Side note: Your "friend" is lucky - if the cops had wanted to, they could have claimed the person who stole it was wanted on drug charges. That would have allowed them to impound the car, shred the interior, and charge your "friend" for storage and labor.
Further proving my point.
Not in my country they can't. Sucks to be you eh?
It might be if I were stupid enough to leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition.
I don't think there was a mistake in my reasoning. You didn't point out something I'd never reflected on before. What you just said was obvious to you, right? Why are you assuming it's not obvious to me.
My position is simply that treating property as fundamentally important is a mental short-circuit that can avoid answering difficult but relevant questions sometimes.
Damn but those goalposts are hard to hit when they keep dancing around like that.
I'm not calling for the end of property law in general.
Ah, a communist. Well, I'll respect your right to have that opinion, and you're welcome to surrender all your property to the collective. In exchange, I expect you to respect mine, and leave me and the shit I worked for and own the hell alone. Otherwise, you're going to have a fight on your hands.
Ok, explaining myself would be a good way to assume good faith on your part and not make your day harder.
The constitution outlines winner take all majority elections for both the house and (since the 17th amendment) senate. This seems innocuous enough, but countries with stable third parties don't have this system. The reason is game-theory driven. If you split into ideological groups who actually agree and reflect particular perspectives on the world, you'll never make a plurality against a single party of diverse, but aligned-for-convenience groups, in a one-man-one vote. The natural consequence is that anyone concerned with winning elections is going to make such a coalition themselves. This means in every single district, you get one elected representative that vaguely, approximately represents half the people that voted(and this system promotes apathy among those who can find neither party acceptable, making it self-reinforcing), and actively opposed to the other half who tend to be seen as "the enemy".
Countries that run instant run-off like Australia or with proportionate party voting, like France or Canada, have third parties, and much higher voter turnout, and much lower levels of political partisanship.
Yea, you definitely should have said that before going all snarky asshole on me.
Of course, the fact that third parties do win regional elections all the time kind of negates your whole theory there. My district regularly elects Libertarians.
The fact that people steal negates your entire premise, adjectives notwithstanding. You said nothing about harm in your first post, and honestly that's a downright pathetic attempt to move the goalposts. You said, "property doesn't intrinsically require protection," which is a false statement. Man up and own your mistake, instead of acting as a selfish child and attacking everyone who points out your folly.
I never lock my doors and never lock my car either. A friend of mine used to leave his keys in his ignition and his car has only been stolen once
You do realize this anecdote about your "friend" (as well as your admission to having locks on your doors) actually supports my argument, don't you?
Side note: Your "friend" is lucky - if the cops had wanted to, they could have claimed the person who stole it was wanted on drug charges. That would have allowed them to impound the car, shred the interior, and charge your "friend" for storage and labor.
Only if you use definition 4 of "hurt" from the same source. I think you know very well that the generally agreed-upon definition of violence is compatible with definition one of hurt, "to cause physical damage or pain", not all.
It's a definition, so yea, it counts. I could also have substituted "damage" for "hurt," and since they're synonyms, it would not change the meaning.
When you try to stretch words in this way they lose all meaning.
Using an accepted definition is not "stretching words."
Insisting that an accepted definition is not acceptable because it goes against your personal beliefs, that, my friend, is stretching words.
But actually, when I searched for violence on dictionary.com I didn't get the definition you're quoting:
Well, then, I guess Google lied to me. Bastards.
There are some obviously similar definitions but none are the same or even close enough to just be a typo apart. In particular, the word "hurt" does not appear on that page
Processes is a synonym of forces. The rest of your post is being excessively defensive about the fact that you(now quite clearly) intentionally chose to misinterpret what I said.
Since you never actually explained what you meant by that cryptic phrase, I submit it is physically impossible for me to "intentionally" misinterpret what you said.
Try explaining yourself before getting all butthurt and defensive.
How so? It's not like people are DDOS'ing to get later bedtimes or increased allowance. They are doing it specifically to deny an electronic service for . Or is every single attempt to deny anything juvenile?
Yea, kinda.
It screams "I lack the mental fortitude and acuity to argue my point effectively (or, my point is not worth paying attention to), and thus have decided to resort to the least-common-denominator of force to get my point across."
You understand that "forces that drive" isn't the same as a "clause that states", right? I mean, I was pretty clear in my wording, you'd have to be pretty obtuse to intentionally misread that.
You claim you were "pretty clear in your wording," yet you didn't bother to ensure that this post had the same wording as your previous one (that made no mention of the phrase, "forces that drive").
Unless you have the wherewithal to expound on these "constitutionally set processes" you're claiming exist, you should refrain from the snarky comebacks.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Sure, as long as we're going to take one further step of abstraction from the parent post to make ourselves sound more insightful...
The sooner the constitutionally set processes which drive a unidirectional 2-party debate in the United States morph into something better than what it has become, the better for the entire world
You, along with many, many others, are confusing Article 1, Section 1, which sets forth a requirement for a bicameral (made up of 2 houses) legislature.
If oil and coal and nuclear are so great, why do they need subsidies?
I agree completely - there is no rational cause for handing billions of taxpayer dollars over to any corporation, especially ones that already bring in billions of dollars of profits without the subsidies.
I guess that (and my insistence on re-routing a lot of that useless spending to social projects) makes me more of a "new-school" libertarian, and I'm cool with that.
OK, dude-bro, aside from the fact this is OT, you're obviously just C&P-ing the same rant over and over into each new thread. It's weak, shows a distinct lack of care about the topic you're ranting about, and honestly, you're boring us.
Feel free to keep up with the OT rants (they'll be modded into oblivion every time, anyway, so it's not like you're doing anything useful), but at least try to be a bit more creative with them, huh?
Re:WH Pushes Next Year's Enrollment Period Deadlin
on
Xbox One Released
·
· Score: 0
Oh, I dunno... on the right thread, it's better than some of the political rants I've seen... although I do tire of the whole 'stupid lib/evil con' narrative.
Anyway, it's OT, so mod it as such and go on about your day.
So I should be able to pick up a used Xbox and PS3 for cheap sometime after Christmas. Why spend $500 when I can spend $100 on a console that's been thoroughly hacked?
I'm with you there.
Always wanted to try Halo 3 and the Gears of War series, but never wanted to spend retail on an Adbox 360. Now I won't have to!
"That could be considered libel, defamation, and/or blackmail if they're making a demand in exchange for not sending the pictures" If you make no demand and it is true it is not libel or defamation because it is true.
You very much can be sued for libel and defamation, even if what you said is 100% true and verifiable.
Granted, the person suing you probably won't even take it to court, but nothing stops them from forcing you to spend time and money defending your own words.
I know this from personal experience.
Well if you have people over are you in private? If you are at someone else's home are you in private? You are at the mercy of judgment of others at that point so yes you are in public.
Ah, I see the problem - you're not thinking about those terms in the legal sense, which is the only sense that matters in issues of law. Sure, when I have someone over, it's not as private as when I'm sitting on the shitter by myself, but don't think for one second the addition of a guest legally (and magically) transforms my private residence into a public place. For starters, if said guest violates my house rules, I can make them leave, unlike a place that is legally classified as public.
Slashdot Mirror
>
Side note: Your "friend" is lucky - if the cops had wanted to, they could have claimed the person who stole it was wanted on drug charges. That would have allowed them to impound the car, shred the interior, and charge your "friend" for storage and labor.
Further proving my point.
Not in my country they can't. Sucks to be you eh?
It might be if I were stupid enough to leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition.
I don't think there was a mistake in my reasoning. You didn't point out something I'd never reflected on before. What you just said was obvious to you, right? Why are you assuming it's not obvious to me.
My position is simply that treating property as fundamentally important is a mental short-circuit that can avoid answering difficult but relevant questions sometimes.
Damn but those goalposts are hard to hit when they keep dancing around like that.
I'm not calling for the end of property law in general.
Ah, a communist. Well, I'll respect your right to have that opinion, and you're welcome to surrender all your property to the collective. In exchange, I expect you to respect mine, and leave me and the shit I worked for and own the hell alone. Otherwise, you're going to have a fight on your hands.
Being mistaken != lying.
Blame Google, since that's where I got my info.
Ok, explaining myself would be a good way to assume good faith on your part and not make your day harder.
The constitution outlines winner take all majority elections for both the house and (since the 17th amendment) senate. This seems innocuous enough, but countries with stable third parties don't have this system. The reason is game-theory driven. If you split into ideological groups who actually agree and reflect particular perspectives on the world, you'll never make a plurality against a single party of diverse, but aligned-for-convenience groups, in a one-man-one vote. The natural consequence is that anyone concerned with winning elections is going to make such a coalition themselves. This means in every single district, you get one elected representative that vaguely, approximately represents half the people that voted(and this system promotes apathy among those who can find neither party acceptable, making it self-reinforcing), and actively opposed to the other half who tend to be seen as "the enemy".
Countries that run instant run-off like Australia or with proportionate party voting, like France or Canada, have third parties, and much higher voter turnout, and much lower levels of political partisanship.
Yea, you definitely should have said that before going all snarky asshole on me.
Of course, the fact that third parties do win regional elections all the time kind of negates your whole theory there. My district regularly elects Libertarians.
I know what intrinsically means, asshat.
The fact that people steal negates your entire premise, adjectives notwithstanding. You said nothing about harm in your first post, and honestly that's a downright pathetic attempt to move the goalposts. You said, "property doesn't intrinsically require protection," which is a false statement. Man up and own your mistake, instead of acting as a selfish child and attacking everyone who points out your folly.
I never lock my doors and never lock my car either. A friend of mine used to leave his keys in his ignition and his car has only been stolen once
You do realize this anecdote about your "friend" (as well as your admission to having locks on your doors) actually supports my argument, don't you?
Side note: Your "friend" is lucky - if the cops had wanted to, they could have claimed the person who stole it was wanted on drug charges. That would have allowed them to impound the car, shred the interior, and charge your "friend" for storage and labor.
Further proving my point.
Only if you use definition 4 of "hurt" from the same source. I think you know very well that the generally agreed-upon definition of violence is compatible with definition one of hurt, "to cause physical damage or pain", not all.
It's a definition, so yea, it counts. I could also have substituted "damage" for "hurt," and since they're synonyms, it would not change the meaning.
When you try to stretch words in this way they lose all meaning.
Using an accepted definition is not "stretching words."
Insisting that an accepted definition is not acceptable because it goes against your personal beliefs, that, my friend, is stretching words.
But actually, when I searched for violence on dictionary.com I didn't get the definition you're quoting:
Well, then, I guess Google lied to me. Bastards.
There are some obviously similar definitions but none are the same or even close enough to just be a typo apart. In particular, the word "hurt" does not appear on that page
Sounds like you need to expand your reference library.
Processes is a synonym of forces. The rest of your post is being excessively defensive about the fact that you(now quite clearly) intentionally chose to misinterpret what I said.
Since you never actually explained what you meant by that cryptic phrase, I submit it is physically impossible for me to "intentionally" misinterpret what you said.
Try explaining yourself before getting all butthurt and defensive.
property doesn't intrinsically require protection.
So, your house doesn't have a lock on the door?
Cool; what was your address again?
How so? It's not like people are DDOS'ing to get later bedtimes or increased allowance. They are doing it specifically to deny an electronic service for . Or is every single attempt to deny anything juvenile?
Yea, kinda.
It screams "I lack the mental fortitude and acuity to argue my point effectively (or, my point is not worth paying attention to), and thus have decided to resort to the least-common-denominator of force to get my point across."
Grown-ups use their words.
Indeed; Dictionary.com defines violence as
A sit-in (physical force) at a restaurant (something) is designed to hurt their business. Therefore, an act of violence.
Awesome to the max, will give it a shot tonight!
Thanks for the intel.
You understand that "forces that drive" isn't the same as a "clause that states", right? I mean, I was pretty clear in my wording, you'd have to be pretty obtuse to intentionally misread that.
You claim you were "pretty clear in your wording," yet you didn't bother to ensure that this post had the same wording as your previous one (that made no mention of the phrase, "forces that drive").
Unless you have the wherewithal to expound on these "constitutionally set processes" you're claiming exist, you should refrain from the snarky comebacks.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Do they broadcast BBC4 online? I haven't seen a new episode of Top Gear in months.
That alone would be enough to get me to use the software.
Had to read it twice.
Good one.
Well that's hardly an unsolvable problem, just put another tor router box in series with the malware infested one.
Hey, that's a good question: do the stats on these things stack? I.e., if I put 3 of them in series, am I 3X as anonymous?
Sure, as long as we're going to take one further step of abstraction from the parent post to make ourselves sound more insightful...
The sooner the constitutionally set processes which drive a unidirectional 2-party debate in the United States morph into something better than what it has become, the better for the entire world
There is absolutely no mention of political parties in the U.S. Constitution.
You, along with many, many others, are confusing Article 1, Section 1, which sets forth a requirement for a bicameral (made up of 2 houses) legislature.
Now, stop it.
Those who have profit incentive from burning oil and gas will put a lot of money into dis-crediting alternatives.
... and those with a profit incentive from 'alternatives' will put a lot of time and money into discrediting oil and gas.
It's a zero-sum game to these powerful assholes.
If oil and coal and nuclear are so great, why do they need subsidies?
I agree completely - there is no rational cause for handing billions of taxpayer dollars over to any corporation, especially ones that already bring in billions of dollars of profits without the subsidies.
I guess that (and my insistence on re-routing a lot of that useless spending to social projects) makes me more of a "new-school" libertarian, and I'm cool with that.
The sooner the One Party morphs into something better than what it has become the better for the entire world.
FTFY. There are no good guys in Washington, DC. Not as a group, anyway.
OK, dude-bro, aside from the fact this is OT, you're obviously just C&P-ing the same rant over and over into each new thread. It's weak, shows a distinct lack of care about the topic you're ranting about, and honestly, you're boring us.
Feel free to keep up with the OT rants (they'll be modded into oblivion every time, anyway, so it's not like you're doing anything useful), but at least try to be a bit more creative with them, huh?
Oh, I dunno... on the right thread, it's better than some of the political rants I've seen... although I do tire of the whole 'stupid lib/evil con' narrative.
Anyway, it's OT, so mod it as such and go on about your day.
So I should be able to pick up a used Xbox and PS3 for cheap sometime after Christmas. Why spend $500 when I can spend $100 on a console that's been thoroughly hacked?
I'm with you there.
Always wanted to try Halo 3 and the Gears of War series, but never wanted to spend retail on an Adbox 360. Now I won't have to!
"That could be considered libel, defamation, and/or blackmail if they're making a demand in exchange for not sending the pictures" If you make no demand and it is true it is not libel or defamation because it is true.
You very much can be sued for libel and defamation, even if what you said is 100% true and verifiable.
Granted, the person suing you probably won't even take it to court, but nothing stops them from forcing you to spend time and money defending your own words.
I know this from personal experience.
Well if you have people over are you in private? If you are at someone else's home are you in private? You are at the mercy of judgment of others at that point so yes you are in public.
Ah, I see the problem - you're not thinking about those terms in the legal sense, which is the only sense that matters in issues of law. Sure, when I have someone over, it's not as private as when I'm sitting on the shitter by myself, but don't think for one second the addition of a guest legally (and magically) transforms my private residence into a public place. For starters, if said guest violates my house rules, I can make them leave, unlike a place that is legally classified as public.
That some people think hyperbole is a valid response is everyone's problem.