So like... They don't teach about googling shit in your kindergarten? Or are you home-schooled, since you mention do "the very foundation of life", "the kernel" as you put it.
OK... You insist on typically, I'll then go with PERIOD. HA! We are going to nitpick it to death, I assume? Personal gain is not a prerequisite to be labeled a snitch - period.
And no it's not a meaningless swear word. When someone is a snitch we all know it. When someone isn't a snitch thats not as easy to determine and there is disagreement there. But there is no general disagreement, Judas was a snitch.
ALL swearwords are meaningless. If you don't believe me, ask George Carlin what "cocksucker" USED to mean. Or ponder about the connotations of "motherfucker" when the same is used as a praise.
As for "we all know"... Did you too get your telepathy hat from Santa or did you have to make your own? I never could find that unicorn dust, so I had to be good for an entire year. Luckily, I had an accident and had to spend a year in bed. Comatose. But it was worth it.
Oh is it now? In English language? Accuracy? Really? Did you also get the "Doesn't Count For Me" nipple-ring from Santa?
Snitch is a slur? What about traitor? The breach of trust is part of it, but also the level of damage. Judas got Jesus killed, he's a snitch pure and simple
Besides traitor being a completely different word, it is kind of a legal term. You know... as in being on trial for treason - not "for snitching". And Judas was not "a snitch" cause he got Jesus killed. He was a snitch cause he informed Jewish and Roman authorities on Jesus' location AND cause he then pointed JC out.
BTW, if we are to believe that he really was God-become-man - it was more like a suicide. You know... like buying a truck, leaving it in neutral with breaks off on a steep surface - and then going to sleep with your head in front of the wheel.
It is a completely subjective decision by the labeler who and for what exactly will be labeled a "snitch".
So your argument is that snitches do not exist? I'm confused. What is your argument? And how do you see Judas if not as a snitch?
Jolly good! Another irrelevant thesis. Possibly even a red herring. But hey... I have some paint that needs drying so...
NO. I am saying that the one throwing around labels is the one who decides who is a snitch and who is a traitor. As for Judas... When did I mention Judas? And what do you have against adult Jewish men, who probably didn't even exist, kissing each other in public? You some kind of a Nazi homophobe?
See? THAT'S how you beg a question with a straw man!
But testifying and being a witness isn't the same as snitching.
It is to the people who decide to call you a snitch. Same shit. Worse. You snitched on them. What the fuck do they care if you testify or bear witness or your moral or other standing on the subject. You snitched.
The classical definition of a traitor is someone who was a member of the gang who became a witness.
No. You are again talking about snitching here. A traitor is something else.
Or if you want you can go back to Christ and Judas was the snitch. But yes there are gang members out there who see anyone who opposes them as a snitch, but not everybody uses words they don't understand in a way which is least accurate. Snitching can only apply if they are your comrades. A rival gang or random civilian testifying against you is not a snitch in anyones mind but yours, but Judas is a snitch in virtually everyones mind, and someone who is disloyal to their group is a snit
There is a key difference. A snitch is a former member of one group who spills the group secrets (typically for personal gain). Another more accurate word for a snitch is a sellout. Nobody likes a sellout.
On the other hand if you never were a member of the group you hacked, such as if you are a member of a rival group and you target the enemy group, thats not snitching and theres really no basis from which to make that person out to be a snitch. That could be spying, but its certainly not snitching because you were always the enemy and always loyal to your original group.
Personal gain is not a prerequisite to be labeled a snitch. Personal loss of some kind PERCEIVED by the labeler is good enough for that.
And a "sellout" is NOT more accurate OR synonymous to a "snitch". A "sellout" MAY be a "snitch" who breaks a secrecy (or loyalty) contract for personal gain, but a "snitch" is NOT necessarily a "sellout" too.
Again. "Snitch" is NOT an objective word or a word of quantifiable value. It is a pejorative term. Basically a swear word. When using those, it is not your goal to be objective and correct in your assessment of someones actions - you use swear words to hurt people. It is a completely subjective decision by the labeler who and for what exactly will be labeled a "snitch".
Also, as for "a former member of one group who spills the group secrets"... Again... NOT NECESSARILY. Just as the label is used purely subjectively, so is the actual loyalty, betrayal of secrets OR the belonging to a group. Labelers decide who is a "snitch" - not the one being labeled.
You don't have to be a member of the neighborhood gang for them to label you a snitch when you are called to testify on them. You are in the THEIR neighborhood and that's enough for them. You don't have to be a member of the same military unit - it is enough if you are in the military. You don't have to be a member of a white supremacy gang - you are white and that is enough for them. You don't have to be a member of group X - you live in the same country and your actions are unpatriotic. You don't have to live on Earth - you are a member of the human race and talking to Vulcans is SNITCHING.
"Snitch" is simply a pejorative term for someone who for whatever reason(s) breaks a social contract regarding secrecy, written or unwritten, that he/she had with other person(s), or that other person(s) thought that they had. Regardless of the nature of the secret one is disclosing, and to whom it is disclosed to, one is always seen as a "snitch" by the party whose secret(s) are being revealed.
Others might label "the snitch" an informant, an insider, a whistle-blower, an inside source, a concerned citizen, a witness, a patriot, a man of honor and integrity... Or a hacker, a thief, a spy, a traitor, a criminal, a terrorist, a lowlife who would sell out his/her own mother... But he/she will always be a snitch to those whose secrets he/she is revealing to the third party.
The term is SO precise and determined you may just as well use "asshole" instead. Or "cunt". It's simply a bad word for the people you don't like cause they tell on you.
Argument from ignorance? No, that doesn't apply here. At least not to me. I do wonder about people who babble about 500 year evacuations when trivially, such an event wouldn't happen for almost 5 centuries. Further why would such an event happen? The half-life of most dangerous radioactive materials is a few decades or less. It probably would still exist in detectable quantities, but there would be a vast reduction in radioactivity, just from the passage of so much time. When we also consider that it's just not that hard to bulldoze earth and even flush ground water (for radioactive levels that are lethal with long half-life isotopes), there's no reason to expect 500 year evacuations unless there is a complete and utter absconding of duty by the government responsible for the territory in question. Then the evacuation would be an indictment of the government not of nuclear power as a whole.
Also, read through the article on argument from ignorance. Your claim that you are "right for at least 500 years" as there has not yet been any such case of evacuation could be used as a textbook example of that fallacy.
"It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)."
Fold that contract into your pocket and suggest that you will not go on the Internets and other communication mediums available to you questioning what that particular professional has to hide. Dead or horribly disfigured patients? A fake diploma? Substance abuse problems? I'm just asking questions here... Naturally... Suggest that your silence comes at a price.
Remember to leave the office then "in order to leave them time to consider their options" - so they don't get any bright ideas once you are under sedation in their chair/on their table. And if he/she decides to get smart and call authorities - simply deny everything, accuse him/her of blackmail (hey, you have it in writing) and make a huge fuss about it all.
Media will love that story even more than just some doctor playing lawyer. Now, if you could manage to include a lawyer playing doctor in there somehow, you could be looking at national coverage and possibly even movie rights.
No nuclear plant has yet caused a 500 year evacuation.
And should a nuclear disaster happen yesterday, there won't be a 500-year evacuation caused by that particular nuclear disaster for about... oh... say, another 500 years.
Except that it's not. Money is a renewable resource: time isn't.
People taking metaphors and treating them like synonyms or taking the metaphorical figure of speech as literal meaning. And next thing you know, we're having holy wars, inquisition, genocide...
Evolution works with thousands and millions of years, and thousands of generations. Not decades. And 50 years is barely enough for 2 generations.
Heck... Knock it down to the bare physical/physiological minimum (lower mark of the puberty age for girls) and even then it is only 5 generations. Only FIVE generations. IF we accept the "eleven-year-old mother with two point five kids" option.
Rats reach five generations in about 11 months. That's 100 generations about every 18 years. Seen many rats evolve into another species during your life? It would take about 2500 years for humans to reach even those 100 generations. And guess what? NOTHING WOULD CHANGE! Oh... you might BREED a slightly different subset of the species in that time - but not evolve it. Let it go for a generation or two and all those traits you tried so hard to breed out would rear their ugly head once again.
Slashdot Mirror
It is some GROUPS of humans that have problems with it. You know... those that weren't using cow milk for those couple of millennia that much.
And even some among them are fine with it.
So like... They don't teach about googling shit in your kindergarten?
Or are you home-schooled, since you mention do "the very foundation of life", "the kernel" as you put it.
But does anyone else get chills when thinking about the 3.1.1 version somewhere down the road?
You know... as in for workgroups?
I said typically, not as a prerequisite.
OK... You insist on typically, I'll then go with PERIOD. HA! We are going to nitpick it to death, I assume?
Personal gain is not a prerequisite to be labeled a snitch - period.
And no it's not a meaningless swear word. When someone is a snitch we all know it. When someone isn't a snitch thats not as easy to determine and there is disagreement there. But there is no general disagreement, Judas was a snitch.
ALL swearwords are meaningless. If you don't believe me, ask George Carlin what "cocksucker" USED to mean. Or ponder about the connotations of "motherfucker" when the same is used as a praise.
As for "we all know"... Did you too get your telepathy hat from Santa or did you have to make your own?
I never could find that unicorn dust, so I had to be good for an entire year.
Luckily, I had an accident and had to spend a year in bed. Comatose. But it was worth it.
Oh and yeah. It can be a bitch to prove a negative.
Accuracy is important in the english language.
Oh is it now? In English language? Accuracy? Really?
Did you also get the "Doesn't Count For Me" nipple-ring from Santa?
Snitch is a slur? What about traitor? The breach of trust is part of it, but also the level of damage. Judas got Jesus killed, he's a snitch pure and simple
Besides traitor being a completely different word, it is kind of a legal term. You know... as in being on trial for treason - not "for snitching".
And Judas was not "a snitch" cause he got Jesus killed.
He was a snitch cause he informed Jewish and Roman authorities on Jesus' location AND cause he then pointed JC out.
BTW, if we are to believe that he really was God-become-man - it was more like a suicide. You know... like buying a truck, leaving it in neutral with breaks off on a steep surface - and then going to sleep with your head in front of the wheel.
It is a completely subjective decision by the labeler who and for what exactly will be labeled a "snitch".
So your argument is that snitches do not exist? I'm confused. What is your argument? And how do you see Judas if not as a snitch?
Jolly good! Another irrelevant thesis. Possibly even a red herring.
But hey... I have some paint that needs drying so...
NO. I am saying that the one throwing around labels is the one who decides who is a snitch and who is a traitor.
As for Judas... When did I mention Judas? And what do you have against adult Jewish men, who probably didn't even exist, kissing each other in public?
You some kind of a Nazi homophobe?
See? THAT'S how you beg a question with a straw man!
But testifying and being a witness isn't the same as snitching.
It is to the people who decide to call you a snitch. Same shit. Worse. You snitched on them.
What the fuck do they care if you testify or bear witness or your moral or other standing on the subject. You snitched.
The classical definition of a traitor is someone who was a member of the gang who became a witness.
No. You are again talking about snitching here. A traitor is something else.
Or if you want you can go back to Christ and Judas was the snitch. But yes there are gang members out there who see anyone who opposes them as a snitch, but not everybody uses words they don't understand in a way which is least accurate. Snitching can only apply if they are your comrades. A rival gang or random civilian testifying against you is not a snitch in anyones mind but yours, but Judas is a snitch in virtually everyones mind, and someone who is disloyal to their group is a snit
...somewhere out there.
Rapture happened in 1981.
There is a key difference. A snitch is a former member of one group who spills the group secrets (typically for personal gain).
Another more accurate word for a snitch is a sellout. Nobody likes a sellout.
On the other hand if you never were a member of the group you hacked, such as if you are a member of a rival group and you target the enemy group, thats not snitching and theres really no basis from which to make that person out to be a snitch. That could be spying, but its certainly not snitching because you were always the enemy and always loyal to your original group.
Personal gain is not a prerequisite to be labeled a snitch. Personal loss of some kind PERCEIVED by the labeler is good enough for that.
And a "sellout" is NOT more accurate OR synonymous to a "snitch".
A "sellout" MAY be a "snitch" who breaks a secrecy (or loyalty) contract for personal gain, but a "snitch" is NOT necessarily a "sellout" too.
Again. "Snitch" is NOT an objective word or a word of quantifiable value. It is a pejorative term. Basically a swear word.
When using those, it is not your goal to be objective and correct in your assessment of someones actions - you use swear words to hurt people.
It is a completely subjective decision by the labeler who and for what exactly will be labeled a "snitch".
Also, as for "a former member of one group who spills the group secrets"... Again... NOT NECESSARILY.
Just as the label is used purely subjectively, so is the actual loyalty, betrayal of secrets OR the belonging to a group. Labelers decide who is a "snitch" - not the one being labeled.
You don't have to be a member of the neighborhood gang for them to label you a snitch when you are called to testify on them. You are in the THEIR neighborhood and that's enough for them.
You don't have to be a member of the same military unit - it is enough if you are in the military.
You don't have to be a member of a white supremacy gang - you are white and that is enough for them.
You don't have to be a member of group X - you live in the same country and your actions are unpatriotic.
You don't have to live on Earth - you are a member of the human race and talking to Vulcans is SNITCHING.
No, but I've seen someone else post it around here somewhere.
It is nothing as differentiated as that.
"Snitch" is simply a pejorative term for someone who for whatever reason(s) breaks a social contract regarding secrecy, written or unwritten, that he/she had with other person(s), or that other person(s) thought that they had.
Regardless of the nature of the secret one is disclosing, and to whom it is disclosed to, one is always seen as a "snitch" by the party whose secret(s) are being revealed.
Others might label "the snitch" an informant, an insider, a whistle-blower, an inside source, a concerned citizen, a witness, a patriot, a man of honor and integrity...
Or a hacker, a thief, a spy, a traitor, a criminal, a terrorist, a lowlife who would sell out his/her own mother...
But he/she will always be a snitch to those whose secrets he/she is revealing to the third party.
The term is SO precise and determined you may just as well use "asshole" instead. Or "cunt".
It's simply a bad word for the people you don't like cause they tell on you.
Snitching = bad. Right?
It's the worst thing EVAR! Right up there with eating babies.
Amelia Fraser-McKelvie
Also, the chocolate ration will be raised to twenty grammes a week.
Argument from ignorance? No, that doesn't apply here. At least not to me. I do wonder about people who babble about 500 year evacuations when trivially, such an event wouldn't happen for almost 5 centuries. Further why would such an event happen? The half-life of most dangerous radioactive materials is a few decades or less. It probably would still exist in detectable quantities, but there would be a vast reduction in radioactivity, just from the passage of so much time. When we also consider that it's just not that hard to bulldoze earth and even flush ground water (for radioactive levels that are lethal with long half-life isotopes), there's no reason to expect 500 year evacuations unless there is a complete and utter absconding of duty by the government responsible for the territory in question. Then the evacuation would be an indictment of the government not of nuclear power as a whole.
Conclusion, that is.
Also, read through the article on argument from ignorance.
Your claim that you are "right for at least 500 years" as there has not yet been any such case of evacuation could be used as a textbook example of that fallacy.
"It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)."
Like I said - a textbook example.
Fold that contract into your pocket and suggest that you will not go on the Internets and other communication mediums available to you questioning what that particular professional has to hide.
Dead or horribly disfigured patients? A fake diploma? Substance abuse problems? I'm just asking questions here...
Naturally... Suggest that your silence comes at a price.
Remember to leave the office then "in order to leave them time to consider their options" - so they don't get any bright ideas once you are under sedation in their chair/on their table.
And if he/she decides to get smart and call authorities - simply deny everything, accuse him/her of blackmail (hey, you have it in writing) and make a huge fuss about it all.
Media will love that story even more than just some doctor playing lawyer.
Now, if you could manage to include a lawyer playing doctor in there somehow, you could be looking at national coverage and possibly even movie rights.
That's merely an advantage of my position that we all know I'll be right for at least 500 years.
Interesting argument that.
No nuclear plant has yet caused a 500 year evacuation.
And should a nuclear disaster happen yesterday, there won't be a 500-year evacuation caused by that particular nuclear disaster for about... oh... say, another 500 years.
Time is money
Except that it's not. Money is a renewable resource: time isn't.
People taking metaphors and treating them like synonyms or taking the metaphorical figure of speech as literal meaning.
And next thing you know, we're having holy wars, inquisition, genocide...
IT'S A TARP!
...instructing users to perform rituals which include special attire, dance-like moves and chanting in strange forgotten languages?
You know... the usual for such an "institution".
Evolution works with thousands and millions of years, and thousands of generations.
Not decades. And 50 years is barely enough for 2 generations.
Heck... Knock it down to the bare physical/physiological minimum (lower mark of the puberty age for girls) and even then it is only 5 generations.
Only FIVE generations. IF we accept the "eleven-year-old mother with two point five kids" option.
Rats reach five generations in about 11 months. That's 100 generations about every 18 years. Seen many rats evolve into another species during your life?
It would take about 2500 years for humans to reach even those 100 generations. And guess what? NOTHING WOULD CHANGE!
Oh... you might BREED a slightly different subset of the species in that time - but not evolve it.
Let it go for a generation or two and all those traits you tried so hard to breed out would rear their ugly head once again.
Oh and BTW... IQ has actually been going up over the last century or so.
And most of it on the "dumber" side of the scale.
In the future, try not to give too much credit to "science" you pick up from Hollywood comedies.
You asked who threw at mach 25.
Although, I do believe that Tezuka's ball went a bit faster than mere mach 25.
Is that something like "an hero"?
Oh... it's FOX News. Well... that would be an explanation of sorts.
Dude. Gravity ALWAYS wins. That's the law.
Only it was a tennis ball, not a baseball... ball.
If you live trying that, you will have made a new land speed record for roller skates.
...you'll be able to finally catch that damn bird.
...mostly?