If I'm home 5 minutes earlier, I can walk my dog for an hour and five minutes. Or play with my kid 5 minutes longer. My commute is not anywhere near my top 10 list of things to enjoy.
Every time I consider that option, I seem to see one of my two coworkers mangled by a commuter bike accident, and think: if that's the best plastic surgery can do, maybe I better be careful.
I think there's a tendency to stomp on the gas for anyone whose time value exceeds their gas cost. I can cut an average of over 5 minutes per day off my commute by stomping the gas. Call that 2 hours per month. Does it cost me an extra $240 / month in gas an maintenance? No.
I don't understand why you think this paragraph is relevant to a discussion of whether or not the post as a whole contained any logical fallacies? Sure, this paragraph didn't. I completely agree with that. But the part I cited did. That seems like the only portion relevant to a question of whether or not the whole contained a logical fallacy.
So what is your point about this paragraph? It doesn't contain a denial of the later fallacy. I mean, if this said, instead, something along the lines of 'I don't believe the following:", then your argument would make sense to me. And true or false, do you think the post, as a whole, contained one or more logical fallacies?
Note that with 46% now committing the kind of crimes that can lose you your right to vote, the politicians are a little over half-way to eliminating the ability to vote them out of office.
I'll try to explain it to you, but at this point, I'm fairly sure you're just having fun trolling. Still, I'm bored:
GGP says: Richard Stallman also thinks necrophilia [stallman.org] and "voluntary pedophilia" [stallman.org] should be legal, including possession of child pornography. He doesn't visit web sites [lwn.net]--instead, he sends email to a daemon that wgets the page and emails it back to him. Perhaps most infamously, he eats toe jam in public [youtube.com].
Perhaps not the best spokesperson to get behind.
------------- GP says: It is funny that you complain the article is logically flawed when you make an argument from authority and complain about the messenger instead of the message. ------------- P says: Failed to see argument from authority. Please quote it for me: I'm a dumbass. ------------- My post responds to P's failure to see that the GPs 'argument from authority' is likely the stuff about necrophilia in the GGP. My post has nothing to do with the original article. My post references only the chain of discussion starting as far back as the GGP and no further. You then claim (I guess, again, I suspect you're being intentionally vague for trolling purposes) that I'm disputing all of GGP? That would be pretty much the same offense: all of GGP's ideas should be discounted just because he engages in argument from authority?
Well, I am confused as to why you think I had anything to say at all regarding this:
"Funny how you skipped right past the "why this article is stupid" first paragraph to the "and other points made by Stallman are also stupid" rest of the post - just so you can pretend the post doesn't explain why this article is stupid. And is it ever."
If anyone skipped past the first paragraph in this chain, it wasn't me. If you think it was, you somehow seriously misunderstood my post in a way so severe I can't see how to clarify it further without a better explanation of what you don't understand about what I posted.
Oh they absolutely do. But they at least give the impression that they don't like it. Try to resist it every so often, etc. Whereas the Republicans seem to prefer and promote it.
Because republicans would have hammered him with it for all the other parts that he was rejecting because of this one bad bit. A depressingly no-win situation because of the generally poor reasoning level of the public.
It's his claim that we shouldn't listen to Stallman because Stallman is a nut-job. It's a sort of reverse argument from authority, where he claims that the other side is so insane, you should listen to him (he's comparatively authoritative). Stallman's general utter lunacy isn't a legitimate test of the validity of any specific argument he makes.
I'm pretty sure that's a deliberate effort to name the bill more honestly. Because when you name things like 'USA Patriot Act' it's harder to vote against them. What, you're not a patriot? You're not against piracy?
You understand the concern is that the other wells, which did open, and ran their fluid into the ground, might have caused the earthquakes, right? That the concern is that using more wells to push even more fluid might make an area which doesn't normally get a lot of earthquakes, but which has gotten a lot of earthquakes since the fraking started, get even more/worse earthquakes?
I think the point is 20% and cheap. Panels at the high end of efficiency are expensive. Now, if they could only figure out how to get the installation costs down.
Slashdot Mirror
30 miles per day.
If I'm home 5 minutes earlier, I can walk my dog for an hour and five minutes. Or play with my kid 5 minutes longer. My commute is not anywhere near my top 10 list of things to enjoy.
The used car market around here has almost negligible cost advantages vs new, and carries the obvious maintenance risks.
Every time I consider that option, I seem to see one of my two coworkers mangled by a commuter bike accident, and think: if that's the best plastic surgery can do, maybe I better be careful.
I think there's a tendency to stomp on the gas for anyone whose time value exceeds their gas cost. I can cut an average of over 5 minutes per day off my commute by stomping the gas. Call that 2 hours per month. Does it cost me an extra $240 / month in gas an maintenance? No.
I don't understand why you think this paragraph is relevant to a discussion of whether or not the post as a whole contained any logical fallacies? Sure, this paragraph didn't. I completely agree with that. But the part I cited did. That seems like the only portion relevant to a question of whether or not the whole contained a logical fallacy.
So what is your point about this paragraph? It doesn't contain a denial of the later fallacy. I mean, if this said, instead, something along the lines of 'I don't believe the following:", then your argument would make sense to me. And true or false, do you think the post, as a whole, contained one or more logical fallacies?
I think they've adequately proven they are not up to the task.
Note that with 46% now committing the kind of crimes that can lose you your right to vote, the politicians are a little over half-way to eliminating the ability to vote them out of office.
So the people can't have what they want.
I'll try to explain it to you, but at this point, I'm fairly sure you're just having fun trolling. Still, I'm bored:
GGP says: Richard Stallman also thinks necrophilia [stallman.org] and "voluntary pedophilia" [stallman.org] should be legal, including possession of child pornography. He doesn't visit web sites [lwn.net]--instead, he sends email to a daemon that wgets the page and emails it back to him. Perhaps most infamously, he eats toe jam in public [youtube.com].
Perhaps not the best spokesperson to get behind.
-------------
GP says: It is funny that you complain the article is logically flawed when you make an argument from authority and complain about the messenger instead of the message.
-------------
P says: Failed to see argument from authority. Please quote it for me: I'm a dumbass.
-------------
My post responds to P's failure to see that the GPs 'argument from authority' is likely the stuff about necrophilia in the GGP. My post has nothing to do with the original article. My post references only the chain of discussion starting as far back as the GGP and no further. You then claim (I guess, again, I suspect you're being intentionally vague for trolling purposes) that I'm disputing all of GGP? That would be pretty much the same offense: all of GGP's ideas should be discounted just because he engages in argument from authority?
It is, in fact, very common for parking garages to offer rates that vary through the day, and to offer small vehicle discounts.
Well, I am confused as to why you think I had anything to say at all regarding this:
"Funny how you skipped right past the "why this article is stupid" first paragraph to the "and other points made by Stallman are also stupid" rest of the post - just so you can pretend the post doesn't explain why this article is stupid. And is it ever."
If anyone skipped past the first paragraph in this chain, it wasn't me. If you think it was, you somehow seriously misunderstood my post in a way so severe I can't see how to clarify it further without a better explanation of what you don't understand about what I posted.
You're making my point for me. :-)
I think you may have confused my post with one of the parents or grandparents to whom I was responding.
Oh they absolutely do. But they at least give the impression that they don't like it. Try to resist it every so often, etc. Whereas the Republicans seem to prefer and promote it.
Then it's still not worth my time to listen to him, as I have much less of it left than I previously thought!
Yep, you can eat dead animals in public too. Disgusting but true.
Because republicans would have hammered him with it for all the other parts that he was rejecting because of this one bad bit.
A depressingly no-win situation because of the generally poor reasoning level of the public.
It's his claim that we shouldn't listen to Stallman because Stallman is a nut-job. It's a sort of reverse argument from authority, where he claims that the other side is so insane, you should listen to him (he's comparatively authoritative). Stallman's general utter lunacy isn't a legitimate test of the validity of any specific argument he makes.
I'd think so, yes.
Google 'social networking'. Facebook not in the top 3.
I'm pretty sure that's a deliberate effort to name the bill more honestly. Because when you name things like 'USA Patriot Act' it's harder to vote against them. What, you're not a patriot? You're not against piracy?
Well for one thing, maybe we could get someone to come in and do some regime change for us if they get pissed off enough about their loss of internet?
You understand the concern is that the other wells, which did open, and ran their fluid into the ground, might have caused the earthquakes, right? That the concern is that using more wells to push even more fluid might make an area which doesn't normally get a lot of earthquakes, but which has gotten a lot of earthquakes since the fraking started, get even more/worse earthquakes?
I think the point is 20% and cheap. Panels at the high end of efficiency are expensive.
Now, if they could only figure out how to get the installation costs down.