You think "he couldn't have known in advance that the door was going to get kicked in"? Really? Huh. I would have thought the sound of helicopters landing in the highly fortified compound would provide a clue that the gig was up. Do you think Osama was mentally retarded?
Okay, he said it, now let's all move on. Some people are ideological about stuff like this, so just let him have his childishly simplistic worldview. You can't argue with ideology.
I'm just curious whether you merely used that example to make a rhetorical point, or whether you actually equate using highly trained military agents to do a precision operation designed to eliminate one well-known evil mastermind, to using several commercial airliners full of innocent civilians to destroy skyscrapers full of more innocent civilians, causing them to collapse onto even more innocent civilians, just because both the military operation and the terrorism operation both occurred over the political boundaries of the people who planned them? Are those really really equal in your mind? Really?
To be clear, my opinion is that even though there are a small number of superficial similarities between the two events, that the rest of the vast majority of event characteristics hugely overwhelm the minor details in terms of making moral judgements. I don't even think they are close, not by a long shot.
False dichotomy much? I want both reasonable state secrets and eventual declassification of previously classified material. That's something similar to the present system, maybe with the declassification knob turned up a little.
Wow! That would be some crazy Rainbow-6 level, briefcase-handcuffed-to-my-wrist level backup! Awesome. To be worth that much, you'd also have to become a martial arts expert and have a conceal-carry permit to thwart thieves. My data isn't worth enough to go to that trouble, but I'm impressed that yours is. Good luck with that.
Okay. But for on-site backups, which is most of what people do, a locked firebox is about as good a solution as a consumer is going to use. That's why I use it. But hell, I don't even lock my firebox.
If my data were worth more, then I would put proportionally more effort into my backups.
First, keep only what is necessary. Old bills are not necessary. Keep what you need for taxes; keep you actual tax returns; keep Social Security statements. Throw away utility bills. Throw away bank statements, after reviewing them.
Take what is left, which should be 100% stuff important for expected future use, and put it in a fire-safe box. Anything worth saving is worth saving from a fire. If you are worried about theft, lock the box.
My tip is to keep your backup harddrive in the same firesafe box. Mine is one of those little bus-powered USB drives. I do a backup ever week or so, then put the drive back in the firesafe box.
Just to be clear, the market has always followed irrational hype. The canonical example is tulip bulbs, but you could go way back to purple dye. It's the nature of human beings.
I disagree. The conservative movement has been growing and mounting specific political challenged now for fifty years, and the efforts are now paying dividends. They are achieving their stated political goals. The goals are well known and people vote for them. Again, it sure as shit ain't me, but it *is* a majority, and it's not just a majority once, it's been a majority for now 19 years, and voters keep going back and back to the conservatives, not just once but over and over. What can I say? People know who they are electing.
Yeah, dude. We live in a democracy, and this is democracy in action. A majority of voters decided what kind of policies they wanted, they voted for them, and now we live with those policies.
I don't like the policies, which is why I didn't vote for them. Anyone who voted for Bush (who nominated the judges), or any Republican for Congress (who approved them), can share the "credit" for this decision. It's your "credit". You wanted it, and here it is.
Wait, are you saying that a black man in 2011 should vote against his beliefs and interests by voting for Republicans, because that black man should be more concerned about the policies of the Democratic party 150 years ago? That would be amazing, if that's what you meant. Do you always make decisions based on deep history? That's odd. I think most of us make decisions based on the actual reality of the current time. I sure do.
Indeed, we definitely have a difference of opinions. But don't worry, my opinion of your ability to understand clear statements is probably even lower than your opinion of my ability to make them.
So, just like he said, no live sports. All the options you listed are not live. Sports is one of those things that, in this day and age, just doesn't feel right recorded.
I like live sports myself, but not enough to pay for cable, so I don't watch as much as I'd like. I guess I am "stream only" if you include Netflix DVDs which I rip and watch later. (And I don't keep the files. I would if I wanted them, but I hardly ever want to watch something a second time.)
Just to be clear, I wasn't saying anything about the government. What I was saying is that libertarians were making arguments which fail in the way that libertarians arguments always do. These specific arguments, in this thread, were not about the government, but these non-governmental arguments still are vapid, meaningless, and wrong just as governmental libertarian arguments are. Is that the problem? That you just read more into my statement than I wrote?
In any case, you have not swayed me, and I stand behind what I said (read it carefully): libertarians in the crowd are trying to dismiss a valid question before it's answered. I might also have said "Space aliens are trying to dismiss..." without saying that the aliens were making space-alien-exclusive arguments. It's hard to know if that is exactly what you are objecting to, because I'm not paying very close attention to you.
I guess I have to disagree. I don't think we're discussing whether one grain of sugar will kill a person. To interpret the question that way would be absurd, in my opinion. In my opinion, the only way the question can be interpreted reasonably is "is sugar toxic [in quantities and contexts typically encountered by the audience of this article]?"
Yes. He is complaining that a speed camera issued him a ticket, in violation of the law, which requires 12 MPH over the limit. Why would he not complain about being illegally ticketed?
Slashdot Mirror
You think "he couldn't have known in advance that the door was going to get kicked in"? Really? Huh. I would have thought the sound of helicopters landing in the highly fortified compound would provide a clue that the gig was up. Do you think Osama was mentally retarded?
No one would want to be or should be killed
Okay, he said it, now let's all move on. Some people are ideological about stuff like this, so just let him have his childishly simplistic worldview. You can't argue with ideology.
I'm just curious whether you merely used that example to make a rhetorical point, or whether you actually equate using highly trained military agents to do a precision operation designed to eliminate one well-known evil mastermind, to using several commercial airliners full of innocent civilians to destroy skyscrapers full of more innocent civilians, causing them to collapse onto even more innocent civilians, just because both the military operation and the terrorism operation both occurred over the political boundaries of the people who planned them? Are those really really equal in your mind? Really?
To be clear, my opinion is that even though there are a small number of superficial similarities between the two events, that the rest of the vast majority of event characteristics hugely overwhelm the minor details in terms of making moral judgements. I don't even think they are close, not by a long shot.
False dichotomy much? I want both reasonable state secrets and eventual declassification of previously classified material. That's something similar to the present system, maybe with the declassification knob turned up a little.
I'm with the GP, mostly.
Wow! That would be some crazy Rainbow-6 level, briefcase-handcuffed-to-my-wrist level backup! Awesome. To be worth that much, you'd also have to become a martial arts expert and have a conceal-carry permit to thwart thieves. My data isn't worth enough to go to that trouble, but I'm impressed that yours is. Good luck with that.
Okay. But for on-site backups, which is most of what people do, a locked firebox is about as good a solution as a consumer is going to use. That's why I use it. But hell, I don't even lock my firebox.
If my data were worth more, then I would put proportionally more effort into my backups.
Good point. Can you suggest a better on-site solution?
I agree:
Just to be clear, the market has always followed irrational hype. The canonical example is tulip bulbs, but you could go way back to purple dye. It's the nature of human beings.
I disagree. The conservative movement has been growing and mounting specific political challenged now for fifty years, and the efforts are now paying dividends. They are achieving their stated political goals. The goals are well known and people vote for them. Again, it sure as shit ain't me, but it *is* a majority, and it's not just a majority once, it's been a majority for now 19 years, and voters keep going back and back to the conservatives, not just once but over and over. What can I say? People know who they are electing.
I'm totally flabbergasted that Prophet got a +5 for that bullshit.
Oh, okay then. Well that makes perfect sense. /rolls eyes
Do class action lawsuits not have juries? Huh. I didn't realize that.
Yeah, dude. We live in a democracy, and this is democracy in action. A majority of voters decided what kind of policies they wanted, they voted for them, and now we live with those policies.
I don't like the policies, which is why I didn't vote for them. Anyone who voted for Bush (who nominated the judges), or any Republican for Congress (who approved them), can share the "credit" for this decision. It's your "credit". You wanted it, and here it is.
No, actually, a judge appointed for life would be the exact opposite, with the exact opposite incentives.
And a "state-run arbitration board where one is assigned per case" sounds suspiciously similar to, um, you know, "judges".
Wait, are you saying that a black man in 2011 should vote against his beliefs and interests by voting for Republicans, because that black man should be more concerned about the policies of the Democratic party 150 years ago? That would be amazing, if that's what you meant. Do you always make decisions based on deep history? That's odd. I think most of us make decisions based on the actual reality of the current time. I sure do.
Yes. That's democracy. The people wanted this, and now they have it.
Indeed, we definitely have a difference of opinions. But don't worry, my opinion of your ability to understand clear statements is probably even lower than your opinion of my ability to make them.
I agree. I honestly believe that (some) environmentalists (on the outer edges, such as represents Greenpeace) have an ideology of poverty and lack.
no thanks. i think i've already been clear.
So, just like he said, no live sports. All the options you listed are not live. Sports is one of those things that, in this day and age, just doesn't feel right recorded.
I like live sports myself, but not enough to pay for cable, so I don't watch as much as I'd like. I guess I am "stream only" if you include Netflix DVDs which I rip and watch later. (And I don't keep the files. I would if I wanted them, but I hardly ever want to watch something a second time.)
Just to be clear, I wasn't saying anything about the government. What I was saying is that libertarians were making arguments which fail in the way that libertarians arguments always do. These specific arguments, in this thread, were not about the government, but these non-governmental arguments still are vapid, meaningless, and wrong just as governmental libertarian arguments are. Is that the problem? That you just read more into my statement than I wrote?
In any case, you have not swayed me, and I stand behind what I said (read it carefully): libertarians in the crowd are trying to dismiss a valid question before it's answered. I might also have said "Space aliens are trying to dismiss..." without saying that the aliens were making space-alien-exclusive arguments. It's hard to know if that is exactly what you are objecting to, because I'm not paying very close attention to you.
I guess I have to disagree. I don't think we're discussing whether one grain of sugar will kill a person. To interpret the question that way would be absurd, in my opinion. In my opinion, the only way the question can be interpreted reasonably is "is sugar toxic [in quantities and contexts typically encountered by the audience of this article]?"
I accept that you have a different opinion.
Yes. He is complaining that a speed camera issued him a ticket, in violation of the law, which requires 12 MPH over the limit. Why would he not complain about being illegally ticketed?
Traditional gaming? You mean, like cards and chess and parcheesi?