I once had a guy conflate not weather and climate, but SEASON and climate. He said something like "what global warming? fall is here and it's getting cold!" Uh, hmmm... how could I respond to that?
I love how he asked that question hypothetically, when the answer to it is both obvious and critical.
Yeah, duh, we're pretty sure we care causing this thing (warmer climate) to happen by doing this other thing (add CO2 to the atmosphere). So, yeah, duh, we're pretty sure we could stop the effect if we stop the cause.
It's a conspiracy to redistribute wealth, it's just not a secret conspiracy. Every bank in the world is actively working together every day to make rich people richer. That makes it a conspiracy to redistribute wealth.
Really, the question of what the cause is largely irrelevant except possibly as a subtext to what changes we might want to make if its heading in a direction we don't like.
I'm confused. The question of what the cause is, is the most relevant question of all, precisely because it is the basis for confronting the issue.
Um, yeah, but a lot of us really want humanity to be part of the future earth. If you don't want that, well okay then, but you should probably understand that it's a pretty common desire. It's tantamount to "loving your children".
I just wish I lived in a society where I could respect and trust the law, the lawmakers, and the law enforcers. The fact that I, and many that I know, can't anymore just goes to show how low we have let our society slide.
I share your dream, but not your memory; the world has never been like that, and our society is no lower than it ever has been, in fact it is less bad than ever, I'd say. Still, we have a long way to go.
If you are loitering then that's against the law and the police have legal basis for contact. Loitering is not the same as "sitting a coffee shop and having an undercover cop come up to you for no discernible reason". That's the hypothetical: coffee shop, undercover cop, no reason, ID demanded, ID refused, midemeanor.
The specific claim is that refusing to show ID to a cop when the cop has no legal basis for contacting you, is "a jailable misdemeanor in most cases". That is very much contrary to my understanding of the law, and thus I call it bullshit. It's so preposterous that a citation would have to be provided before it could be considered.
I don't know. Is it true that everyone is disproportionately worse off for it? Is it true that a black person is worse off today having to get bodyscanned to get on an airplane, than back when they would have been a slave? Really? Is that really true?
Is it really true that a gay person having to show ID to get on a bus is worse off than when they were legally classified as mentally ill and forced into institutions with shame? Really? Is that really true?
I don't know. I guess I don't agree with that. Things could be better than they are today, but things today are certainly better than they were in the past.
Yep. That's what I thought. You have to move the goalpost and ask others to make your argument for you, because you can't make it for yourself, because it is wrong.
After being an Apple customer for fifteen years, and despite the high usability and desirability of Apple products, I decided I couldn't be an Apple customer about two years ago. They fucked me over on the video cables for my iPod, and I just decided I couldn't allow myself to be a chump consumer. I understand most people don't mind being chumps, but I just couldn't do it, so I gave up on Apple. Since that time, Apple has gone even farther down the chumpy road, so I don't regret my decision. But I do wish some other companies would start making equally awesome products.
I have an Indian friend (dot, not feather) who took a bus trip through the south. He said certain people kept trying to speak to him in Spanish, which of course he does not understand. To him it was a medium affront, but to me it was funny: what kind of person can't tell the difference between an Indian and a Mexican? But I guess when you're from a place with tons of Mexicans and exceedingly few Indians, it's easy to assume. Anyway, he is natural-born American, speaks unaccented English, and would stare back blankly and say "Huh? Do you speak English?"
1. Cops are allowed to contact you for any reason at any time 2. Cops are allowed to lie to you
One more thing:
3. You are not required to have a conversation with a cop
So the cops did nothing "wrong" in the legal sense. They beefed some youths. You can call that bad policework, and I'd agree, but they didn't break any rules. They told you you were required to show ID; that was a lie. You are supposed to know your rights and assert them: "Officer, are we under arrest? No? Then we have nothing to say to you and would like you to leave."
I might prefer to live in a society where cops are only allowed to make contact for cause, and where cops aren't allowed to lie, but that's not our society. The important thing is that you still have the prerogative to assert all the legal rights of which you are aware.
Having one minor hoop to jump through before visiting Cuba (flying through Canada) is not equal to not being able to go from town to town in your own country. Only a person with zero perspective would say something like that.
Being prohibited from selling sensitive military technology to avowed enemies of your country is not equal to having no personal property rights and having the means of production and trade decisions made by bureaucrats. Only a person with zero perspective would say something like that.
Placing specific, targeted, narrow restrictions on a very small handful of the most egregiously irresponsible countries on the planet is not equal to "any country we don't like today". If that were the standard, then the Republicans wouldn't have allowed the French to export wine to us. Only a person with zero perspective would say something like that.
Try getting some of that precious perspective, and stop it already with the black-and-white, extremist, ideological false dichotomies.
I think there should be an explicit exception, written into statute, which excepts copyright protection when the item is not for sale. Abandonware software games from your childhood? If it ain't for sale, you can copy it with impunity. Company refuses to sell a TV show where you live? Copy with impunity.
To be sure, there is already such an ethical exception, so you need not worry about being ethical when you enjoy the human culture which those vultures try to keep from you.
It would be easier to just license ears. Just implant all newborns with an on/off switch in their ear canal. If they don't pay a fee, they can't hear anything. This would also allow, for instance, mothers to finally get some royalties on the words they speak to babies, and all throughout their children's lives.
Nobody should doubt that he is correct, because as we all know, open source software has a terrible reputation for security when compared to closed source software. Over and over, headlines trumpet breaches of OSS while CSS quietly performs with astonishing perfection.
Right? Right? That's what Trend Micro is saying, right?
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I remember Microsoft settling with that guy. I presume they paid him some money, he dropped the suit, and Microsoft claimed ownership of the name. I don't know enough to guess how a judge would rule, but if you made a browser called Internet Explorer, I'm pretty certain you'd get sued.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. Those are indeed common errors.
I once had a guy conflate not weather and climate, but SEASON and climate. He said something like "what global warming? fall is here and it's getting cold!" Uh, hmmm... how could I respond to that?
The argument is that the 3% is the important 3%. The argument is that the marginal increase in CO2 is the important margin.
Wait, do you or do you not already understand that?
I love how he asked that question hypothetically, when the answer to it is both obvious and critical.
Yeah, duh, we're pretty sure we care causing this thing (warmer climate) to happen by doing this other thing (add CO2 to the atmosphere). So, yeah, duh, we're pretty sure we could stop the effect if we stop the cause.
It's a conspiracy to redistribute wealth, it's just not a secret conspiracy. Every bank in the world is actively working together every day to make rich people richer. That makes it a conspiracy to redistribute wealth.
Really, the question of what the cause is largely irrelevant except possibly as a subtext to what changes we might want to make if its heading in a direction we don't like.
I'm confused. The question of what the cause is, is the most relevant question of all, precisely because it is the basis for confronting the issue.
Your English is pretty good. I didn't notice it as different from native diction. I sort of hope English is Pyro's fifth or sixth language, though.
Um, yeah, but a lot of us really want humanity to be part of the future earth. If you don't want that, well okay then, but you should probably understand that it's a pretty common desire. It's tantamount to "loving your children".
I just wish I lived in a society where I could respect and trust the law, the lawmakers, and the law enforcers. The fact that I, and many that I know, can't anymore just goes to show how low we have let our society slide.
I share your dream, but not your memory; the world has never been like that, and our society is no lower than it ever has been, in fact it is less bad than ever, I'd say. Still, we have a long way to go.
If you are loitering then that's against the law and the police have legal basis for contact. Loitering is not the same as "sitting a coffee shop and having an undercover cop come up to you for no discernible reason". That's the hypothetical: coffee shop, undercover cop, no reason, ID demanded, ID refused, midemeanor.
The specific claim is that refusing to show ID to a cop when the cop has no legal basis for contacting you, is "a jailable misdemeanor in most cases". That is very much contrary to my understanding of the law, and thus I call it bullshit. It's so preposterous that a citation would have to be provided before it could be considered.
I don't know. Is it true that everyone is disproportionately worse off for it? Is it true that a black person is worse off today having to get bodyscanned to get on an airplane, than back when they would have been a slave? Really? Is that really true?
Is it really true that a gay person having to show ID to get on a bus is worse off than when they were legally classified as mentally ill and forced into institutions with shame? Really? Is that really true?
I don't know. I guess I don't agree with that. Things could be better than they are today, but things today are certainly better than they were in the past.
Yep. That's what I thought. You have to move the goalpost and ask others to make your argument for you, because you can't make it for yourself, because it is wrong.
After being an Apple customer for fifteen years, and despite the high usability and desirability of Apple products, I decided I couldn't be an Apple customer about two years ago. They fucked me over on the video cables for my iPod, and I just decided I couldn't allow myself to be a chump consumer. I understand most people don't mind being chumps, but I just couldn't do it, so I gave up on Apple. Since that time, Apple has gone even farther down the chumpy road, so I don't regret my decision. But I do wish some other companies would start making equally awesome products.
Do the math and find how many drivers who are "safe" by the "tailgaters are evil" principle it takes for the traffic to stop completely.
You're the one making a claim that goes against conventional wisdom. If you want us to believe you, then you do the math and show us.
Ah, yes, the complaints of the people who used to have more than they deserve, and now are stuck being "equal" to others. That sucks.
I'm also white male straight
I have an Indian friend (dot, not feather) who took a bus trip through the south. He said certain people kept trying to speak to him in Spanish, which of course he does not understand. To him it was a medium affront, but to me it was funny: what kind of person can't tell the difference between an Indian and a Mexican? But I guess when you're from a place with tons of Mexicans and exceedingly few Indians, it's easy to assume. Anyway, he is natural-born American, speaks unaccented English, and would stare back blankly and say "Huh? Do you speak English?"
Two things:
1. Cops are allowed to contact you for any reason at any time
2. Cops are allowed to lie to you
One more thing:
3. You are not required to have a conversation with a cop
So the cops did nothing "wrong" in the legal sense. They beefed some youths. You can call that bad policework, and I'd agree, but they didn't break any rules. They told you you were required to show ID; that was a lie. You are supposed to know your rights and assert them: "Officer, are we under arrest? No? Then we have nothing to say to you and would like you to leave."
I might prefer to live in a society where cops are only allowed to make contact for cause, and where cops aren't allowed to lie, but that's not our society. The important thing is that you still have the prerogative to assert all the legal rights of which you are aware.
Citation or you're full of it.
-1, Troll
Having one minor hoop to jump through before visiting Cuba (flying through Canada) is not equal to not being able to go from town to town in your own country. Only a person with zero perspective would say something like that.
Being prohibited from selling sensitive military technology to avowed enemies of your country is not equal to having no personal property rights and having the means of production and trade decisions made by bureaucrats. Only a person with zero perspective would say something like that.
Placing specific, targeted, narrow restrictions on a very small handful of the most egregiously irresponsible countries on the planet is not equal to "any country we don't like today". If that were the standard, then the Republicans wouldn't have allowed the French to export wine to us. Only a person with zero perspective would say something like that.
Try getting some of that precious perspective, and stop it already with the black-and-white, extremist, ideological false dichotomies.
I think there should be an explicit exception, written into statute, which excepts copyright protection when the item is not for sale. Abandonware software games from your childhood? If it ain't for sale, you can copy it with impunity. Company refuses to sell a TV show where you live? Copy with impunity.
To be sure, there is already such an ethical exception, so you need not worry about being ethical when you enjoy the human culture which those vultures try to keep from you.
It would be easier to just license ears. Just implant all newborns with an on/off switch in their ear canal. If they don't pay a fee, they can't hear anything. This would also allow, for instance, mothers to finally get some royalties on the words they speak to babies, and all throughout their children's lives.
People are still listening to radio?!?!?
Seriously, I'm shocked by this. I won't even listen to NPR on the radio anymore. It's 100% MP3s for me, be it music or podcast.
By that standard, my shoe is even more secure than iOS. There are zero ways to jailbreak my shoe.
Nobody should doubt that he is correct, because as we all know, open source software has a terrible reputation for security when compared to closed source software. Over and over, headlines trumpet breaches of OSS while CSS quietly performs with astonishing perfection.
Right? Right? That's what Trend Micro is saying, right?
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I remember Microsoft settling with that guy. I presume they paid him some money, he dropped the suit, and Microsoft claimed ownership of the name. I don't know enough to guess how a judge would rule, but if you made a browser called Internet Explorer, I'm pretty certain you'd get sued.