That's how the entertainment industry would LIKE people to consume their media. Paying them directly, then supporting them indirectly through ad revenue as well.
So, in other words, exactly like a cable subscription.
By that reasoning, I don't owe said debt, as no one I've ever voted for has actually been elected.
You don't owe the federal debt, actually, the entity known as the United States of America does. You are only affected insofar as the US might be unable to provide its current level of services at their current price, and are free to renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.
Federal debt operates just like limited liability corporations debt would, in this sense.
Your reasoning definitely wins over OP's "you voted for it" nonsense.
Since you're not going to bother scrolling back up the page to see what I mean, I'll go ahead and say it - that comment was in response to your strawman about Creationists.
That statement was from you but you attempted to imply that it was from me.
That is a straw man.
by khasim (1285) Alter Relationship on Monday April 14, 2014 @05:30PM (#46749083)
You mean like people who keep pointing out the evidence for evolution when Creationists insist that humans were riding dinosaurs 6,000 years ago?
Creationism isn't the topic of this thread, so what would you call the introduction of an unrelated topic, if not a strawman?
Besides, you're not really pretending you didn't say that, are you? I mean, since you, I, and everyone else on the planet can scroll up this page and see where you said precisely what you're denying you said, that action would not speak well of your character - the only people I've ever met who would deny a fact that staring them in the face are pathological liars.
For the record, here is my actual argument:
khasim: Yes, and by "zealots" you mean people who understand basic science.
CanHasDIY: No, I'm pretty sure the use of zealots here refers to those who are so fanatically devoted to their position that they'll inevitably drive people away from the truth, due to their overbearing assholishness.
If you want to posit an argument that OP meant what you claim he meant, as opposed to meaning what the term "zealot" actually means, feel free to continue to discuss, but I'm done letting you derail me with your non sequiturs and assumptions.
There are many parts in the world where AMERICA (the sum total of North America, Central America, the Caribbean islands, and South America) is considered one single continent.
Well, the good news is, then, that our American (that's US American, btw) education system isn't as bad as it could be.
At least we teach our kids the proper names and number of continents, Sarah Palin notwithstanding.
There is something called "SawStop" that very rapidly stops the blade and, in the case of a table saw, pulls it down out of the way before it can do serious damage.
Yes.
It's also one-time-use, and destroys both your table and blade. Still, a far sight better than losing a couple flanges, assuming one can even afford a SawStop equipped table - I've yet to find one for less than $1,400, whereas a comparable table without SawStop would cost a fraction of that.
And, of course, such a system doesn't work with non-table-mounted equipment, like handheld circular and reciprocating saws.
Fair enough (to each his own, I always say). Just don't cry like a bitch when someone calls you a zealot, if you're going to exhibit that sort of behavior.
Especially when the opposition is people like Jenny McCarthy. Its either make fun of them or cry yourself to sleep at night.
I prefer option 3 - not giving a fuck what some dumbass celebrity thinks. That tends to work out well for me in all arenas.
My mistake for assuming that I was talking to someone who understands what the words he uses means. Words like "straw man."
That would be your hypothetical straw man friends whom you claimed were calling Jenny McCarthy a "moron".
That's pretty bad when you not only can't remember what you yourself posted, but can't be bothered to go read the post again before responding. Since you're not going to bother scrolling back up the page to see what I mean, I'll go ahead and say it - that comment was in response to your strawman about Creationists.
If you're not going to bother paying attention to the conversation, perhaps you'd be better off if you stopped responding. That hole you're diggin' ain't gettin' any shallower.
What I said was that she (and the anti-vaccine people like her) do not have any evidence to support their claims.
Had you left it at that, I wouldn't have responded; but you didn't, you had to throw in an ad hominem for no particular reason.
Again, since I doubt you're going to take the 3 seconds to go re-read your original post, I'll copy & paste it here:
Yes, and by "zealots" you mean people who understand basic science.
... Which you said in response to someone pointing out that there are zealots on both sides of the issue.
Question: have you yet bothered to go look up the definition of the term, "zealot?" Or are you maintaining that your personal definition is the "correct" one?
FWIW, I'm not the hypocrite who's putting up strawmen and accusing others of doing the same thing when they make the apparent mistake of responding.
Yes you are.
Sayeth the zealot. What strawman, specifically, did I put up? You'd be wise to avoid referring to my response to your Creationists strawman.
And you are "tone trolling".
Pointing out that you're acting like a petulant child who isn't getting his way isn't tone trolling. I've both asked you to present the facts which back your beliefs (which you have not presented), and suggested that you would better posit your argument using reason as opposed to irrationality and emotion. That you read this as "tone trolling" says more about you than it does about me, bud.
Like I keep saying, measles does not care about your feelings.
Herd immunity has precisely dick to do with how you present your argument.
And, again, measles does not care about your feelings.
And now there are outbreaks of measles because of the anti-vaccination people. Real people. Real diseases. Real damage. None of your hypothetical straw men needed.
Look, Brah, I don't care what you think about feelings, or damage, or strawmen, or whatever. All I care about is whether or not you can present facts that support your contention, and whether or not you're capable of positing said contention without exhibiting behavior that is indicative of zealotry. Thus far, you've failed to do either of these things, so pardon me if I'm not real keen on accepting your poorly thought out, emotionally charged viewpoint.
Now, if you want to present facts and discuss them like adults, I'm all ears. But as for this tit-for-tat farce of an "argument," I think I've said all that needs to be said. If you're still not getting it, that's your hang up.
Not exactly, because most of the country is Class G airspace, and aircraft aren't limited to public roads. There's even lots of Class G airspace not too far from cities, located underneath controlled airspace. However you still might have to worry about local ordinances and such.
No, I mean like people who "point out" the evidence for evolution by looking at Creationists and saying things like, "goddamn but you're a moron! How is it that you're allowed to breed? Someone should put you down for the good of society!"
Well that's good. Maybe you should take all your hypothetical straw man friends on a party cruise.
Had I known I was trying to have an adult discussion with an 8-year-old mentality, I may have expressed myself otherwise. My mistake for assuming that I was talking to someone who understands what the words he uses means. Words like "straw man."
For example, introducing Creationism in a discussion about vaccines would be what is known as "arguing a strawman." Not sure what responding to said fallacious argument would qualify as. Bad form?
FWIW, I'm not the hypocrite who's putting up strawmen and accusing others of doing the same thing when they make the apparent mistake of responding.
Make all the excuses for anti-social behavior that you want, but the fact is if you're being an asshole to someone for being wrong, you're only serving to make the problem worse, not better.
You might want to look up some of the outbreaks of diseases that have happened recently.
Oh, you won't, will you. Because actual damage to actual people doesn't fit your hypothetical straw man.
Anyone who refuses to get their children vaccinated BECAUSE I SAID THAT JENNY MCCARTHY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND BASIC SCIENCE is not going to change because I don't state that.
That is what a "zealot" is about.
You don't get to just make up your own definitions of words, and "zealot" already has a definition.
BTW, tossing accusations around instead of making salient points that support your argument isn't going to change any minds. Well, not to support your point of view, anyway, although you might be successful in driving people away from your premise. For example, you keep saying that "Jenny McCarthy doesn't understand basic science," but have thus far failed to define just what that phrase is supposed to mean, nor have you provided any examples that would support this claim. Pretty gosh-darn unscientific, if you ask me.
I think they call that one "irony."
Anyway, if you can't argue your point without attacking the other person, you either don't have a valid point to make, or you don't know how to properly express yourself. Either way, that's your problem, not mine.
Jenny McCarthy isn't stopping you from getting your kids vaccinated, and being a dick to her and her kind for holding a certain viewpoint is only going to make them grasp it even harder.
Look up "herd immunity". They're increasing the risk by NOT getting the vaccinations.
Herd immunity has precisely dick to do with how you present your argument. You're just moving the goalposts so you don't have to address my argument.
Which is why there are outbreaks of diseases such as measles now.
Facts. Not feelings. Measles will not care about your feelings.
Then present some facts, instead of wasting time and energy attacking other people for not necessarily agreeing with the "facts" you have thus far failed to present.
Side note - the more upset you get, the more you attack me or anyone else for not falling in lock-step with your point of view, the more you prove my claims regarding zealotry right.
They aren't building a computer - they are building a car first, an airplane second, with some computer bits inside it. So why choose some of the world's most expensive real estate? Why put your engineering far, far away from any place you could test the flying capabilities?
Because trendy, vertically integrated social media is the new synergistic paradigm, moving forward with robust sustainability and transparency, resonating with doubled-down, rock star game changers utilizing the bleeding-edge Cloud to future proof value-added, deliverable monetization!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my annual MBA-sponsored lobotomy.
No, I'm pretty sure the use of zealots here refers to those who are so fanatically devoted to their position that they'll inevitably drive people away from the truth, due to their overbearing assholishness.
Calling people "overbearing assholes" makes you a total dick.
How else would you characterize zealotry, if not the act of being an overbearing asshole? I suppose I could have said "unbending adherence to a specific viewpoint they've convinced themselves is right, regardless of whether or not it actually is," but, er, well, I hadn't thought of that until just now. Mea culpa (something else you'll never hear a zealot say).
FWIW, it is possible to be right without being a dick about it.
::whistles innocently and wanders away::
-
Well, at least you accept that I'm right. I count that as a win, sardonic tone notwithstanding.
No, I'm pretty sure the use of zealots here refers to those who are so fanatically devoted to their position that they'll inevitably drive people away from the truth, due to their overbearing assholishness.
You mean like people who keep pointing out the evidence for evolution when Creationists insist that humans were riding dinosaurs 6,000 years ago?
No, I mean like people who "point out" the evidence for evolution by looking at Creationists and saying things like, "goddamn but you're a moron! How is it that you're allowed to breed? Someone should put you down for the good of society!"
But see, that's because I actually bothered to know the definition of the term "zealot," and I'm intelligent enough to make the distinction between one of them, and someone who is actually trying to educate people out of ignorance, rather than condemn them for it.
Make all the excuses for anti-social behavior that you want, but the fact is if you're being an asshole to someone for being wrong, you're only serving to make the problem worse, not better. Jenny McCarthy isn't stopping you from getting your kids vaccinated, and being a dick to her and her kind for holding a certain viewpoint is only going to make them grasp it even harder. Reason is the only weapon that's useful against irrationality, which is why I'm calmly explaining my viewpoint rather than getting pissed because you disagree with me.
...is with your eyes, at the appropriate time. Don't bother looking earlier; it won't have happened yet! Similarly, if you try to catch the eclipse after it's finished, you'll just see an ordinary full moon.
but it depends on how close you are to a local attraction or work site. i had to drive into manhattan today and parked in the $25 garage because it's the closest one to where i work. sure i can find a cheaper spot but then it's a 10 minute walk for me
Obviously a different world since where I live doesn't have half the population density as NYC, but I've always been that guy who parks in the corner space at the far, far back end of the lot. My ship's far less likely to be wanged that way, plus the extra bit of exercise is good for me. Plus, when I'm on the clock I'm getting paid for that 10 minute walk.
YMMV, as the only experience I have with driving/parking in NYC was selling my sister's car after she moved there, because she had no use for it and didn't want to pay to store it.
That's a princely amount anywhere outside of a big city, though.
No kidding - I've looked at what $1,200/mo can rent you around these parts, and the short answer is "a fucking mansion. On 20 acres. With your own lake."
Of course, if you live here and have that kind of scrilla laying around, chances are you don't rent, people rent from you.
so move somewhere where you can get a 2K foot home for under 900 a month like I did,
Way ahead of ya, Hoss. I pay about $600/mo for a 1,400 sq ft home on a quarter acre in town, because I own - even if I didn't, I could rent the same house for less than $750/mo.
I doubled my pay eventhough it stayed the same simply by moving, and i moved into a larger home to bat
That's what happens if you're lucky.
If you're not lucky, your pay gets cut because lower cost-of-living areas also tend to pay less for the same work, but it should even out so that you're still coming out ahead.
If you're unlucky, you'll end up making significantly less than you did in NYC, but the difference in cost-of-living should be enough to keep you off the streets, if not improving your situation all that much.
Assuming you didn't move to somewhere like LA or Orlando.
Slashdot Mirror
That's how the entertainment industry would LIKE people to consume their media. Paying them directly, then supporting them indirectly through ad revenue as well.
So, in other words, exactly like a cable subscription.
Thanks for nothing, Netflix. You broke the Internet. We won't forget this.
Yea, you asked for it by wearing those tight-ass jeans, whore. /sarc
You don't owe the federal debt, actually, the entity known as the United States of America does. You are only affected insofar as the US might be unable to provide its current level of services at their current price, and are free to renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.
Federal debt operates just like limited liability corporations debt would, in this sense.
Your reasoning definitely wins over OP's "you voted for it" nonsense.
It was on NPR this morning.
Then it should be on the NPR website by now, and whoever is claiming this occurred should produce the evidence that supports their claim.
10 year old debts DO NOT DISAPPEAR.
At 10 years in fact, the IRS is legally granted the power to charge you interest. 100%, PER DAY. Thank Al Capone for that one.
Al Capone was a legislator?
It's a debt you agreed with by voting for the people you elected into office.
By that reasoning, I don't owe said debt, as no one I've ever voted for has actually been elected.
That statement was from you but you attempted to imply that it was from me.
That is a straw man.
by khasim (1285) Alter Relationship on Monday April 14, 2014 @05:30PM (#46749083)
You mean like people who keep pointing out the evidence for evolution when Creationists insist that humans were riding dinosaurs 6,000 years ago?
Creationism isn't the topic of this thread, so what would you call the introduction of an unrelated topic, if not a strawman?
Besides, you're not really pretending you didn't say that, are you? I mean, since you, I, and everyone else on the planet can scroll up this page and see where you said precisely what you're denying you said, that action would not speak well of your character - the only people I've ever met who would deny a fact that staring them in the face are pathological liars.
For the record, here is my actual argument:
khasim: Yes, and by "zealots" you mean people who understand basic science.
CanHasDIY: No, I'm pretty sure the use of zealots here refers to those who are so fanatically devoted to their position that they'll inevitably drive people away from the truth, due to their overbearing assholishness.
If you want to posit an argument that OP meant what you claim he meant, as opposed to meaning what the term "zealot" actually means, feel free to continue to discuss, but I'm done letting you derail me with your non sequiturs and assumptions.
There are many parts in the world where AMERICA (the sum total of North America, Central America, the Caribbean islands, and South America) is considered one single continent.
Well, the good news is, then, that our American (that's US American, btw) education system isn't as bad as it could be.
At least we teach our kids the proper names and number of continents, Sarah Palin notwithstanding.
There is something called "SawStop" that very rapidly stops the blade and, in the case of a table saw, pulls it down out of the way before it can do serious damage.
Yes.
It's also one-time-use, and destroys both your table and blade. Still, a far sight better than losing a couple flanges, assuming one can even afford a SawStop equipped table - I've yet to find one for less than $1,400, whereas a comparable table without SawStop would cost a fraction of that.
And, of course, such a system doesn't work with non-table-mounted equipment, like handheld circular and reciprocating saws.
I can't help wondering if buying a saw with better safety features would have been a wiser investment though.
Like what? Toothless blades?
There's only so many safety features you can work into a tool before it's no longer useful (see: every discussion about DRM-ed guns, like, ever).
Aside from that, accidents involving circular saws aren't the only reason people need prosthetics.
Nah being a dick about it makes it more fun.
Fair enough (to each his own, I always say). Just don't cry like a bitch when someone calls you a zealot, if you're going to exhibit that sort of behavior.
Especially when the opposition is people like Jenny McCarthy. Its either make fun of them or cry yourself to sleep at night.
I prefer option 3 - not giving a fuck what some dumbass celebrity thinks. That tends to work out well for me in all arenas.
That would be your hypothetical straw man friends whom you claimed were calling Jenny McCarthy a "moron".
That's pretty bad when you not only can't remember what you yourself posted, but can't be bothered to go read the post again before responding. Since you're not going to bother scrolling back up the page to see what I mean, I'll go ahead and say it - that comment was in response to your strawman about Creationists.
If you're not going to bother paying attention to the conversation, perhaps you'd be better off if you stopped responding. That hole you're diggin' ain't gettin' any shallower.
What I said was that she (and the anti-vaccine people like her) do not have any evidence to support their claims.
Had you left it at that, I wouldn't have responded; but you didn't, you had to throw in an ad hominem for no particular reason.
Again, since I doubt you're going to take the 3 seconds to go re-read your original post, I'll copy & paste it here:
Yes, and by "zealots" you mean people who understand basic science.
... Which you said in response to someone pointing out that there are zealots on both sides of the issue.
Question: have you yet bothered to go look up the definition of the term, "zealot?" Or are you maintaining that your personal definition is the "correct" one?
Yes you are.
Sayeth the zealot. What strawman, specifically, did I put up? You'd be wise to avoid referring to my response to your Creationists strawman.
And you are "tone trolling".
Pointing out that you're acting like a petulant child who isn't getting his way isn't tone trolling. I've both asked you to present the facts which back your beliefs (which you have not presented), and suggested that you would better posit your argument using reason as opposed to irrationality and emotion. That you read this as "tone trolling" says more about you than it does about me, bud.
Like I keep saying, measles does not care about your feelings.
And, again, measles does not care about your feelings.
And now there are outbreaks of measles because of the anti-vaccination people. Real people. Real diseases. Real damage. None of your hypothetical straw men needed.
Look, Brah, I don't care what you think about feelings, or damage, or strawmen, or whatever. All I care about is whether or not you can present facts that support your contention, and whether or not you're capable of positing said contention without exhibiting behavior that is indicative of zealotry. Thus far, you've failed to do either of these things, so pardon me if I'm not real keen on accepting your poorly thought out, emotionally charged viewpoint.
Now, if you want to present facts and discuss them like adults, I'm all ears. But as for this tit-for-tat farce of an "argument," I think I've said all that needs to be said. If you're still not getting it, that's your hang up.
You should probably start by signing up for the newsletter.
Not exactly, because most of the country is Class G airspace, and aircraft aren't limited to public roads. There's even lots of Class G airspace not too far from cities, located underneath controlled airspace. However you still might have to worry about local ordinances and such.
Ah, so closer to the opposite of what I said.
Learn somethin' new every day.
You don't have to fly helicopters from any kind of designated area, as long as you're in Class G airspace.
Isn't that kind of like saying, "you don't have to have a license to drive a car, as long as you're not on a public road?"
Well that's good. Maybe you should take all your hypothetical straw man friends on a party cruise.
Had I known I was trying to have an adult discussion with an 8-year-old mentality, I may have expressed myself otherwise. My mistake for assuming that I was talking to someone who understands what the words he uses means. Words like "straw man."
For example, introducing Creationism in a discussion about vaccines would be what is known as "arguing a strawman." Not sure what responding to said fallacious argument would qualify as. Bad form?
FWIW, I'm not the hypocrite who's putting up strawmen and accusing others of doing the same thing when they make the apparent mistake of responding.
You might want to look up some of the outbreaks of diseases that have happened recently.
Oh, you won't, will you. Because actual damage to actual people doesn't fit your hypothetical straw man.
Anyone who refuses to get their children vaccinated BECAUSE I SAID THAT JENNY MCCARTHY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND BASIC SCIENCE is not going to change because I don't state that.
That is what a "zealot" is about.
You don't get to just make up your own definitions of words, and "zealot" already has a definition.
BTW, tossing accusations around instead of making salient points that support your argument isn't going to change any minds. Well, not to support your point of view, anyway, although you might be successful in driving people away from your premise. For example, you keep saying that "Jenny McCarthy doesn't understand basic science," but have thus far failed to define just what that phrase is supposed to mean, nor have you provided any examples that would support this claim. Pretty gosh-darn unscientific, if you ask me.
I think they call that one "irony."
Anyway, if you can't argue your point without attacking the other person, you either don't have a valid point to make, or you don't know how to properly express yourself. Either way, that's your problem, not mine.
Look up "herd immunity". They're increasing the risk by NOT getting the vaccinations.
Herd immunity has precisely dick to do with how you present your argument. You're just moving the goalposts so you don't have to address my argument.
Which is why there are outbreaks of diseases such as measles now.
Facts. Not feelings. Measles will not care about your feelings.
Then present some facts, instead of wasting time and energy attacking other people for not necessarily agreeing with the "facts" you have thus far failed to present.
Side note - the more upset you get, the more you attack me or anyone else for not falling in lock-step with your point of view, the more you prove my claims regarding zealotry right.
They had me until "Silicon Valley".
They aren't building a computer - they are building a car first, an airplane second, with some computer bits inside it. So why choose some of the world's most expensive real estate? Why put your engineering far, far away from any place you could test the flying capabilities?
Because trendy, vertically integrated social media is the new synergistic paradigm, moving forward with robust sustainability and transparency, resonating with doubled-down, rock star game changers utilizing the bleeding-edge Cloud to future proof value-added, deliverable monetization!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my annual MBA-sponsored lobotomy.
It sucks when your clock doesn't start until you have gone through the badge swipe doors.
Wow, that does suck! Talk about time theft.
No, I'm pretty sure the use of zealots here refers to those who are so fanatically devoted to their position that they'll inevitably drive people away from the truth, due to their overbearing assholishness.
Calling people "overbearing assholes" makes you a total dick.
How else would you characterize zealotry, if not the act of being an overbearing asshole? I suppose I could have said "unbending adherence to a specific viewpoint they've convinced themselves is right, regardless of whether or not it actually is," but, er, well, I hadn't thought of that until just now. Mea culpa (something else you'll never hear a zealot say).
FWIW, it is possible to be right without being a dick about it.
::whistles innocently and wanders away::
-
Well, at least you accept that I'm right. I count that as a win, sardonic tone notwithstanding.
You mean like people who keep pointing out the evidence for evolution when Creationists insist that humans were riding dinosaurs 6,000 years ago?
No, I mean like people who "point out" the evidence for evolution by looking at Creationists and saying things like, "goddamn but you're a moron! How is it that you're allowed to breed? Someone should put you down for the good of society!"
But see, that's because I actually bothered to know the definition of the term "zealot," and I'm intelligent enough to make the distinction between one of them, and someone who is actually trying to educate people out of ignorance, rather than condemn them for it.
Make all the excuses for anti-social behavior that you want, but the fact is if you're being an asshole to someone for being wrong, you're only serving to make the problem worse, not better. Jenny McCarthy isn't stopping you from getting your kids vaccinated, and being a dick to her and her kind for holding a certain viewpoint is only going to make them grasp it even harder. Reason is the only weapon that's useful against irrationality, which is why I'm calmly explaining my viewpoint rather than getting pissed because you disagree with me.
The Best Way To Watch the "Blood Moon" Tonight
...is with your eyes, at the appropriate time. Don't bother looking earlier; it won't have happened yet! Similarly, if you try to catch the eclipse after it's finished, you'll just see an ordinary full moon.
Get it? Got it? Good.
That beats my response.
I was just going to say, "drunk."
but it depends on how close you are to a local attraction or work site. i had to drive into manhattan today and parked in the $25 garage because it's the closest one to where i work. sure i can find a cheaper spot but then it's a 10 minute walk for me
Obviously a different world since where I live doesn't have half the population density as NYC, but I've always been that guy who parks in the corner space at the far, far back end of the lot. My ship's far less likely to be wanged that way, plus the extra bit of exercise is good for me. Plus, when I'm on the clock I'm getting paid for that 10 minute walk.
YMMV, as the only experience I have with driving/parking in NYC was selling my sister's car after she moved there, because she had no use for it and didn't want to pay to store it.
That's a princely amount anywhere outside of a big city, though.
No kidding - I've looked at what $1,200/mo can rent you around these parts, and the short answer is "a fucking mansion. On 20 acres. With your own lake."
Of course, if you live here and have that kind of scrilla laying around, chances are you don't rent, people rent from you.
so move somewhere where you can get a 2K foot home for under 900 a month like I did,
Way ahead of ya, Hoss. I pay about $600/mo for a 1,400 sq ft home on a quarter acre in town, because I own - even if I didn't, I could rent the same house for less than $750/mo.
I doubled my pay eventhough it stayed the same simply by moving, and i moved into a larger home to bat
That's what happens if you're lucky.
If you're not lucky, your pay gets cut because lower cost-of-living areas also tend to pay less for the same work, but it should even out so that you're still coming out ahead.
If you're unlucky, you'll end up making significantly less than you did in NYC, but the difference in cost-of-living should be enough to keep you off the streets, if not improving your situation all that much.
Assuming you didn't move to somewhere like LA or Orlando.
28.80 for support specialist is low paying???
When you live in a place where rent on a 300 square foot shoebox is over $1,200/month, yea, that's kinda low.