Nah, I know perfectly well what an ad hominem is. When you try to smear me with the 'conspiracy theorist' label, then that's a textbook ad hominem: you even make it out to be the character flaw that makes people point out that some conspiracy theories are, in fact, mainstream. That's what an ad hominem is.
Of course, it's a strawman as well.
And knowing what words mean instead of only how to use them in moronic conversation is hardly a failure to "comprehend the nuances of the English language". Within context (hey, look at my original comment up there), it's actually pertinent to remind the guy what his words mean.
If by "silly sort of wordplay whose sole purpose is to mislead the naive" you mean using words in accordance with their actual meaning, then I guess you've got a point. My purpose is certainly not to "legitimize [my] personal delusions", though, as I fully believe Atta & Co were responsible, so you're obviously just a simpleton who can't argue without using the ad hominem. Now please go fuck yourself.
Obviously you know nothing of logic and proof either, if you think documentation and testimony counts as proof, in logical terms. It doesn't. It's evidence, not proof.
Stop being so uppity when you don't know what you're talking about.
Until who said they did it? The conspiracy theorists? The conspirators are dead, Usama bin Laden (or someone else) may and may not have said something on some poor recordings.
Proof? No.
All we have is coincidence: it wouldn't make sense that two passenger planes crashed into TWC the same day if it wasn't somehow orchestrated. A conspiracy. The rest is simply pattern matching.
I'm actually filing a patent for a (software based) gizmo that will work exactly the opposite for reading Slashdot: whenever it detects rising blood pressure due to annoyance, it will give you an injection of adrenaline and a short series of rapid, high-voltage electric shocks, making the slashdotter just angry enough to write that flame he otherwise wouldn't post due to Slashdot's unreasonable moderating standards.
If, on the other hand, it detects an increase of endorphines caused by the writing of a masterfully crafted troll, it will give you a blow job.
Hopefully, my invention will eliminate the need for meta-moderation.
That Wikipedia page does not say anything about any of those things, and the Youtube video, whose description links to a library of "racialist" texts, conveniently cuts off the program just before the Swedish comments on Fox News's sensationalist reporting begin -- and the context makes it clear that there will be comments (I understand Swedish, btw, so I have no problem getting better informed sources than Fox).
I've seen reports on Rosengård. It's not a nice place. But the police can walk around freely with no support from SWAT teams, and do so on a regular basis. There's also no suggestion, anywhere, that the problems of the area will go away if only we throw more money on unemployment benefits.
I repeat: Evidence for "low-level, but sustained riots"? For claims that "social security, unemployment benefits, welfare (and of course taxes) MUST be that high to keep poor people from starving - and rioting"? For "whole districts in each of our capitals (Malmo isn't the capital of Sweden, btw), where neither police nor regular Joes will go without three SWAT teams backing them up"? For the riots to be part of an "intifada"?
You have failed to provide, and you have tried twice.
Evidence for "low-level, but sustained riots"? For claims that "social security, unemployment benefits, welfare (and of course taxes) MUST be that high to keep poor people from starving - and rioting"? For "whole districts in each of our capitals, where neither police nor regular Joes will go without three SWAT teams backing them up"? For the riots to be part of an "intifada"?
There's no such thing, not in those videos, nor anywhere else.
I'm not insulting you because of your opinion as such, but for your baseless claims. Your justification of your opinion.
No, that's utter bullshit, and you're unable to back it up with sources. Basically, you're an infantile shithead who will believe whatever you want to believe, with no evidence, just to suit your idiotic ideological purposes. You're a moron.
No, we in "today's semi-socialist Europe" are not told that social security is to prevent riots, neither constantly nor only now and then. I was going to say that I'm not saying you're lying, but you are: show me where they say that (party sources, not internet dweebs like yourself), and show me sources for the daily riots in Paris, Berlin and Malmo.
Basically, you support your "argument" with nothing but utter bullshit. That ought to tell you something about yourself.
Sorry, but whenever someone brings up the claim that OS X is FreeBSD, I just can't take them seriously. It just isn't. Not the kernel, nor the architecture, nor the userspace tools. Oh, and the "BSD style" terminal window the parent talks about is running GNU bash by default these days. Basically, you guys act like clueless morons doing PR work. Why else would you pretend OS X is something which it isn't?
It's about the 50th comment recommending a Macbook, despite the other 50 comments noting that a Macbook doesn't qualify for any of the OP's needs. It's a shame that buying a Mac comes with an EULA demading you work as a freelance PR agent for Apple. Also, it's a shame that you morons will recommend buying a Mac even when it blatantly isn't fit for the job.
True. Not to mention the unlearning of all the silly theories you proposed when trying to chat up that bird from the geology department: As Darwin said, "To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact"; and nothing kills an error as brutally and swiftly as thinking back to what you said when drunk last night.
Uhm, so you choose to ignore the available facts and prefer ad-hocs arguments as to why FreeBSD may be better. Then again, most of those ad-hoc arguments are simply wrong: Ubuntu has good documentation (man pages have not been replaced by info), it has long term releases, a package management that makes stripping down to the bare essentials easy (although Ubuntu certainly isn't meant for that: you'll want Debian instead), you slander the FSF while pretending you don't like politics.
Really, you argue like an idiot fanboy, who, seeing his favourite team beaten in a test, makes up others criteria by which his team will win.
Or you could look at it as a sales tax instead of a 'sin' tax, denying the sellers some of their high profits when their products have enormous external costs. After all, society has to pay for that two-pack-a-day smoker in some way or other anyway. Obviously, socialised responsibility won't go away just because you choose to give people unlimited freedom.
I'll tell you what: There's a 1:1 correlation between a comment header stating that correlation is not causation and the comment below it being absolute drivel. Yet, there's no claim that such a header causes the comment to be stupid. You know why? It's because to everyone who doesn't make those idiotic comments, the difference between correlation and causation is fucking obvious. Now fuck off and grow a brain, and stop believing that repeating "wisdoms" from the lowest class of Slashdot morons is in any way insightful.
No, it hasn't, and if it had, it would have nothing to do with OS X, and waking a computer from suspend has nothing to do with the BIOS POST time. Why do you Mac fags insist on advertising your computers -- fraudulently! -- every time something vaguely related comes up?
Yes, but is that slimmed-down OS X completely Mac OS X compatible? Not on a binary level, of course, as it's ARM, but source? Wikipedia says no, but that may be wrong for all I know. It uses a Darwin core, but Darwin is far from Mac OS X compatible in itself.
Yes, it's well slimmed down, and also functional. But the software running under it doesn't take any less RAM, of course. Still, the difference between that version and regular XP was the difference between a smooth game of Oblivion vs not so smooth -- with 1 GB RAM, and running natively, of course.
No, I'd compare it to 10.2 or 10.3, the latter of which failed to boot on my Powerbook when one of the RAM modules broke and left me with 64 MB. Installing Linux, I found it just as efficient on 64 MB as OS X 10.3 was with 192 MB. Of course, that meant running WindowMaker, not KDE/Gnome.
And of course the fact that Apple breaks compatibility with hardware they don't want to support does not make OS X any less a memory hog.
I disagree, having booted and tested a real, working albeit "slimmed-down" version of Windows XP (called JACKED edition) in a virtual machine limited to 20 MB RAM. It worked fine, even managed to start an instance of IE and show a web page. I also installed it and used it as my gaming OS. Compatibility with Win16 programs was entirely removed, but modern software worked just fine.
If you want to see a proper memory hog, look to Mac OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, I know perfectly well what an ad hominem is. When you try to smear me with the 'conspiracy theorist' label, then that's a textbook ad hominem: you even make it out to be the character flaw that makes people point out that some conspiracy theories are, in fact, mainstream. That's what an ad hominem is.
Of course, it's a strawman as well.
And knowing what words mean instead of only how to use them in moronic conversation is hardly a failure to "comprehend the nuances of the English language". Within context (hey, look at my original comment up there), it's actually pertinent to remind the guy what his words mean.
If by "silly sort of wordplay whose sole purpose is to mislead the naive" you mean using words in accordance with their actual meaning, then I guess you've got a point. My purpose is certainly not to "legitimize [my] personal delusions", though, as I fully believe Atta & Co were responsible, so you're obviously just a simpleton who can't argue without using the ad hominem. Now please go fuck yourself.
Obviously you know nothing of logic and proof either, if you think documentation and testimony counts as proof, in logical terms. It doesn't. It's evidence, not proof.
Stop being so uppity when you don't know what you're talking about.
Until who said they did it? The conspiracy theorists? The conspirators are dead, Usama bin Laden (or someone else) may and may not have said something on some poor recordings.
Proof? No.
All we have is coincidence: it wouldn't make sense that two passenger planes crashed into TWC the same day if it wasn't somehow orchestrated. A conspiracy. The rest is simply pattern matching.
Proof? You don't know what the word means.
You do realise that the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks is a conspiracy theory, don't you? Atta et al = conspirators.
Not that I disagree with the official story, but it sort of punches a hole straight through your silly "argument".
I'm actually filing a patent for a (software based) gizmo that will work exactly the opposite for reading Slashdot: whenever it detects rising blood pressure due to annoyance, it will give you an injection of adrenaline and a short series of rapid, high-voltage electric shocks, making the slashdotter just angry enough to write that flame he otherwise wouldn't post due to Slashdot's unreasonable moderating standards.
If, on the other hand, it detects an increase of endorphines caused by the writing of a masterfully crafted troll, it will give you a blow job.
Hopefully, my invention will eliminate the need for meta-moderation.
Yeah, as a trader, I'm now going to move all my capital to Philips shares.
That Wikipedia page does not say anything about any of those things, and the Youtube video, whose description links to a library of "racialist" texts, conveniently cuts off the program just before the Swedish comments on Fox News's sensationalist reporting begin -- and the context makes it clear that there will be comments (I understand Swedish, btw, so I have no problem getting better informed sources than Fox).
I've seen reports on Rosengård. It's not a nice place. But the police can walk around freely with no support from SWAT teams, and do so on a regular basis. There's also no suggestion, anywhere, that the problems of the area will go away if only we throw more money on unemployment benefits.
I repeat: Evidence for "low-level, but sustained riots"? For claims that "social security, unemployment benefits, welfare (and of course taxes) MUST be that high to keep poor people from starving - and rioting"? For "whole districts in each of our capitals (Malmo isn't the capital of Sweden, btw), where neither police nor regular Joes will go without three SWAT teams backing them up"? For the riots to be part of an "intifada"?
You have failed to provide, and you have tried twice.
Evidence for "low-level, but sustained riots"? For claims that "social security, unemployment benefits, welfare (and of course taxes) MUST be that high to keep poor people from starving - and rioting"? For "whole districts in each of our capitals, where neither police nor regular Joes will go without three SWAT teams backing them up"? For the riots to be part of an "intifada"?
There's no such thing, not in those videos, nor anywhere else.
I'm not insulting you because of your opinion as such, but for your baseless claims. Your justification of your opinion.
No, that's utter bullshit, and you're unable to back it up with sources. Basically, you're an infantile shithead who will believe whatever you want to believe, with no evidence, just to suit your idiotic ideological purposes. You're a moron.
No, we in "today's semi-socialist Europe" are not told that social security is to prevent riots, neither constantly nor only now and then. I was going to say that I'm not saying you're lying, but you are: show me where they say that (party sources, not internet dweebs like yourself), and show me sources for the daily riots in Paris, Berlin and Malmo.
Basically, you support your "argument" with nothing but utter bullshit. That ought to tell you something about yourself.
Sorry, but whenever someone brings up the claim that OS X is FreeBSD, I just can't take them seriously. It just isn't. Not the kernel, nor the architecture, nor the userspace tools. Oh, and the "BSD style" terminal window the parent talks about is running GNU bash by default these days. Basically, you guys act like clueless morons doing PR work. Why else would you pretend OS X is something which it isn't?
It's about the 50th comment recommending a Macbook, despite the other 50 comments noting that a Macbook doesn't qualify for any of the OP's needs. It's a shame that buying a Mac comes with an EULA demading you work as a freelance PR agent for Apple. Also, it's a shame that you morons will recommend buying a Mac even when it blatantly isn't fit for the job.
True. Not to mention the unlearning of all the silly theories you proposed when trying to chat up that bird from the geology department: As Darwin said, "To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact"; and nothing kills an error as brutally and swiftly as thinking back to what you said when drunk last night.
Uhm, so you choose to ignore the available facts and prefer ad-hocs arguments as to why FreeBSD may be better. Then again, most of those ad-hoc arguments are simply wrong: Ubuntu has good documentation (man pages have not been replaced by info), it has long term releases, a package management that makes stripping down to the bare essentials easy (although Ubuntu certainly isn't meant for that: you'll want Debian instead), you slander the FSF while pretending you don't like politics.
Really, you argue like an idiot fanboy, who, seeing his favourite team beaten in a test, makes up others criteria by which his team will win.
Or you could look at it as a sales tax instead of a 'sin' tax, denying the sellers some of their high profits when their products have enormous external costs. After all, society has to pay for that two-pack-a-day smoker in some way or other anyway. Obviously, socialised responsibility won't go away just because you choose to give people unlimited freedom.
I'll tell you what: There's a 1:1 correlation between a comment header stating that correlation is not causation and the comment below it being absolute drivel. Yet, there's no claim that such a header causes the comment to be stupid. You know why? It's because to everyone who doesn't make those idiotic comments, the difference between correlation and causation is fucking obvious. Now fuck off and grow a brain, and stop believing that repeating "wisdoms" from the lowest class of Slashdot morons is in any way insightful.
No, it hasn't, and if it had, it would have nothing to do with OS X, and waking a computer from suspend has nothing to do with the BIOS POST time. Why do you Mac fags insist on advertising your computers -- fraudulently! -- every time something vaguely related comes up?
No, but as an Apple fanboy, he's automatically +5.
It most certainly isn't under copyright law, but then again, I'm fairly certain techdirt's writeup is incorrect. Most stories that reach Slashdot are.
Or, rather, the Champagne district's right to Champagne and the Cognac district's right to Cognac.
There's nothing unique in the attempt to protect the designation of origin.
Yes, but is that slimmed-down OS X completely Mac OS X compatible? Not on a binary level, of course, as it's ARM, but source? Wikipedia says no, but that may be wrong for all I know. It uses a Darwin core, but Darwin is far from Mac OS X compatible in itself.
Yes, it's well slimmed down, and also functional. But the software running under it doesn't take any less RAM, of course. Still, the difference between that version and regular XP was the difference between a smooth game of Oblivion vs not so smooth -- with 1 GB RAM, and running natively, of course.
No, I'd compare it to 10.2 or 10.3, the latter of which failed to boot on my Powerbook when one of the RAM modules broke and left me with 64 MB. Installing Linux, I found it just as efficient on 64 MB as OS X 10.3 was with 192 MB. Of course, that meant running WindowMaker, not KDE/Gnome.
And of course the fact that Apple breaks compatibility with hardware they don't want to support does not make OS X any less a memory hog.
I disagree, having booted and tested a real, working albeit "slimmed-down" version of Windows XP (called JACKED edition) in a virtual machine limited to 20 MB RAM. It worked fine, even managed to start an instance of IE and show a web page. I also installed it and used it as my gaming OS. Compatibility with Win16 programs was entirely removed, but modern software worked just fine.
If you want to see a proper memory hog, look to Mac OS X.