I don't think any of those, or ericloewe's post, are "arguments." They're unsupported statement of opinions at best. Bumper sticker wisdom or advertisements at worst.
Sadly, that's what we're stuck with in terms of discussion. "TELL OBAMA TO NOT CUT COAL JOBS!!!!" is pretty much the dialogue that's going on. And that's a best case scenario. Worst case, it's "Oh, see, we have magic clean coal. Here's some campaign contributions!"
I would guess they are looking into that, but I'd also guess she's not really unique as far as that goes. Sadly, lots of kids get brain damage, strokes, and comas, yet only about 6 people that we know of have stopped developing in a similar way. Also, they've already found mutations and validated it in induced pluripotent stem cells, according to the article. So I think it is probably genetics.
to any advertiser still dumb enough to think that anyone under the age of ancient still reads The Atlantic?
I find myself reading atlantic articles every once in a while: their stuff shows up on at least flipboard. That to me seems like they're adapting to newer format a little better than, say, newsweek.
Looks to me like a Republican, in the face of potential gun bans, is pointing at video games and saying "LOOK OVER HERE! HERE! LOOK OVER HERE INSTEAD."
In MISSOURI? Where the battle is over whether evolution is something that can be taught in high schools? No, I think this is probably honestly thinking that videogames, movies, and that rap music are to blame. He'd have to be really loony to think that guns would ever be limited in Missouri.
You mean, let's see how long until we declare that the Jamaican people need to be "liberated".
Probably never. We only "liberate" countries that resist our influence and don't have the military might to get away with it. I could be wrong, but I don't recall hearing anything to suggest that Jamaica's leaders were no longer for sale to the US.
But my point is that we're mocking him because he was on the wrong side. Were he a proponent of net neutrality, I suppose we'd giggle at his choice of metaphors and words, but we wouldn't be holding it up as proof that he was incompetent.
Same with gun clip/magazine issue. Acting as if the words are important or indicative of incompetence is not why people bring it up. They bring it up because they don't want legal limits on how many bullets they can stuff into their guns.
No, that depends on your stance in relation to whoever you're judging. Had Ted Stevens been saying "The internet is like a series of tubes, like sewers. And like sewers, we don't allow companies to treat some sewage differently and have other sewage back up in your house. So we must enact strong net neutrality laws!" We'd all be puzzled, but we'd be okay with it.
You only mock someone for using the wrong terminology when you dislike what they are saying and try to discredit them. Same as here. If you dislike gun control, argue against gun control. Don't get hung up on the words your opponents are using. Unless... opposition to limiting bullet-holder-thingies isn't limited to "You're using the wrong words" is it? There ARE other arguments against it, right?
I suspect though that many people who regularly participate in online communities, such as slashdot, reddit, yahoo answers etc, have a lower opinion of people in general though, thanks to trolls.
Although, you could alternatively argue rather that they have a deeper understanding of humanity, since when people are anonymous, they act different than face to face.
Either way, people here seem more cynical than people in the real world. I wonder if that's causation and not just correlation.
Having lived in KC, the deep south, and civilized big cities, I can tell you that the differences are more "city vs rural" than "Kansas City vs other moderately sized city." You might have more religious people, but it's DEFINITELY not anything like rural Alabama. Kansas City is firmly blue. You'll see more pro-life signs driving from Kansas City to St. Louis than you would San Francisco to LA, but your neighbors will not be much more likely to judge you for being atheist than any other state.
20 angstroms. But that number means nothing to me or anyone else who doesn't regularly work with things that small. It's good journalism to write things your audience can actually relate to and not throw meaningless numbers at them, at least when it's journalism for a general audience.
Read the contract? Seems like buisiness 101. If you pay to have the fiber installed at your house, you're guaranteed seven years of broadband speed internet connection at no additional cost. If you're starting a buisiness, and you don't bother to get some guarantees that service won't skip out suddenly, then you're asking to lose a lot of money.
If they're looking for educated, talented, skilled people, they're probably looking at college graduates. And Missouri hasn't banned teaching of evolution in colleges, at least not recently. Why would the startups give a flying fuck where the students went to high school or grade school? Science education in high school sucks nationwide.
Monopolies don't give a toss about what the public demands.
Within limits. Some are more resistant than non-monopolies, sure, especially when they've dug in with lobbyists as much as telecos have, but at the very least, they're vulnerable to lynch mobs.
Granted, a lynch mob of geeks upset that their internet connection was a thousand times slower than it could be probably wouldn't be the most intimidating thing in the world, but get enough of us together with burning keyboards...
6. Company bankrupt. At least half the public blames the union.
The public arrives at this conclusion, aided in no small part by the conservative media, as part of it's lesson that the noble class is to be catered to in every whim, because that's the only way anyone has jobs.
But it's developed by Team Ninja, which isn't exactly family friendly. They do Dead or alive, Ninja Gaiden, and Metroid other M. I'm at work, so I can't link to any images of "Dead or Alive Xtreme beach volleyball."
I guess Australia follows the US's ridiculous morality of "Bloody decapitation is okay, a thong bikini is not." (sigh)
For someone claiming to be logical, you are certainly evasive. Why did this suddenly become about taking a survey of positions?
Because you said "Yet in damn near every gun control thread on the Internet there are people who are," in response to my statement that I didn't want to take away my guns. The implication being that although I didn't, there were plenty of people who did. I submit that you can find someone on the internet espousing any position. I could find loons on the internet suggesting that we base our entire economy on bitcoins. Doesn't mean its something you need to take seriously, unless you had data suggesting that MANY people thought we should do that.
By refusing to compromise on anything at all, they really invite criticism. I'm a liberal. I really don't want to take away your guns.
You seem to make the mistake that anything up to but not including outright confiscation is A-OK.
No, I only said that I was not trying to take your guns away. Liberals are not conspiring to disarm gun owners. Plenty of us just don't see the need for them. Plenty of us also wish that democrats would stop wasting political capitol enacting gun control when there are other issues we care a lot more about.
Under many of the laws the next generation won't even ever have the guns we have in the first place making taking them away impossible, but as long as it's not outright confiscation they slyly say "We're not trying to take your guns away." as if you're acting paranoid.
You're suggesting the government is trying to disarm the next generation? I see no indication that anyone in government is looking beyond a few years. Particularly lately, it seems no one is looking past a few MONTHS. So I'm skeptical that there is a conspiracy to disarm the next generation.
NYC has effectively banned gun ownership. That is model Bloomberg would like exported to the rest of the country|world.... I recall seeing in a court filing that there are about 50k licensed gun owners in NYC.
So, which is it? Did they ban it or not?
Not too mention that it is clear to anyone with functioning brain cells why the 2nd amendment was written. Hint, the writers had just won a revolutionary and CIVIL war, which would not have happened without personal gun ownership.
And anyone with functioning brain cells would also realize that the world has changed since then, including guns themselves. Your personal firearms are now capable of mass murder but are not competitive with the government.
"I've heard people on slashdot" is a pretty terrible way of getting a sense of what most proponents of an argument are saying. In fact, that's probably worse than using Fox news to get a sense of it.
You might also be pissed at the NRA for polarizing the issue so badly. By refusing to compromise on anything at all, they really invite criticism. I'm a liberal. I really don't want to take away your guns. Hearing them constantly bleat that I'm out to get them makes their side look bad. Were I less logical, I might question the sanity of that whole side of the debate.
Fortunately, I am more logical than that. Unfortunately, many people are not, and many liberals I've talked to are, if anything, driven to be anti-gun because of how ferocious the NRA is.
Let's put aside the fact the professors are still, by and large, a bunch of old farts--many of whom are still using the same blackboard presentations and transparencies that they were using 30 years ago.
Just to be clear, a lot of them haven't switched because the content and teaching ability matter much more than what the information is displayed on. Take a bad teacher in a bad class, replace the blackboard with a fancy expensive smart board, and you'll have a bad teacher, a bad class, and less money.
First, I don't think they are. I have yet to meet anyone who wants to outlaw all guns. I can't understand the paranoia here. Second, both sides aren't willing to compromise. The NRA position is no laws about guns. It isn't unique to gun control, in all divisive political issues, you don't start out with "Lets compromise." Third, the fact that there is no offer of compromise is exactly WHY third options need to be looked into. Otherwise you'll get all of one or the other, and that won't last because one side will hate it. Refusing to compromise, you're flipping a coin. It could come up in your favor, but it could also come up completely against you. With a compromise, no one completely wins, but no one completely loses either. And there are ways of compromising that don't involve things you'd hate.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think any of those, or ericloewe's post, are "arguments." They're unsupported statement of opinions at best. Bumper sticker wisdom or advertisements at worst.
Sadly, that's what we're stuck with in terms of discussion. "TELL OBAMA TO NOT CUT COAL JOBS!!!!" is pretty much the dialogue that's going on. And that's a best case scenario. Worst case, it's "Oh, see, we have magic clean coal. Here's some campaign contributions!"
I would guess they are looking into that, but I'd also guess she's not really unique as far as that goes. Sadly, lots of kids get brain damage, strokes, and comas, yet only about 6 people that we know of have stopped developing in a similar way. Also, they've already found mutations and validated it in induced pluripotent stem cells, according to the article. So I think it is probably genetics.
to any advertiser still dumb enough to think that anyone under the age of ancient still reads The Atlantic?
I find myself reading atlantic articles every once in a while: their stuff shows up on at least flipboard. That to me seems like they're adapting to newer format a little better than, say, newsweek.
Looks to me like a Republican, in the face of potential gun bans, is pointing at video games and saying "LOOK OVER HERE! HERE! LOOK OVER HERE INSTEAD."
In MISSOURI? Where the battle is over whether evolution is something that can be taught in high schools? No, I think this is probably honestly thinking that videogames, movies, and that rap music are to blame. He'd have to be really loony to think that guns would ever be limited in Missouri.
You mean, let's see how long until we declare that the Jamaican people need to be "liberated".
Probably never. We only "liberate" countries that resist our influence and don't have the military might to get away with it. I could be wrong, but I don't recall hearing anything to suggest that Jamaica's leaders were no longer for sale to the US.
But my point is that we're mocking him because he was on the wrong side. Were he a proponent of net neutrality, I suppose we'd giggle at his choice of metaphors and words, but we wouldn't be holding it up as proof that he was incompetent.
Same with gun clip/magazine issue. Acting as if the words are important or indicative of incompetence is not why people bring it up. They bring it up because they don't want legal limits on how many bullets they can stuff into their guns.
No, that depends on your stance in relation to whoever you're judging. Had Ted Stevens been saying "The internet is like a series of tubes, like sewers. And like sewers, we don't allow companies to treat some sewage differently and have other sewage back up in your house. So we must enact strong net neutrality laws!" We'd all be puzzled, but we'd be okay with it.
You only mock someone for using the wrong terminology when you dislike what they are saying and try to discredit them. Same as here. If you dislike gun control, argue against gun control. Don't get hung up on the words your opponents are using. Unless... opposition to limiting bullet-holder-thingies isn't limited to "You're using the wrong words" is it? There ARE other arguments against it, right?
I suspect though that many people who regularly participate in online communities, such as slashdot, reddit, yahoo answers etc, have a lower opinion of people in general though, thanks to trolls.
Although, you could alternatively argue rather that they have a deeper understanding of humanity, since when people are anonymous, they act different than face to face.
Either way, people here seem more cynical than people in the real world. I wonder if that's causation and not just correlation.
Having lived in KC, the deep south, and civilized big cities, I can tell you that the differences are more "city vs rural" than "Kansas City vs other moderately sized city." You might have more religious people, but it's DEFINITELY not anything like rural Alabama. Kansas City is firmly blue. You'll see more pro-life signs driving from Kansas City to St. Louis than you would San Francisco to LA, but your neighbors will not be much more likely to judge you for being atheist than any other state.
20 angstroms. But that number means nothing to me or anyone else who doesn't regularly work with things that small. It's good journalism to write things your audience can actually relate to and not throw meaningless numbers at them, at least when it's journalism for a general audience.
What clothing store are YOU shopping at where they have kevlar on the shelf?
Read the contract? Seems like buisiness 101. If you pay to have the fiber installed at your house, you're guaranteed seven years of broadband speed internet connection at no additional cost. If you're starting a buisiness, and you don't bother to get some guarantees that service won't skip out suddenly, then you're asking to lose a lot of money.
If they're looking for educated, talented, skilled people, they're probably looking at college graduates. And Missouri hasn't banned teaching of evolution in colleges, at least not recently. Why would the startups give a flying fuck where the students went to high school or grade school? Science education in high school sucks nationwide.
Monopolies don't give a toss about what the public demands.
Within limits. Some are more resistant than non-monopolies, sure, especially when they've dug in with lobbyists as much as telecos have, but at the very least, they're vulnerable to lynch mobs.
Granted, a lynch mob of geeks upset that their internet connection was a thousand times slower than it could be probably wouldn't be the most intimidating thing in the world, but get enough of us together with burning keyboards...
6. Company bankrupt. At least half the public blames the union.
The public arrives at this conclusion, aided in no small part by the conservative media, as part of it's lesson that the noble class is to be catered to in every whim, because that's the only way anyone has jobs.
Anonymous troll very effectively led the topic of discussion astray.
Maybe slashdot should order comments by score rather than by time as default. Even youtube does that these days.
But it's developed by Team Ninja, which isn't exactly family friendly. They do Dead or alive, Ninja Gaiden, and Metroid other M. I'm at work, so I can't link to any images of "Dead or Alive Xtreme beach volleyball."
I guess Australia follows the US's ridiculous morality of "Bloody decapitation is okay, a thong bikini is not." (sigh)
For someone claiming to be logical, you are certainly evasive. Why did this suddenly become about taking a survey of positions?
Because you said "Yet in damn near every gun control thread on the Internet there are people who are," in response to my statement that I didn't want to take away my guns. The implication being that although I didn't, there were plenty of people who did. I submit that you can find someone on the internet espousing any position. I could find loons on the internet suggesting that we base our entire economy on bitcoins. Doesn't mean its something you need to take seriously, unless you had data suggesting that MANY people thought we should do that.
By refusing to compromise on anything at all, they really invite criticism. I'm a liberal. I really don't want to take away your guns.
You seem to make the mistake that anything up to but not including outright confiscation is A-OK.
No, I only said that I was not trying to take your guns away. Liberals are not conspiring to disarm gun owners. Plenty of us just don't see the need for them. Plenty of us also wish that democrats would stop wasting political capitol enacting gun control when there are other issues we care a lot more about.
Under many of the laws the next generation won't even ever have the guns we have in the first place making taking them away impossible, but as long as it's not outright confiscation they slyly say "We're not trying to take your guns away." as if you're acting paranoid.
You're suggesting the government is trying to disarm the next generation? I see no indication that anyone in government is looking beyond a few years. Particularly lately, it seems no one is looking past a few MONTHS. So I'm skeptical that there is a conspiracy to disarm the next generation.
Yet in damn near every gun control thread on the Internet there are people who are.
That's a terrible way to survey positions on an issue.
NYC has effectively banned gun ownership. That is model Bloomberg would like exported to the rest of the country|world.... I recall seeing in a court filing that there are about 50k licensed gun owners in NYC.
So, which is it? Did they ban it or not?
Not too mention that it is clear to anyone with functioning brain cells why the 2nd amendment was written. Hint, the writers had just won a revolutionary and CIVIL war, which would not have happened without personal gun ownership.
And anyone with functioning brain cells would also realize that the world has changed since then, including guns themselves. Your personal firearms are now capable of mass murder but are not competitive with the government.
"I've heard people on slashdot" is a pretty terrible way of getting a sense of what most proponents of an argument are saying. In fact, that's probably worse than using Fox news to get a sense of it.
You might also be pissed at the NRA for polarizing the issue so badly. By refusing to compromise on anything at all, they really invite criticism. I'm a liberal. I really don't want to take away your guns. Hearing them constantly bleat that I'm out to get them makes their side look bad. Were I less logical, I might question the sanity of that whole side of the debate.
Fortunately, I am more logical than that. Unfortunately, many people are not, and many liberals I've talked to are, if anything, driven to be anti-gun because of how ferocious the NRA is.
Let's put aside the fact the professors are still, by and large, a bunch of old farts--many of whom are still using the same blackboard presentations and transparencies that they were using 30 years ago.
Just to be clear, a lot of them haven't switched because the content and teaching ability matter much more than what the information is displayed on. Take a bad teacher in a bad class, replace the blackboard with a fancy expensive smart board, and you'll have a bad teacher, a bad class, and less money.
First, I don't think they are. I have yet to meet anyone who wants to outlaw all guns. I can't understand the paranoia here. Second, both sides aren't willing to compromise. The NRA position is no laws about guns. It isn't unique to gun control, in all divisive political issues, you don't start out with "Lets compromise." Third, the fact that there is no offer of compromise is exactly WHY third options need to be looked into. Otherwise you'll get all of one or the other, and that won't last because one side will hate it. Refusing to compromise, you're flipping a coin. It could come up in your favor, but it could also come up completely against you. With a compromise, no one completely wins, but no one completely loses either. And there are ways of compromising that don't involve things you'd hate.