your reference, "usually" doesn't mean "always". Your definition says "usually", but you pretend it means something along the lines of "always".
Why act like precision in definitions matter to you when you're obviously willing to play fast and loose when it suits you?
Doesn't matter, they accepted the responsibility for winning it when they accepted their positions.
You may be incapable of completing a job that you don't want to do, but some people are professionals.
All that means is that you're sheltered and ignorant of its usage.
I guess that means I can file your posts in the "talks out of his ass when he has no real understanding or knowledge" file.
I'm sure your uneducated belief
First, fuck you. Second, what about all the "educated" belief that thinks the same thing?
You're no more "educated" about this than the rest of us, so fuck off with that ridiculous elitist garbage.
Sorry chum....p. That's discredited, whether you like the conclusions or not.
So it went up that much and you weren't able to find out why?
No, you were lying. I knew it and you just proved it.
But apparently I'm not the only one
You'd realize that you are the only one, in this conversation at least.
And what, exactly, did you think posting links to comments by people as stupid as you proves? I'll happily stipulate that you're not the only stupid person ANYWHERE, but what does that have to do with this conversation?
Apart from proving me right about you I mean?
And I like how, when challenged, you link to my posts instead of addressing the issue. You start a conversation, get refuted, then run away and show your ass on the way out. At least you admitted I was right about your intellect.
That's a textbook example of the prejudicial fallacy.
All right, where's the "adhominem (sic)"? Prove what you said is true or admit you're lying. I didn't even ADDRESS the "goalpost" and, predictably, you accuse ME of moving them. Amazing that you'd think such a tactic would work.
"I would answer your question, but you'll move the goalposts again.
In short, you're not staying on topic, I suspect because you have nothing that can refute OP, so you try to change the definition of the terms used.
Very disingenuous on your part, but not even a little surprising."
Ok, where is the "adhominem (sic)"? WELL? There isn't one, so you're a liar (which incidentally is ALSO not an ad hominem as it is true).
You're a disingenuous, mentally deficient, logically stunted troll, and I caught you.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but honestly, I don't believe you. Care to explain how this is possible using something other than inflammatory remarks and exclamation points?
I would. The recovery process exceeds my definition of what should be considered minor, thus major it is.
Before you give your opinion, you should stop being such a Jobs-gobbling fanboi.
Add to that the government enforced laziness, and you should have a good idea of why.
It is. Especially when what you're protesting is on the level of things like softer toilet paper. Like I said, insignificant.
What race are the French exactly? Or are you just ignorant?
You're completely ignoring the context of the French work environment. In doing so, your objection comes off as ill-informed and intentionally inflammatory, which it probably is, hence your posting AC.
How is it "true" when it's an opinion? And how do you not realize you're a fanboi?
I would answer your question, but you'll move the goalposts again.
In short, you're not staying on topic, I suspect because you have nothing that can refute OP, so you try to change the definition of the terms used.
Very disingenuous on your part, but not even a little surprising.
In regards to surveillance, no.
That's not surveillance by any definition, especially the legal one. What a disgustingly childish and transparent attempt on your part.
Can you make your point without the straw men? I doubt it.
No one cares. Your objection didn't get any less stupid because you think you being deaf matters. It's STILL a stupid objection.
Oh right, never.
Is your point then that you are personally incapable of finding a middle ground between ignore it and POST EVERY SINGLE FUCKING INSTANCE OF ANYTHING COPYRIGHT RELATED AS EVEN THE MOST MUNDANE MATTERS ARE WORTHY OF EXTENDED DISCOURSE?
Maybe if you were smarter you'd realize they're already aware and don't care, so bashing everyone over the head constantly does nothing but desensitize.
My prediction is that your cynicism - and the further erosion of your liberties that you experience as a result of it - will lead to feelings of hopelessness and despair, but that's just a guess.
My prediction is you're not very bright.
Bullshit. I read the threads on this subject constantly, and you're simply wrong.
Yeah, that's called an "expectancy effect" and all it means is that you're not sophisticated enough to realize you're unconsciously filtering all the other posts which don't meet that criteria.
You simply couldn't be more wrong.