You started out by asking me whose standard was standard. Then you misunderstood what "standard" even means. Then you somehow misread a plain sentence to mean something it didn't mean, and criticized standard (ahem) English grammar. Finally, you have arrived at the statement of an opinion -- that most laws across western civilization are NOT common to other lands. I don't think that's true, but I'm not an international comparative law expert so I won't argue that opinion; nevertheless, that goalpost is quite a ways from where you started. I wonder how many reply levels the Slashdot forums can handle?
The error in that logic would be assuming that he got Office 97 in 1997, all the more so because it was released in 1996. The only evidence at hand -- his testimony -- is that he got it in 1998.
No, by my interpretation, not every law or every statute could be interpreted as non-standard. Most places in western civilization have most laws the same, mostly. Those are standard laws. Many laws, but a fairly small minority overall, are non-standard; and this condom law is one of those.
Just to be clear, in case you aren't familiar with the word, the definition is "an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations". This condom law, good or bad, is not a norm.
Do you want to move the goalposts again? Go for it.
Okay. You have stated that you interpreted this phrase:
he's wanted for some non-standard local law having to do with wearing a condom
as referring to the entirety of Swedish law, and have criticized my composition. I find that absurd; I think it's plainly stated as referring to the one singular law of which he is accused of violating. I'll let everyone else make up their own minds.
EFF and NPR are my only charitable donations, and NPR is more like a voluntary payment for services rendered. That leaves EFF as the only true charity I actively support. I just sent them some money last month, but maybe it's time to do it again.
I didn't brand a legal system anything. I branded one law non-standard. Can you help educate me by telling me all the places with laws like this particular Swedish condom law? Because my understanding is that it is nonstandard, as in not "accepted as normal and average". This is based on my understanding, which I consider to be well informed, of laws common in western civilization -- but perhaps these condom laws are standard after all and I am poorly informed. You can show me how little I know by showing me that it's a standard law.
I reject your suggestion that a person is capable, even in theory, of "judging other people" by any other than that person's "own measure". Of course judgments are made based on a person's own measure. Where else could judgment come from?
My own, obviously. It's a law that I don't live under, and more importantly one that I've never heard of, and most importantly of all one which other commenters I've listened to are saying they've never heard of.
He sure does. Sigh. I wish the truth were capable of changing the minds of most people, but it isn't. That's too bad, but until individual humans reject nontruths, at least the side of morality and reason has a liar to rely on. Moore is a rare liberal, the kind that would rather convince than tell the truth, and in that he does the world good. I bet you would agree with me that the optimal world would be one in which the truth is more convincing than a lie. Alas, we will have to long for that world, while we settle for this one.
Assange is an ideologue for open societies. I reject all ideology. Sometimes secrets are reasonable, even if usually they are not. I bet you agree with that.
You didn't say anything that Magarity said you said. People can hate both Moore and Palin. None of what Mararity said makes sense. You are right. Magarity is wrong. You win. He loses.
My understanding is he's wanted for some non-standard local law having to do with wearing a condom, and that that "crime" is specifically not rape. Having seen this in at least a couple dozen news articles, you'd have to show me quite a bit of alternative stories saying the charge is RAPE, in order to convince me.
It hasn't failed in any of those places, or any other. It has succeeded in every place it has been tried. American doesn't like to follow a lead, even when it's a good lead. We like to do things our own way, even when our own way is dumb. Eh, at least we sit on top of the world. It's still pretty sweet to be an American, and I have just fine health insurance anyway. I just wish taxes were raised on people like me, to transfer some of my wealth to poor people, in order to support socialized social services for those people. No private effort has ever or could ever exist on a scale sufficient to solve the problem, so only a governmental solution will suffice.
Well, first of all, the judge is wrong, it's not unconstitutional. Nobody is forced to buy anything. The law gives a tax break to people who have health insurance, end of discussion. Nobody has to buy anything and there is no penalty if a person declines to buy it. The law gives a tax incentive to buy health insurance. The judge's ruling is preposterous.
But, even if the law did require people to buy insurance, and even if the constitution prohibited that requirement (which, again to be clear, it doesn't), then universal health care structured differently wouldn't be unconstitutional. My preference is to just pay for basic health services with tax dollars -- you know, "socialized medicine".
I hope the current law is found unconstitutional. Although I don't think it is, and don't think the SC will find that it is, such a ruling would allow us to pass better reform, which would be a single-payer universal socialized medical system supported by heavily progressive taxes.
I work at a weather company and this problem turned into some hurried phone calls to staff over the weekend. I'm on the data team, but I was only peripherally involved. This outage was expected, but not expected for another six days, so we were prepared with code changes for when the problem arose, but we hadn't turned on those changes yet because we thought it would be another week almost.
And I'm going to wrap up my post now, because I don't actually have anything interesting to say about it.
Double negatives in English are only a problem when they are used to convey a negative sense, but here they are properly used to convey a positive sense. Well, that's how I learned it anyway. In this case, it doesn't lead to confusion -- for me, at least.
You can't eliminate all risk, everyone has to decide for themselves how much risk is acceptable and live their life in that manner.
No, but you can eliminate a hell of a lot of it. And, thankfully, we do so. Here I am, not crippled by polio, without a head injury caused from falling off my bike, and having survived medium-size car wrecks with nary a scratch. Lo, how wonderful that a little bit of money paid by our parents, with an even smaller amount paid by my own generation, has brought me to my current age in good health, an eager and able-bodied contributor to society! Three cheers for big government and the nanny state, from which we all benefit hugely!
As for the remaining small bits of risk, it is right and proper for us to continue picking off the low-hanging-fruit using targeted common-sense solutions. This particular example, I dunno, I haven't thought much about it. But the nanny state gets nearly everything right, so I'm willing to go along with it on faith. If people raise a big rukus about it, I'll look into it again to see if it's a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm revoking your nerd merit badge for explaining all of that instead of linking to the obligatory XKCD.
You started out by asking me whose standard was standard. Then you misunderstood what "standard" even means. Then you somehow misread a plain sentence to mean something it didn't mean, and criticized standard (ahem) English grammar. Finally, you have arrived at the statement of an opinion -- that most laws across western civilization are NOT common to other lands. I don't think that's true, but I'm not an international comparative law expert so I won't argue that opinion; nevertheless, that goalpost is quite a ways from where you started. I wonder how many reply levels the Slashdot forums can handle?
The error in that logic would be assuming that he got Office 97 in 1997, all the more so because it was released in 1996. The only evidence at hand -- his testimony -- is that he got it in 1998.
No, by my interpretation, not every law or every statute could be interpreted as non-standard. Most places in western civilization have most laws the same, mostly. Those are standard laws. Many laws, but a fairly small minority overall, are non-standard; and this condom law is one of those.
Just to be clear, in case you aren't familiar with the word, the definition is "an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations". This condom law, good or bad, is not a norm.
Do you want to move the goalposts again? Go for it.
Okay. You have stated that you interpreted this phrase:
he's wanted for some non-standard local law having to do with wearing a condom
as referring to the entirety of Swedish law, and have criticized my composition. I find that absurd; I think it's plainly stated as referring to the one singular law of which he is accused of violating. I'll let everyone else make up their own minds.
Nah, in 1791 they just hadn't had the opportunity to violate the Constitution yet, but they were able to do it by the end of the decade.
EFF and NPR are my only charitable donations, and NPR is more like a voluntary payment for services rendered. That leaves EFF as the only true charity I actively support. I just sent them some money last month, but maybe it's time to do it again.
I didn't brand a legal system anything. I branded one law non-standard. Can you help educate me by telling me all the places with laws like this particular Swedish condom law? Because my understanding is that it is nonstandard, as in not "accepted as normal and average". This is based on my understanding, which I consider to be well informed, of laws common in western civilization -- but perhaps these condom laws are standard after all and I am poorly informed. You can show me how little I know by showing me that it's a standard law.
I reject your suggestion that a person is capable, even in theory, of "judging other people" by any other than that person's "own measure". Of course judgments are made based on a person's own measure. Where else could judgment come from?
I feel like we are arguing a tautology. Do you have a system of judging 'standard'-ness other than by using your own well-informed expectations?
My own, obviously. It's a law that I don't live under, and more importantly one that I've never heard of, and most importantly of all one which other commenters I've listened to are saying they've never heard of.
What other standard could I possibly go by?
Don't insult the mundane. Almost everything done by humanity is done by the mundane. And some tall poppies are jackasses.
Really? That's the only difference between the Mafia and the government?
Really? or not really?
He sure does. Sigh. I wish the truth were capable of changing the minds of most people, but it isn't. That's too bad, but until individual humans reject nontruths, at least the side of morality and reason has a liar to rely on. Moore is a rare liberal, the kind that would rather convince than tell the truth, and in that he does the world good. I bet you would agree with me that the optimal world would be one in which the truth is more convincing than a lie. Alas, we will have to long for that world, while we settle for this one.
Mmm hmmm. Or maybe it twisted yours.
Assange is an ideologue for open societies. I reject all ideology. Sometimes secrets are reasonable, even if usually they are not. I bet you agree with that.
You didn't say anything that Magarity said you said. People can hate both Moore and Palin. None of what Mararity said makes sense. You are right. Magarity is wrong. You win. He loses.
My understanding is he's wanted for some non-standard local law having to do with wearing a condom, and that that "crime" is specifically not rape. Having seen this in at least a couple dozen news articles, you'd have to show me quite a bit of alternative stories saying the charge is RAPE, in order to convince me.
It hasn't failed in any of those places, or any other. It has succeeded in every place it has been tried. American doesn't like to follow a lead, even when it's a good lead. We like to do things our own way, even when our own way is dumb. Eh, at least we sit on top of the world. It's still pretty sweet to be an American, and I have just fine health insurance anyway. I just wish taxes were raised on people like me, to transfer some of my wealth to poor people, in order to support socialized social services for those people. No private effort has ever or could ever exist on a scale sufficient to solve the problem, so only a governmental solution will suffice.
Well, first of all, the judge is wrong, it's not unconstitutional. Nobody is forced to buy anything. The law gives a tax break to people who have health insurance, end of discussion. Nobody has to buy anything and there is no penalty if a person declines to buy it. The law gives a tax incentive to buy health insurance. The judge's ruling is preposterous.
But, even if the law did require people to buy insurance, and even if the constitution prohibited that requirement (which, again to be clear, it doesn't), then universal health care structured differently wouldn't be unconstitutional. My preference is to just pay for basic health services with tax dollars -- you know, "socialized medicine".
I hope the current law is found unconstitutional. Although I don't think it is, and don't think the SC will find that it is, such a ruling would allow us to pass better reform, which would be a single-payer universal socialized medical system supported by heavily progressive taxes.
I work at a weather company and this problem turned into some hurried phone calls to staff over the weekend. I'm on the data team, but I was only peripherally involved. This outage was expected, but not expected for another six days, so we were prepared with code changes for when the problem arose, but we hadn't turned on those changes yet because we thought it would be another week almost.
And I'm going to wrap up my post now, because I don't actually have anything interesting to say about it.
Double negatives in English are only a problem when they are used to convey a negative sense, but here they are properly used to convey a positive sense. Well, that's how I learned it anyway. In this case, it doesn't lead to confusion -- for me, at least.
Is it common? I've never made that mistake. Anyone else want to cop to it?
292 fatalities? How many more injuries?
Honest question: how many fatalities before it would be "worth it" to you? Where is your threshold?
You can't eliminate all risk, everyone has to decide for themselves how much risk is acceptable and live their life in that manner.
No, but you can eliminate a hell of a lot of it. And, thankfully, we do so. Here I am, not crippled by polio, without a head injury caused from falling off my bike, and having survived medium-size car wrecks with nary a scratch. Lo, how wonderful that a little bit of money paid by our parents, with an even smaller amount paid by my own generation, has brought me to my current age in good health, an eager and able-bodied contributor to society! Three cheers for big government and the nanny state, from which we all benefit hugely!
As for the remaining small bits of risk, it is right and proper for us to continue picking off the low-hanging-fruit using targeted common-sense solutions. This particular example, I dunno, I haven't thought much about it. But the nanny state gets nearly everything right, so I'm willing to go along with it on faith. If people raise a big rukus about it, I'll look into it again to see if it's a problem.