On the contrary,"Lane Closed" signs are left up for months after construction finishes, for example approaching the city from the north on the West Side Highway. New York is well-designed for cars but badly marked. Similarly, there are plenty of occasions where traffic is heavy and avenues are moving either very slowly or with lots of moving in and out of "lanes," only "lanes" have very little to do with what's painted--you can have staggered lanes on the same block, staggered to account for double parking, large delivery vehicles, stopping taxis, bicycles, etc... Places where technically you should be in a particular "lane," but it's really a secondary consideration. Most of the time, for most of the city, you are following the traffic laws. But then there are times when everything turns into a kind of mush.
Bad driving habits make driving unsafe, as do bad traffic signs and road designs. (See, e.g., Washington D.C.)
Driving within the laws in New York would actively be either dangerous or incredibly inefficient for hundreds or thousands of people behind you in a lot of cases. If you follow the wrong signs, you will smash your car into concrete barriers. If you follow "Lane closed Merge [right/left]" signs, you will change lanes without cause many times, increasing the likelihood of accident. If you only drive in lanes, regardless of what street you are on, rather than edging forward into available space, you will make your trip much, much, much slower, causing dozens or hundreds of cars to have to get around you in New York Traffic.
That being said, one has to know which laws are de jure and which are de facto. For example, one should merge the first time you see a lane closed sign, and possible for a week or two after (or at least be aware) in case they put the sign up before working instead of leaving it up. Similarly, it is almost never okay to run a red light. In fact, it is best to assume it just isn't okay.
The major content producers are Pro-IP because it's where all their money is, sure, but the argument WB is making is that it's a parody, and *nobody* in the US comes close to saying parodies are not okay, because courts would reject that argument. Kind of like how in the recent video game case, the real trick was trying to get around any reasoning that meant the government could ban books.
The First Amendment makes it really hard to argue parodies are not okay.
> It was -4F with 30 mph winds when they would have been walking to school. Most parents don't have good enough clothes to bundle their kids up for that weather, at least those that live in the lower 48 states.
With wind chill, that can be dangerous enough for people that aren't used to it to justify shutting school for a day. (If kids are walking.) Especially if there's a snowstorm.
There is also the point that kids are often *working* on days when there are big blizzards. If you're getting ten inches or more, it's not uncommon to have as many people as are in the household working on shoveling sidewalks, driveways, etc..., and to have kids from poorer communities moving around renting shoveling services.
Also playing--you get to go to school every day, but big blizzards only come once in a while, particularly for people in most states.
> This shouldn't be surprising, or particularly important.
Agreed. There is a general antipathy towards MSFT here, but this is a fairly innocuous and important thing for almost everyone. The very few people who have serious concerns about it also can use very restrictive firewalls or change a setting. No big deal.
Also, after the article referenced in this story yesterday, Microsoft could be reading my credit card and bank statements and taking daily webcam photos through my machine, and they still would not even 1% creepy, comparatively.
> Architecturally, this is the wrong place to put uniquely addressed devices. The addresses should be in the fixtures, to avoid the maintenance headache of readdressing bulbs every time they are replaced.
Wouldn't it make sense to allow either? Logically, it should not matter where the address is. Why not design the system so that it can accept it in light-bulbs or light-bulb extenders (for low cost use in old houses or fixtures) but new houses (or old houses where people want to replace fixtures) can have them in the fixtures?
> The "optimal price" for players is the price they're willing to pay.
Not quite, or at the least there's room for ambiguity. That's the player price optimized to maximize corporate profit. For players, a lower price than the price they're willing to pay for a given product will almost always be better. If I'll pay thirty dollars for a game, it's better if I only have to pay twenty dollars for it.
However, it's a business. It has shareholders. It's objective is not to achieve the optimal price for the players--the optimal price for the players is that which maximizes the ratio between enjoyability and cost. The optimal price for the business is that which maximizes profit. (I suppose the present value of all future profit.)
Players who are fun to play with generate revenue for the business by making it more fun to play, and that can be captured. And it may be that optimizing community relations has some value to the corporation as well--paying good players might be a marketing expenditure.
Generally, the idea is to charge based on the amount someone is willing to pay, and not sell to people who can't at least meet the costs of maintaining the system unless the cost can be born by advertisers. The question is how to determine what people are willing to pay.
Why do they only know now? Are there no cameras/water level sensors/etc... that could have told them this remotely? Or does something about the technology preclude that from being feasible or useful?
Despite the profanity, there is some legitimacy to the point. The US may be disliked and sometimes more imperialist than it should be, but it has played a key role in building world democracy. The League of Nations may have failed to prevent WWII, but it set the groundwork for the UN and some early international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was put together under strong US leadership (Eleanor Roosevelt post-WW2), as was the UN. Our production figures made the difference in WW2, and France would probably not exist--certainly not as a free nation--without us. (Britain would eventually have been forced into a separate peace by the prolonged closure of the Atlantic supply lines, leaving Hitler to send the entire German war machine against Stalin.) Nor would much of Europe. Thoreau's writings on Civil Disobedience significantly influenced Ghandi, and through him the Indian Independence movement, and the world's largest democracy. Our Constitution and our legal scholars often act as key advisors in the formation of the governments of newly independent states. And American citizens, on the whole, give a great deal to private and nonprofit organizations that do good throughout the world, and themselves do much good through organizations that they join.
It may be the in thing to hate the US, and to focus more on the bad parts of its policies than the good ones. But it's also done a lot of good.
> Finding someone responsible for killing ~3000 innocent citizens isn't a valid use?
In the event of a major war, 3000 innocent civilians are pocket change. They're innocent, and we care about them, but they are nothing compared to the casualties you would deal with if there were a real war between major powers. When they're already dead, their lives are also a sunk cost. I like that we killed Osama--I would have preferred a trial, and that we treat him like a common thug, but it's good he'd dead. We should have used relatively stealthy equipment going in to avoid anyone realizing we were there--but we also should have been sure to destroy what we left behind of that tech.
It's kind of like the Coventry situation, except on a smaller scale--Churchill knew there would be a major bombing the next day, but could not effectively warn people without revealing the allies had cracked enigma. It would have been legitimate to warn people, sure, but it also would have been very short-sighted.
> my guess is it crashed because the seal team wanted to practice blowing up a helicopter.
hahaha.
Unlikely, although +1 for military accuracy. They wouldn't do that deliberately on a mission in Pakistan where they'd have to leave the remains for Pakistani intelligence, especially not on a raid where every detail will be scrutinized.
> You realise the basis for this claim is an IRC chat log... > Hardly a reliable source of information..... Slashdot epic fail....
If anyone takes them to court--almost impossible if they wrote their agreements well, but possible, perhaps for family members' whose credit cards were used without having signed the agreements or the like--they can get much better proof in discovery.
> I have to wonder, are ALL Americans as dumb as the poster of this "news"?
TFA points to Congressional testimony. Even if it was based on what a security expert mentioned in an IRC channel--or is even more remote than that--that doesn't make it wrong. Also, TFA doesn't mention an IRC channel, so whoever posted the slashdot article can hardly be called a dumb American for posting it, even if we were to grant that having IRC as a source necessarily makes posting a story dumb, AND even if we were to take for granted that doing something dumb makes a person necessarily dumb.
> Seriously (not trolling, I'm really asking), why would you expect that, if you're smuggling stuff, or have a few grams of cocaine on you, you can walk freely all over the country? I mean if the thing is illegal to do, posses, traffic or whatever, why do you expect that you can get away with it? Are you expecting the judge to believe you had a "reasonable expectation" that you weren't going to be arrested?
Our Constitution grants us the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Originally it was meant to prevent the central government from having too much power. (May also have been one of grievances against the King we were rebelling against. We sent a list, and some of those wound up as things we promised our federal government would not do.) After our civil war, we amended the Constitution to say that people have a right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law." Fast forward about a hundred years, and cops in the south were violating civil rights of black people in the south left, right, and center. In 1969, the Supreme Court decided that was not okay. But rather than formally making it about civil rights of black people, or about racist cops, it interpreted "due process of law" to include a guaranty against unreasonable search and seizure, like the guaranty in the Fourth Amendment.
So then cops were Constitutionally required not to search unreasonably. What happens when they do? Two things: (1) You can sue the gov. in a 1983 action. Most of these are spurious suits brought by prisoners, but we accept those as the cost of ensuring legitimate grievances are heard. (2) They cannot use the information against you in court. This means cops have a much bigger interest in respecting the right not to be unreasonably searched, since if they do and they find something, you will walk free.
The right expanded during the civil rights era and has been constricting since then, because it is always unpopular to have a rule that lets criminals walk scott-free, so the Supreme Court has been chipping away at it.
What you have, when you are walking down the street, is a reasonable expectation that a cop isn't going to stop you at random and check all your pockets for cocaine. But not always--there are different rules at the border, at places that are the functional equivalent of the border, etc...
> According to Assange, ~30 people are sitting in Guantanamo Prison and Obama's intelligence community KNOWS they are innocent, but refuses to release them. How can you sit there and say you "trust" these people???
Maybe because a lot of them worked hard to figure out how to shut down Guantanamo, for example? They had obstacles at every turn--legal, political, etc...--and at the end of the day, you've got people who care about justice working within the community to shut it down. It may be no country in the world will take them back, for example, or their lives will be at risk if they are sent home.
> More naivete
Not at all. I said how I think it should work, not how it does work.
It may be quite obvious with Facebook, but the fact is most people don't know how pervasive data-mining is. Still, me, I kind of trust our intelligence community at the moment. I expect CIA and SIGINT for National Security reasons, and I've met enough of them--higher-ups and lower-ups--that I know they're good people trying to do a good job. I still think we need someone with the keys, because in twenty years the culture could change completely, but right now, US Intelligence is staffed by fairly good people.
Law enforcement use is more normatively questionable to me, since I tend to take an expansive view of the Fourth Amendment. For example, if they lower constitutional rights in NY to allow cops to search bags for explosives, I don't think they should be able to arrest people if they find drugs, since their rights have been artificially suspended because of terrorism, unless they can point to reasons they would have searched the person anyway. (apologies for antecedent potpurri.) But unfortunately I think law enforcement use of Facebook and such is largely constitutional under Maryland v. Smith and related cases. (I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information I communicate to others, like Facebook or the Phone Company.)
> Yea the only ones that win in them are the lawyer, they get paid a percent of the judgement and rest is split up among the people involved.
I mostly agree with you, but there is still something to be said for class actions: they are one of the only things encouraging corporations not to take more advantage of people than the law allows. This way, NVIDIA's costs for selling a faulty product are higher, which gives them more reason to make sure that they don't. Think of it as quality control.
Because real court costs people lots of money if they hire lawyers, or lots of time (and they almost never know what they're doing) if they don't. So it doesn't make sense for individuals to sue when corporations screw them, usually.
CIA might cop to it if they did it, but that is a political decision. When the U2s flew over the USSR, the pilots resigned from the air force and signed up to be CIA so that we were on better international law footing--we weren't sending troops into a foreign nation in violation of its sovereignty under international law, but instead were sending spies.
Of course you were wrong. Everybody is wrong about something. I have corrected you on so many points I don't know which one I was referring to. All you do is recycle old words and quote things and pretend they must mean other things.
I made numerous points, about why banner ad bandwidth saving is a drop in the bucket next to netflix and modern usage profiles, about how many of your claims were wrong, like claiming the first poster couldn't read, among others. Instead of asking me, why don't you try reading them again? Instead, you latch onto an area we agree on and say it's in your favor. Newsflash: I don't disagree that it can save bandwidth. That is not a point "in your favor," it is simply a point, because we agree. It is not a point I "conceded," it is not a sign that you are "winning," whatever that means, and it is something that I have said many times because you seem to love pointing out that I have said it and pretending it invalidates everything else I have said.
It does not.
You are only pretending it does, either to yourself or to others. Perhaps you are convinced you can't be wrong, so you thread things together and imply they make other things true, when they do not logically follow. You are like the person who responds to "Country X is committing war crimes" with "General so-and-so says country X has done a lot for human rights so you MUST be wrong & I win."
And you have no idea how to engage with intelligent people. You are only attempting to ride over them, which is probably why you say you have eaten people for lunch.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary,"Lane Closed" signs are left up for months after construction finishes, for example approaching the city from the north on the West Side Highway. New York is well-designed for cars but badly marked. Similarly, there are plenty of occasions where traffic is heavy and avenues are moving either very slowly or with lots of moving in and out of "lanes," only "lanes" have very little to do with what's painted--you can have staggered lanes on the same block, staggered to account for double parking, large delivery vehicles, stopping taxis, bicycles, etc... Places where technically you should be in a particular "lane," but it's really a secondary consideration. Most of the time, for most of the city, you are following the traffic laws. But then there are times when everything turns into a kind of mush.
Bad driving habits make driving unsafe, as do bad traffic signs and road designs. (See, e.g., Washington D.C.)
Driving within the laws in New York would actively be either dangerous or incredibly inefficient for hundreds or thousands of people behind you in a lot of cases. If you follow the wrong signs, you will smash your car into concrete barriers. If you follow "Lane closed Merge [right/left]" signs, you will change lanes without cause many times, increasing the likelihood of accident. If you only drive in lanes, regardless of what street you are on, rather than edging forward into available space, you will make your trip much, much, much slower, causing dozens or hundreds of cars to have to get around you in New York Traffic.
That being said, one has to know which laws are de jure and which are de facto. For example, one should merge the first time you see a lane closed sign, and possible for a week or two after (or at least be aware) in case they put the sign up before working instead of leaving it up. Similarly, it is almost never okay to run a red light. In fact, it is best to assume it just isn't okay.
Meh. Most session cookies are sent over unsecured HTTP. The only reason this is coming up is the linkedin IPO.
The major content producers are Pro-IP because it's where all their money is, sure, but the argument WB is making is that it's a parody, and *nobody* in the US comes close to saying parodies are not okay, because courts would reject that argument. Kind of like how in the recent video game case, the real trick was trying to get around any reasoning that meant the government could ban books.
The First Amendment makes it really hard to argue parodies are not okay.
> It was -4F with 30 mph winds when they would have been walking to school. Most parents don't have good enough clothes to bundle their kids up for that weather, at least those that live in the lower 48 states.
With wind chill, that can be dangerous enough for people that aren't used to it to justify shutting school for a day. (If kids are walking.) Especially if there's a snowstorm.
There is also the point that kids are often *working* on days when there are big blizzards. If you're getting ten inches or more, it's not uncommon to have as many people as are in the household working on shoveling sidewalks, driveways, etc..., and to have kids from poorer communities moving around renting shoveling services.
Also playing--you get to go to school every day, but big blizzards only come once in a while, particularly for people in most states.
> This shouldn't be surprising, or particularly important.
Agreed. There is a general antipathy towards MSFT here, but this is a fairly innocuous and important thing for almost everyone. The very few people who have serious concerns about it also can use very restrictive firewalls or change a setting. No big deal.
Also, after the article referenced in this story yesterday, Microsoft could be reading my credit card and bank statements and taking daily webcam photos through my machine, and they still would not even 1% creepy, comparatively.
> Architecturally, this is the wrong place to put uniquely addressed devices. The addresses should be in the fixtures, to avoid the maintenance headache of readdressing bulbs every time they are replaced.
Wouldn't it make sense to allow either? Logically, it should not matter where the address is. Why not design the system so that it can accept it in light-bulbs or light-bulb extenders (for low cost use in old houses or fixtures) but new houses (or old houses where people want to replace fixtures) can have them in the fixtures?
> The "optimal price" for players is the price they're willing to pay.
Not quite, or at the least there's room for ambiguity. That's the player price optimized to maximize corporate profit. For players, a lower price than the price they're willing to pay for a given product will almost always be better. If I'll pay thirty dollars for a game, it's better if I only have to pay twenty dollars for it.
Most do; they have huge incentives to. Amica is supposed to be pretty good for car insurance, though.
That's a nice idea.
However, it's a business. It has shareholders. It's objective is not to achieve the optimal price for the players--the optimal price for the players is that which maximizes the ratio between enjoyability and cost. The optimal price for the business is that which maximizes profit. (I suppose the present value of all future profit.)
Players who are fun to play with generate revenue for the business by making it more fun to play, and that can be captured. And it may be that optimizing community relations has some value to the corporation as well--paying good players might be a marketing expenditure.
Generally, the idea is to charge based on the amount someone is willing to pay, and not sell to people who can't at least meet the costs of maintaining the system unless the cost can be born by advertisers. The question is how to determine what people are willing to pay.
Why do they only know now? Are there no cameras/water level sensors/etc... that could have told them this remotely? Or does something about the technology preclude that from being feasible or useful?
Hey, don't insult the retarded. :)
Despite the profanity, there is some legitimacy to the point. The US may be disliked and sometimes more imperialist than it should be, but it has played a key role in building world democracy. The League of Nations may have failed to prevent WWII, but it set the groundwork for the UN and some early international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was put together under strong US leadership (Eleanor Roosevelt post-WW2), as was the UN. Our production figures made the difference in WW2, and France would probably not exist--certainly not as a free nation--without us. (Britain would eventually have been forced into a separate peace by the prolonged closure of the Atlantic supply lines, leaving Hitler to send the entire German war machine against Stalin.) Nor would much of Europe. Thoreau's writings on Civil Disobedience significantly influenced Ghandi, and through him the Indian Independence movement, and the world's largest democracy. Our Constitution and our legal scholars often act as key advisors in the formation of the governments of newly independent states. And American citizens, on the whole, give a great deal to private and nonprofit organizations that do good throughout the world, and themselves do much good through organizations that they join.
It may be the in thing to hate the US, and to focus more on the bad parts of its policies than the good ones. But it's also done a lot of good.
> Finding someone responsible for killing ~3000 innocent citizens isn't a valid use?
In the event of a major war, 3000 innocent civilians are pocket change. They're innocent, and we care about them, but they are nothing compared to the casualties you would deal with if there were a real war between major powers. When they're already dead, their lives are also a sunk cost. I like that we killed Osama--I would have preferred a trial, and that we treat him like a common thug, but it's good he'd dead. We should have used relatively stealthy equipment going in to avoid anyone realizing we were there--but we also should have been sure to destroy what we left behind of that tech.
It's kind of like the Coventry situation, except on a smaller scale--Churchill knew there would be a major bombing the next day, but could not effectively warn people without revealing the allies had cracked enigma. It would have been legitimate to warn people, sure, but it also would have been very short-sighted.
> my guess is it crashed because the seal team wanted to practice blowing up a helicopter.
hahaha.
Unlikely, although +1 for military accuracy. They wouldn't do that deliberately on a mission in Pakistan where they'd have to leave the remains for Pakistani intelligence, especially not on a raid where every detail will be scrutinized.
> unless you're on Seal Team 6, I'm guessing you haven't really "seen" anything
You *may* be overestimating the level of authority necessary to give a claim credence. :)
The priority was to kill the bad guys. They did that, they collected intelligence, and they left.
> You realise the basis for this claim is an IRC chat log...
> Hardly a reliable source of information..... Slashdot epic fail....
If anyone takes them to court--almost impossible if they wrote their agreements well, but possible, perhaps for family members' whose credit cards were used without having signed the agreements or the like--they can get much better proof in discovery.
> I have to wonder, are ALL Americans as dumb as the poster of this "news"?
TFA points to Congressional testimony. Even if it was based on what a security expert mentioned in an IRC channel--or is even more remote than that--that doesn't make it wrong. Also, TFA doesn't mention an IRC channel, so whoever posted the slashdot article can hardly be called a dumb American for posting it, even if we were to grant that having IRC as a source necessarily makes posting a story dumb, AND even if we were to take for granted that doing something dumb makes a person necessarily dumb.
Getting anonymous mad at them might not be the best strategy for beefing up the image of their security, though.
> Seriously (not trolling, I'm really asking), why would you expect that, if you're smuggling stuff, or have a few grams of cocaine on you, you can walk freely all over the country? I mean if the thing is illegal to do, posses, traffic or whatever, why do you expect that you can get away with it? Are you expecting the judge to believe you had a "reasonable expectation" that you weren't going to be arrested?
Our Constitution grants us the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Originally it was meant to prevent the central government from having too much power. (May also have been one of grievances against the King we were rebelling against. We sent a list, and some of those wound up as things we promised our federal government would not do.) After our civil war, we amended the Constitution to say that people have a right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law." Fast forward about a hundred years, and cops in the south were violating civil rights of black people in the south left, right, and center. In 1969, the Supreme Court decided that was not okay. But rather than formally making it about civil rights of black people, or about racist cops, it interpreted "due process of law" to include a guaranty against unreasonable search and seizure, like the guaranty in the Fourth Amendment.
So then cops were Constitutionally required not to search unreasonably. What happens when they do? Two things: (1) You can sue the gov. in a 1983 action. Most of these are spurious suits brought by prisoners, but we accept those as the cost of ensuring legitimate grievances are heard. (2) They cannot use the information against you in court. This means cops have a much bigger interest in respecting the right not to be unreasonably searched, since if they do and they find something, you will walk free.
The right expanded during the civil rights era and has been constricting since then, because it is always unpopular to have a rule that lets criminals walk scott-free, so the Supreme Court has been chipping away at it.
What you have, when you are walking down the street, is a reasonable expectation that a cop isn't going to stop you at random and check all your pockets for cocaine. But not always--there are different rules at the border, at places that are the functional equivalent of the border, etc...
> According to Assange, ~30 people are sitting in Guantanamo Prison and Obama's intelligence community KNOWS they are innocent, but refuses to release them. How can you sit there and say you "trust" these people???
Maybe because a lot of them worked hard to figure out how to shut down Guantanamo, for example? They had obstacles at every turn--legal, political, etc...--and at the end of the day, you've got people who care about justice working within the community to shut it down. It may be no country in the world will take them back, for example, or their lives will be at risk if they are sent home.
> More naivete
Not at all. I said how I think it should work, not how it does work.
It may be quite obvious with Facebook, but the fact is most people don't know how pervasive data-mining is. Still, me, I kind of trust our intelligence community at the moment. I expect CIA and SIGINT for National Security reasons, and I've met enough of them--higher-ups and lower-ups--that I know they're good people trying to do a good job. I still think we need someone with the keys, because in twenty years the culture could change completely, but right now, US Intelligence is staffed by fairly good people.
Law enforcement use is more normatively questionable to me, since I tend to take an expansive view of the Fourth Amendment. For example, if they lower constitutional rights in NY to allow cops to search bags for explosives, I don't think they should be able to arrest people if they find drugs, since their rights have been artificially suspended because of terrorism, unless they can point to reasons they would have searched the person anyway. (apologies for antecedent potpurri.) But unfortunately I think law enforcement use of Facebook and such is largely constitutional under Maryland v. Smith and related cases. (I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information I communicate to others, like Facebook or the Phone Company.)
> Yea the only ones that win in them are the lawyer, they get paid a percent of the judgement and rest is split up among the people involved.
I mostly agree with you, but there is still something to be said for class actions: they are one of the only things encouraging corporations not to take more advantage of people than the law allows. This way, NVIDIA's costs for selling a faulty product are higher, which gives them more reason to make sure that they don't. Think of it as quality control.
Because real court costs people lots of money if they hire lawyers, or lots of time (and they almost never know what they're doing) if they don't. So it doesn't make sense for individuals to sue when corporations screw them, usually.
> would the CIA cop to it if it was theirs?
I got the impression from Obama's talk that it was spec ops troops, which I took to be formal soldiers from a highly trained special unit rather than CIA. Could be https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special_Activities_Division of the CIA, could be someone else.
CIA might cop to it if they did it, but that is a political decision. When the U2s flew over the USSR, the pilots resigned from the air force and signed up to be CIA so that we were on better international law footing--we weren't sending troops into a foreign nation in violation of its sovereignty under international law, but instead were sending spies.
Of course you were wrong. Everybody is wrong about something. I have corrected you on so many points I don't know which one I was referring to. All you do is recycle old words and quote things and pretend they must mean other things.
I made numerous points, about why banner ad bandwidth saving is a drop in the bucket next to netflix and modern usage profiles, about how many of your claims were wrong, like claiming the first poster couldn't read, among others. Instead of asking me, why don't you try reading them again? Instead, you latch onto an area we agree on and say it's in your favor. Newsflash: I don't disagree that it can save bandwidth. That is not a point "in your favor," it is simply a point, because we agree. It is not a point I "conceded," it is not a sign that you are "winning," whatever that means, and it is something that I have said many times because you seem to love pointing out that I have said it and pretending it invalidates everything else I have said.
It does not.
You are only pretending it does, either to yourself or to others. Perhaps you are convinced you can't be wrong, so you thread things together and imply they make other things true, when they do not logically follow. You are like the person who responds to "Country X is committing war crimes" with "General so-and-so says country X has done a lot for human rights so you MUST be wrong & I win."
And you have no idea how to engage with intelligent people. You are only attempting to ride over them, which is probably why you say you have eaten people for lunch.
I answered that question many times.
I answered it numerous times.