He was arrested for nothing more than saying something like "Fuck George Bush" or "Hillary Clinton is a stupid cunt licker" or "Barack Obama can go fuck himself" or "John McCain is an asshole." (There, equal opportunity.:) Proof once again that Ron Paul is the best candidate for President!
Wow, you're not just a little presumptuous. So using Linux is the only way to be "creative, inquisitive and independent minded"? Of course not. They could also use BSD.
Jeez man you work for an ambulance company; those things must be loaded up with drugs and sharp/pointy objects; the best weapon you can find to defend yourself with is a freakin laptop??
Then in a couple thousand years someone will post a dupe of this story to slashdot.
can't stop myself... must type lawyer joke
on
RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Q: You're locked in a room with Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and a lawyer. You have a gun but only two bullets. What do you do? (yes, assume for the sake of the joke that the dictators are still alive).
No. They do not count. And any American president would have been a fool to "nuke" Iran back in 1980 (over 52 hostages? are you serious?). Reagan wouldn't have done it either (hell, his Administration sold weapons to Iran). Nor would Nixon or either Bush. And if an American president wanted to do that, the Joint Chiefs would have had something to say about it. Say what you want about warmongers or peaceniks, but these people are not idiots.
They don't choose the miserable wars they participate in. Don't confuse the political decision to go to war with the military decisions about how to carry it out.
Or do they want to attack ? (little detail : like they've done before, with MASSIVE casualties, they lost 500.000 people, most of them children in an attempt to expand into Iraq) Erm, Iraq invaded Iran. Iran has not been an expansionist nation at any time I am aware of in the last century at least.
The Oregon Supreme Court in Oregon v. Henry threw out all "obscenity" laws, making the argument that since there was no historical precedent for a first amendment "obscenity" exception that it couldn't be enforced today. They enforce child porn laws and others of course but in Oregon there is no categorical free speech exception based on the notion of "obscenity" like there is in every other state in the union. I don't know Oregon law (the case is 20 yrs old), but I don't think this case has been overturned, which means this law has very little likelihood of surviving constitutional scrutiny there. If it does survive, the state will probably have to prove direct harm to children of some sort rather than relying on "obscenity" or other morality-based arguments.
I've seen and used "begging the question" in the appropriate manner often, and have never run into a situation where I was having a conversation with an educated person who didn't know what it meant, so I completely disagree with your point. If you don't want to use the phrase properly that is your choice, but I really don't understand how that affects me or anyone else who chooses to speak the language properly. The phrase has not been "taken from me"; it isn't mine and never was. And again, I think it would be foolish to give up a term that is as relevant now as ever, and I cannot take seriously the suggestion that I ought to be using the Latin phrase instead as if that will somehow enlighten anyone. We're talking about English usage, and you can check a dictionary or encyclopedia if you think I am misrepresenting the appropriate usage in some way.
And, just to be clear, I'm not invested at all in what you want to say or do -- use the language however you wish, or make up your own if it floats your boat. I basically started this discussion following on "if we're being pedantic about these other things, might as well point out the elephant in the room," but I'm not generally pedantic about this stuff and when I see the phrase used inappropriately I usually don't bother to correct it.
Actually it is still commonly used in its appropriate sense by the very people from whom you first learned it -- logicians, philosophers, rhetoricians, intellectual historians, and others. You can even find it properly used in more popular forums, though you're right the improper use is far more common in those circles. But you're wrong that it "doesn't really make any sense" -- it actually makes perfect sense in terms of the grammar of the phrase if you think about it -- and many people in fact have learned what it actually means and are able to understand it. It's a far more appropriate use of the phrase than to mean something like "raises the question" or "brings up the question," which we already have phrases for (e.g. "raises the question" or "brings up the question"). This language has not "evolved," as you say; there is a common malapropism that most people understand but it is still recognized (and, as you say, "for excellent reasons") as a malapropism. That's not to say you can't continue to use it and be understood, even by the more pedantic among us, but it's still incorrect, and there are plenty of good reasons for preserving the proper usage. The petitio principii fallacy is actually a common one in public discourse; we would be fools to give up our power to understand and describe that fallacy when it is used to hoodwink us.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the last nail, but you have to give him credit for hammering it in from inside the coffin.
Because that's my first thought when someone mentions that they use xfce or CDE -- "wow, that desktop environment sure is WILD!"
Jeez man you work for an ambulance company; those things must be loaded up with drugs and sharp/pointy objects; the best weapon you can find to defend yourself with is a freakin laptop??
Well, come on, man, tell us what we need to know.
Did it blend?
The ending in the slashdot summary should read: 'I still haven't used the full potential,' he said, before crashing head first into a mountain."
Holy See, Batman! It's ringing!!
Then in a couple thousand years someone will post a dupe of this story to slashdot.
Q: You're locked in a room with Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and a lawyer. You have a gun but only two bullets. What do you do? (yes, assume for the sake of the joke that the dictators are still alive).
A: Shoot the lawyer twice.
"Frivious" is a perfectly cromulent word!
See, you're using Web 1.0, so it's rendering Homer more like he was drawn in the early Simpsons cartoons.
No. They do not count. And any American president would have been a fool to "nuke" Iran back in 1980 (over 52 hostages? are you serious?). Reagan wouldn't have done it either (hell, his Administration sold weapons to Iran). Nor would Nixon or either Bush. And if an American president wanted to do that, the Joint Chiefs would have had something to say about it. Say what you want about warmongers or peaceniks, but these people are not idiots.
They don't choose the miserable wars they participate in. Don't confuse the political decision to go to war with the military decisions about how to carry it out.
for a topless sunbathing scene
The Oregon Supreme Court in Oregon v. Henry threw out all "obscenity" laws, making the argument that since there was no historical precedent for a first amendment "obscenity" exception that it couldn't be enforced today. They enforce child porn laws and others of course but in Oregon there is no categorical free speech exception based on the notion of "obscenity" like there is in every other state in the union. I don't know Oregon law (the case is 20 yrs old), but I don't think this case has been overturned, which means this law has very little likelihood of surviving constitutional scrutiny there. If it does survive, the state will probably have to prove direct harm to children of some sort rather than relying on "obscenity" or other morality-based arguments.
Al Gore never said he invented the internet. Al Gore invented the algorithm, and you can plainly see it derives its name from its inventor.
you should see the moron he has for counsel!
I've seen and used "begging the question" in the appropriate manner often, and have never run into a situation where I was having a conversation with an educated person who didn't know what it meant, so I completely disagree with your point. If you don't want to use the phrase properly that is your choice, but I really don't understand how that affects me or anyone else who chooses to speak the language properly. The phrase has not been "taken from me"; it isn't mine and never was. And again, I think it would be foolish to give up a term that is as relevant now as ever, and I cannot take seriously the suggestion that I ought to be using the Latin phrase instead as if that will somehow enlighten anyone. We're talking about English usage, and you can check a dictionary or encyclopedia if you think I am misrepresenting the appropriate usage in some way.
And, just to be clear, I'm not invested at all in what you want to say or do -- use the language however you wish, or make up your own if it floats your boat. I basically started this discussion following on "if we're being pedantic about these other things, might as well point out the elephant in the room," but I'm not generally pedantic about this stuff and when I see the phrase used inappropriately I usually don't bother to correct it.
Actually it is still commonly used in its appropriate sense by the very people from whom you first learned it -- logicians, philosophers, rhetoricians, intellectual historians, and others. You can even find it properly used in more popular forums, though you're right the improper use is far more common in those circles. But you're wrong that it "doesn't really make any sense" -- it actually makes perfect sense in terms of the grammar of the phrase if you think about it -- and many people in fact have learned what it actually means and are able to understand it. It's a far more appropriate use of the phrase than to mean something like "raises the question" or "brings up the question," which we already have phrases for (e.g. "raises the question" or "brings up the question"). This language has not "evolved," as you say; there is a common malapropism that most people understand but it is still recognized (and, as you say, "for excellent reasons") as a malapropism. That's not to say you can't continue to use it and be understood, even by the more pedantic among us, but it's still incorrect, and there are plenty of good reasons for preserving the proper usage. The petitio principii fallacy is actually a common one in public discourse; we would be fools to give up our power to understand and describe that fallacy when it is used to hoodwink us.
"Popular" among whom? Illiterates?
Let's not overlook the blatant usage error; "begs the question" is not the same as "raises the question."