And this better not be another thing where somebody asks him whether he would consider and he just says he wouldn't rule it out. Because during the Cold War, we were totally all about making that big stockpile of nukes and telling the Russians, "lol we're never gonna use these."
It's called a deterrent for a reason: they're afraid you might use them. It's when you start explicitly threatening under what conditions you would use them that tensions crank up.
Trump: " For me, nuclear, the power, the devastation, is very important to me "
With that in mind, consider this exchange:
Moderator: " OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in 45, heard it. They`re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president. "
Do you have some other quote where he actually talks about nuking somebody? Nuclear power is indeed important; acknowledging that fact does not mean we want to nuke anyone. Or maybe you'd prefer if he responded:
"Do you think nuclear weapons are important?" "Nah, who cares about nukes. Bunch of hot air if you ask me. Don't care even a little about them. Just put the codes on my desk and I'll lock them up before I leave for the day."
That's the great thing about arguing on the internet, you can twist someone's original statement
When you make blanket statements without properly qualifying them, people finding counterexamples is basically the only way to disagree with you.
As I mentioned elsewhere I was talking about companies, not foundations or OSS projects.
After rereading your (assuming you're also that AC) initial statement, I'm not sure why you're making this distinction...except perhaps for the part where not doing so means you're trivially wrong.
Ubuntu is indeed an example. It was initially funded by Mark Shuttleworth's private fortune, and they don't sell software as far as I'm aware. I would assume they're like Red Hat and probably sell support contracts, but you explicitly said "pay for your software."
Mozilla doesn't sell their software either, mister words lawyer.
As I mentioned elsewhere I was talking about companies, not foundations or OSS projects.
Umm...aren't you kind of setting up a tautology here? What sort of company sets out to not make any money? By definition that's a nonprofit organization or charity. Privately-held companies whose owners just don't give a shit? The rest have to worry about the shareholders.
So yes, if you only count the group that axiomatically needs to make money, that group needs to make money. Congratulations.
You can only trust the trusted. Not stuff that runs on them.
How can you trust an operating system you haven't read the code of yourself? How can you trust chips running firmware you haven't read the code to? How do you know the precious metals in the hardware wasn't mined using slave labor in Africa? How do you know the computer companies you bought it from aren't paying lobbyists to oppose your interests?
Hell, look up "Reflections on Trusting Trust." You could read and understand the source code yourself, build it all from scratch, and your compiler could be compromised such that the resulting binaries aren't trustworthy either. Guess you'd better start reading the source to your compiler then, too...
You're assuming its purpose was to be a deterrent. If it's not a deterrent but instead a dead man's switch, nobody cares if your enemy knows about it, only if it works.
Well, abstaining is really always an unspoken option unless you live somewhere with compulsive voting and no write-ins.
The referendum had a 72.2% turnout. That makes the final results 37.5% leave, 34.7% remain, 27.8% abstain.
So from the phrasing, it sounds like less than 3/4 of voters showed up for the vote, and those that did voted either "yes" or "no." Which does indeed result in a plurality of the overall voter-age population.
"hat leaves the leavers and the remainers and a margin of 2% of one of those group over the other is not an overwhelming mandate, it isn't even a good mandate, that's a "by the skin of your teeth" mandate."
Its a majority and you can whine and bitch and thrash on the hook all you like, Leave won. End of.
Technically it's a majority of the election but I have doubts about how "overwhelming" of a mandate that is. By this same argument, 60% of the population could turn out for an election and vote "yes" on, oh I dunno...let's say "Shall we kill all the Jews?" Then they win that vote by 52% and we're murdering all the Jews because 31% of the voters wanted to.
Further complicated by the maneuver I don't really understand where, when one side knows it's going to lose badly, they tend to boycott the election.
That makes the final results 37.5% leave, 34.7% remain, 27.8% abstain.
Its a majority and you can whine and bitch and thrash on the hook all you like
No, the word you're looking for is "plurality."
majority 3 a : a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total
plurality c : a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast
I think that implying that some people should be subject to eugenics programs because they don't live in the U.S. or Europe is pretty profoundly offensive, yeah. Extra points for giving the First-Worlders tax breaks at the same time.
Calm down: he's saying both "greater" and "lesser" countries would be "subjected to the eugeneics programs" as you so inflammatory put it. Free condoms and tax breaks are both incentives to have fewer kids.
Granted, it would be more egalitarian to apply one or the other or both to both demographics.
It's not really "because I don't like them." Arguing against the Civil Rights Movement is effectively saying all citizens should not be equal, which is kind of one of the principles our country was founded on (admittedly it took us a long time to approach that point).
If you know they have a history of being idiots there's little reason for you to investigate each new thing they do because it'll probably follow the same pattern.
Slashdot Mirror
How about a transcript?
And this better not be another thing where somebody asks him whether he would consider and he just says he wouldn't rule it out. Because during the Cold War, we were totally all about making that big stockpile of nukes and telling the Russians, "lol we're never gonna use these."
It's called a deterrent for a reason: they're afraid you might use them. It's when you start explicitly threatening under what conditions you would use them that tensions crank up.
The slight difference is that Trump doesn't want to exterminate the entire race of Hispanic people
Did Hitler actually care about any Jews living outside of Grossdeutschland? As long as they were out of reach and not obviously plotting against him?
It kind of depends how crazy he started out and how much of it was from the death spiral.
The difference I would've gone with is that Hitler didn't want to deport the Jews, he wanted to murder them. And did.
Obama doesn't get enough credit. Sure, he failed to fix a lot of stuff,
Largely because every time he tried to, the Republicans in the House voted it down faster than you could blink.
At one point, this was said:
Trump: " For me, nuclear, the power, the devastation, is very important to me "
With that in mind, consider this exchange:
Moderator: " OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in 45, heard it. They`re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president. "
Do you have some other quote where he actually talks about nuking somebody? Nuclear power is indeed important; acknowledging that fact does not mean we want to nuke anyone. Or maybe you'd prefer if he responded:
"Do you think nuclear weapons are important?"
"Nah, who cares about nukes. Bunch of hot air if you ask me. Don't care even a little about them. Just put the codes on my desk and I'll lock them up before I leave for the day."
I'm not surprised, but you're the one busting out "100%" lines.
That's the great thing about arguing on the internet, you can twist someone's original statement
When you make blanket statements without properly qualifying them, people finding counterexamples is basically the only way to disagree with you.
As I mentioned elsewhere I was talking about companies, not foundations or OSS projects.
After rereading your (assuming you're also that AC) initial statement, I'm not sure why you're making this distinction...except perhaps for the part where not doing so means you're trivially wrong.
Ubuntu is indeed an example. It was initially funded by Mark Shuttleworth's private fortune, and they don't sell software as far as I'm aware. I would assume they're like Red Hat and probably sell support contracts, but you explicitly said "pay for your software."
Mozilla doesn't sell their software either, mister words lawyer.
As I mentioned elsewhere I was talking about companies, not foundations or OSS projects.
Umm...aren't you kind of setting up a tautology here? What sort of company sets out to not make any money? By definition that's a nonprofit organization or charity. Privately-held companies whose owners just don't give a shit? The rest have to worry about the shareholders.
So yes, if you only count the group that axiomatically needs to make money, that group needs to make money. Congratulations.
Yet again. You need to start _PAYING_ for your software.
As I mentioned elsewhere I was talking about companies, not foundations or OSS projects.
Red Hat. You don't pay them for their software; you pay them for support. And they're an open-source company, not a foundation.
Whoops, no longer 100%.
Seriously folks, don't do computers.
You can only trust the trusted. Not stuff that runs on them.
How can you trust an operating system you haven't read the code of yourself? How can you trust chips running firmware you haven't read the code to? How do you know the precious metals in the hardware wasn't mined using slave labor in Africa? How do you know the computer companies you bought it from aren't paying lobbyists to oppose your interests?
Hell, look up "Reflections on Trusting Trust." You could read and understand the source code yourself, build it all from scratch, and your compiler could be compromised such that the resulting binaries aren't trustworthy either. Guess you'd better start reading the source to your compiler then, too...
That's the great thing about fools making absolute statements: You only have to find a single counterexample :)
You're assuming its purpose was to be a deterrent. If it's not a deterrent but instead a dead man's switch, nobody cares if your enemy knows about it, only if it works.
It is, however, easy to imagine invading South America from overseas, building up bases there, and marching north.
Not so much.
37.5% leave, 34.7% remain, 27.8% abstain.
There were only 2 choices idiot.
Well, abstaining is really always an unspoken option unless you live somewhere with compulsive voting and no write-ins.
The referendum had a 72.2% turnout. That makes the final results 37.5% leave, 34.7% remain, 27.8% abstain.
So from the phrasing, it sounds like less than 3/4 of voters showed up for the vote, and those that did voted either "yes" or "no." Which does indeed result in a plurality of the overall voter-age population.
"hat leaves the leavers and the remainers and a margin of 2% of one of those group over the other is not an overwhelming mandate, it isn't even a good mandate, that's a "by the skin of your teeth" mandate."
Its a majority and you can whine and bitch and thrash on the hook all you like, Leave won. End of.
Technically it's a majority of the election but I have doubts about how "overwhelming" of a mandate that is. By this same argument, 60% of the population could turn out for an election and vote "yes" on, oh I dunno...let's say "Shall we kill all the Jews?" Then they win that vote by 52% and we're murdering all the Jews because 31% of the voters wanted to.
Further complicated by the maneuver I don't really understand where, when one side knows it's going to lose badly, they tend to boycott the election.
That makes the final results 37.5% leave, 34.7% remain, 27.8% abstain.
Its a majority and you can whine and bitch and thrash on the hook all you like
No, the word you're looking for is "plurality."
majority
3 a : a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total
plurality
c : a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast
Accidentally modded wrong; posting to undo.
I think that implying that some people should be subject to eugenics programs because they don't live in the U.S. or Europe is pretty profoundly offensive, yeah. Extra points for giving the First-Worlders tax breaks at the same time.
Calm down: he's saying both "greater" and "lesser" countries would be "subjected to the eugeneics programs" as you so inflammatory put it. Free condoms and tax breaks are both incentives to have fewer kids.
Granted, it would be more egalitarian to apply one or the other or both to both demographics.
If something is going to happen in the far future, i.e., after you're dead, it doesn't matter.
Please be Poe's Law, but this sort of thinking is half the reason we have climate problems (the other half being greed).
"If I can be comfortable, who gives a shit if the entire planet falls apart the day after I die? That's the next generation's problem."
#whywecanthavenicethings
refute
rfyoot/
verb
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
imply (implicitly)
impl/
verb
strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).
Yes, thank you, Webster, different words *do* have different meanings.
BS. Arguing against an organization does not necessarily mean arguing against just its goals.
FTFY. And in the example, the goal is already dubious without even looking at their methods.
Well, I'm not talking about now; I'm talking about the '60s. But otherwise that's fair.
It's not really "because I don't like them." Arguing against the Civil Rights Movement is effectively saying all citizens should not be equal, which is kind of one of the principles our country was founded on (admittedly it took us a long time to approach that point).
Hey look, it's the Fallacy Fallacy.
The original poster never said he was trying to refute them. He was simply dismissing them.
If you know they have a history of being idiots there's little reason for you to investigate each new thing they do because it'll probably follow the same pattern.
They opposed the Civil Rights movement. It's not ad hominem if they really are scum.