Not at all. Romney did well in the primary amongst the rank and file republicans. Jeb polls very badly in that context and it is in that context that you have to win.
Correct. You can absolutely refute that the media is controlled by liberals.
You could of course point at specific news papers or specific news stations and say they are controlled by liberals or conservatives.
I don't think anyone with any credibility is claiming that ALL of anything is controlled by anyone. You can say MOST of something is controlled by one faction or another IF you can substantiate that. And in some cases... you can.
In this case, saying that everything negative about Hillary is just republican propaganda is idiocy. That is... something idiots say.
Wrong. While you are standing behind the notion that your issue is flaws in the legal system, as I pointed out it is sophistry because you're not interested in actually fixing that problem. You just want to use it as a pretext.
As to whether people rant about plea bargains or drug sentences, that is AGAIN not an issue with the legal system in general. If your problem is that the court findings are not valid then that doesn't apply in any one case but IN EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CASE.
So no, plea bargains and drug sentences are not proof to the contrary because the problems with those cases are not related to innocent people being convicted.
A person that confesses in a plea bargain is confessing. Now you can argue that they shouldn't confess or that they were pressured or something. but they did in fact confess.
As to conflating this with the stupid fucking drug war... we're mostly talking about murder charges here, sport. Not whether or not you had some weed on you. So you can jam that stupid rebuttal up your ass sideways and give it a little twist.
As to children, that isn't an ideological statement so apparently you don't know what ideology means. You clearly just tried to do a I'm rubber you're glue" defense and were so fucking sloppy about it that you didn't even bother to question whether the statement was reversible.
Continuing on children, you're the one saying " think of the innocent man"... to reflexively turn around and say I am clutching at pearls when I respond "they fucking murdered children"... would be hypocritical if you were smart enough to have actually considered your position in any depth.
What I can see here though is that you didn't. You have bought a line of argument almost verbatim and you never actually internalized the logic or questioned it to any extent. You're like one of those sad religious radicals that mumbles religious scripture under his breath while rocking back and forth like a madman.
You are unworthy of my attention or concern because I'm not actually arguing with a person here but rather some fool spitting back crap he's memorized like a human parrot.
I think what you meant to say was that it wasn't racism.
Racism has as part of it the notion that a given race is superior to another and then favoring the superior race.
Affirmative action favors what is believed to be disadvantaged races thus is reverse racism.
However, racial discrimination is not the same thing as racism. Racial discrimination requires discriminating on the basis of race indifferent to which ever race is seen as advantages or disadvantaged.
So, yes... affirmative action is racial discrimination. And reverse racism.
Look, I don't care about feminists or MRAs... they're both different halves of the same shit sandwich so far as I can tell.
I will say as someone that saw the movie that it is terrible.
First, they made the pitch black 2 mistake... they Necromongered the hell out it. In pitch black 1 they spent almost no money on a very simple action movie that was very popular. In pitch black 2 they spent about 100 times more money on it and the movie was fucking awful. It was very complicated for no reason and was generally no fun.
Second, the plot of Fury Road is completely different from the first three movies. The first movie basically had no plot at all. It was a guy running from some other guys. The second one was about keeping some gas away from from raiders. The third one had some kind of political struggle between Tina Turner and Master blaster... and that was the worst Mad Max movie until Fury Road. Look, the best movie was The Road Warrior. Why? Because it has SOME plot but not a lot. Just enough to sustain the action. It was also a proper post apocalyptic setting.
Third, my god the overdone props. Okay, so your industrial base is smashed because the world has ended. Where are they getting all these custom made props from then? See, a post apocalyptic setting requires IMPROVISED props. Go to a city dump and pick shit up. That is what you're going to use to make stuff. And don't have master craftsman make any of it. Have people that are outright terrible at making things make it. It should look crude.
Fourth, yeah there was a lot of odd feminist stuff in the movie and it could stand to not have that for the same reason that putting a bunch of MRA shit in it would also be stupid.
Would I protest the movie on MRA grounds? Nope. I'd protest it on the grounds that it is a shitty movie.
Its just indy and the crystal skull again. All these great directors are coming back to make another installment of existing franchises and fucking it up... Jar Jar binks style. And it needs to stop.
Something to try instead is get another director. Someone younger and less full of themselves.
No. You can't get out of this by playing word games. If the automation is cheaper, faster, more efficient, then we are not advancing progress by creating a bunch of make work jobs, holding back the automation, etc.
Sorry. The rustbelt tried that and instead of losing a portion of the factory's labor force to automation and getting a more modern skill set, and retaining american manufacturing... they caused the company to shut it down, move the whole thing to asia, the factory workers lost 100 percent of their jobs, the US lost out on the opportunity to get modern training on modern machines, etc.
We are going through a technological revolution. Whenever this happens workers get fucked.
It happened in the agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago. It happened in the industrial revolution. And it is going to happen now.
You can't stop it. Your might as well yell at the Sun. It is unstoppable.
The best thing you can do is tack into the tidal wave and try to ride it. What you're trying to do is ignore it. That's death.
And the rust belt proved quite clearly what happens.
Do NOT try to stop it. You can't. It is coming and it WILL happen. You can either make the process as smooth and civilized as possible... getting your communities as much of the jobs and industry as possible.
Or you can get fucked raw.
I choose option 1. Getting fucked raw means our people are without jobs by the millions and the unemployment is structural meaning we can't get them more jobs EVER because that entire generation is burned. It means our industrial competitors get all our business.
This is a situation where you either choose option 1 or I have nothing but insults for you. Because option 2 is fucking stupid.
And let me be clear, option 2 nearly anything that isn't option 1. The way out of this is to embrace the automation. You do that and Asia loses its advantage in a flash. The old days of American industrial supremacy can come again. Your factory towns can hum with life again.
But this has a price... and that price is for once not fucking with industry when it needs to go through an upgrade cycle. Just fucking stop it. Or industry go through its upgrade cycle anyway... just somewhere else with NONE of your labor force.
No, it isn't even the fucking parties period. Forget the little letter after people's names. That shit is pointless.
Look at the MAN/or woman. The person. A reasonable democrat is going to be as good for a community as a reasonable republican as a reasonable green party as a reasonable whatever.
If you're reasonable. If people can sit down with the guy and talk to him. If he listens. If he understands that while he has opinions other people have rights. If his highest goal is to see that the people in his community get what THEY want... Then he'll be fine.
I really don't care which party they come from so long as they do that.
Take Obama an example of someone that isn't reasonable
He doesn't listen to anyone. He sits down with people to talk AT them not with them. He believes that his opinions are more important than your rights. His highest goal is to see HIS vision applied. He doesn't care if you want it or not.
And that has NOTHING to do with the fact that he's a democrat. I'm perfectly happy with a democrat in office. They just can't be fucking assholes. And that goes for republicans or whatever other party. We've had asshole republicans and asshole democrats.
We occasionally get someone that is considerate of everyone. But it is damned rare.
And that is what we need.
The office of the president especially needs to operate this way because the country is too big to shove any one vision down the whole country's throat. This make sense to people that live in one part of the country, think the idea makes sense in their part of the country and know NOTHING about the rest of the country.
The more you learn, the more you understand that you can't just govern the whole country that way. You have to respect each regions nature. Many of the large states are even too big to govern this way much less the whole fucking country.
Take california. There are HUGE differences between northern and southern california. Big differences between east and western california. You can't apply the same rules to San Diego that you'd apply to San Francisco. They have very different politics. Suggesting that anyone in Washington is going to have ONE plan that is going to work for the whole country is moronic. And that is what needs to stop.
I would sooner vote for a communist in power that respected my rights and didn't try to impose his view on people that didn't want it, then someone that held more of my views but lacked respect for opposing opinions.
Not really. The issue is more complicated than that. First Past the Post is fine so long as applied properly.
The good thing about FPtP is that it marginalizes crackpots and it forces various communities to ACTUALLY make a fucking choice.
Without it you have everyone voting for their own niche candidate. I mean, we could all just vote for ourselves no? Then each of us goes to office representing our one vote.
I would argue that the real problem with most of these systems is that they over centralize powers that should be decentralized. Your own community should be making most of these choices for themselves without external interference.
Lets say your community wants to go full blown communist. I don't see why the rest of the country should have any say in that. The only thing I'd require is that they continue to obey the US constitution while they did it. So long as they aren't violating people's rights while imposing communism... Go for it. but ONLY in the communities that actually voted for it. The community next door might not have voted for it and if they didn't... then they're not to be forced into it any more than the communist community would be forced out of it.
When you over centralize things you're inevitably going to undermine the rights of most people.
First, you can't un-imprison someone because you don't have a time machine. You can stop imprisoning them but you can't undo what you did.
Lets say you imprisoned me for 10 years... and that was my sentence. You let me out because the sentence is up... then it is proven I didn't do it. Okay... where are my ten years? Either show me how you give me my ten years or have the intellectual integrity to admit you can't undo it.
As to your admission that this fellow doesn't apply to your position because he's clearly guilty. Thank you for that. If we can be sure, then the execution should be just fine according to you. Now you say "but everyone thinks they're sure"... well, not so much. What we've found when there are bad execution trials is that there was evidence tampering etc. There was no such thing in this case.
So by your own reasoning, this execution is fine.
Good.
We circle back to your ACTUAL issue when stripped of the sophistry which is systemic problems in the legal system. A point I'll note continues to be proven to be sophistry because you are showing zero interest in actually talking about except as a pretext to ban executions.
As to great revelations, the argument is not only one you have made and nearly without fail, people that make this argument only show an interest in the topic when executions are involved.
Imprisonments don't seem to trigger it which reveals it to be sophistry.
As to MY argument being ideology... *gets popcorn* Do try to turn this back on me. I'd love to see the attempt.
As to your pointless strawman, there's nothing in it to comment on it. You're not on topic, you're not addressing anything I said, and you're not advancing your own position. So... its null.
As to your axiomatic position, what about imprisoning people that are innocent? Apparently that's fine.
Your argument falls apart once you notice that what you're arguing against is not executions but the accuracy of the legal system itself. And as you're doing that, you're actually undermining the entire justice system... not just one type of punishment.
What makes your position sophistry is that you seem to only be interested in actually reforming the justice system but rather removing this one punishment. Which is odd because your thesis rests on the notion that the justice system is flawed... not that execution is bad.
As to being in favor of killing innocents, I'm no more in favor of that then you are in favor of kidnapping people, subjecting them to a show trial, and then holding them in human zoos for decades on end full of psychopaths.
Is that something you're in favor of? Obviously not. And neither am I in favor of killing innocent people. That the justice system will get the wrong people on occasion is unavoidable.
Lets get on topic and consider this specific case. Because this is really the Kryptonite for sophists... facts and staying on point. It lays you people every time.
So lets do that, you seem arrogant enough to not realize how utterly fucked you are if you let me get you between a fact and hard place, so I suspect you'll just let me do this...
Do you think THIS person that was JUST sentenced to death is innocent?
Shadow of a doubt etc? Yes or no? The evidence seems pretty fucking overwhelming. In fact, there are a lot of people that try to say "science" have proven things with less evidence than convicted this kid.
So... your bullshit ideological nonsense aside... did this kid do it? Yes or no? *dusts off old sparky*
*pfft* And you're telling me the Democrats give a flying fuck about your jobs either? Who is pushing the H1-B visas so fucking hard? Oh that's right, Democrats.
The politicians are shitty but a lot of the reason they're so shitty is because of tribalistic asshats like you that slavishly associate with a faction. This permits which ever faction you associate with to get away with ANYTHING and you'll forgive them. And the opposing faction could be fucking Jesus Christ walking around giving sight to the blind and you'd still hate them.
You're a fucking cancer on the political system.
Do not vote political parties. Neither the democrats nor the republicans are actually on the ballots. It is just people. PEOPLE. Individuals. Vote for them. Fuck parties. Just look at the people. Evaluate them on a personal level.
That's as good as you'll be able to do in this political system. But really you're not helping anyone by saying "oh its all this political party's fault"...
What if the republicans didn't exist at all? And lets say we a choice between the democrats and some other leftish party. I don't know... the Greens or something. Who wants to bet that someone would be saying in no time "If only the greens weren't there everything would be better".
Its bullshit. This is the sort of crap dictators tell their starving people to explain why their country is shitty. They say "it is because of those evil foreigners!"...
Look at Baltimore, chump. You know the city that recently rioted. Riddle me this, when was the last time that city was run by Republicans? Exactly. The whole country could be run lock stock and barrel by the democrats and most of the shit you're upset about would either not change or might even get worse.
You're mad about markets and capitalism? Tough shit. Not even the Soviets could kill capitalism INSIDE the soviet union during the cold war. The market is forever. You can't kill it. It is a dynamic inevitability, No stable society can exist that does not account for the market in a substantive way.
This fool wants to keep makework jobs where people pretend they're useful just so they can have a bullshit job.
That isn't going to give you a healthy economy.
Do we need to worry about how people are going to get work? Yep.
But you do that by getting them competitive jobs that robots don't do better than them.
Did holding back automation save the manufacturing jobs in the rust belt? Nope. All the work went to china instead. So good work. Instead of losing 50 percent of the jobs in the factory you lost 100 percent. Genius.
This is a tech site... embrace the technology or I don't even want to hear your stupid whining Luddite ass.
What do you mean by humanity? And who said anything about giving something up?
I'm not giving anything up. I'm just going to waste pointless sentement on a person that went to a marathon to kill as many people as possible. Total innocents. Families. Children. He went there with bombs to indiscriminately kill.
What mercy did he show his victims?
None.
What pity did he show his victims?
None.
What remorse has he shown for the people he's killed? Seemling not only has he shown no remorse but he's actually tried to exploit softies like you to save his skin.
The piece of shit cares nothing for you or your beliefs. He's manipulating you. Have enough self respect to realize you're being played.
You don't like executions on principle? Then don't talk about any specific issue because the facts don't matter to you. What matters is that anyone is being executed and you don't care why. Someone could genocide 99 percent of the human population and some fool would say "but execution is wrong"...
And the reasons for this? There are no reasons. You can't sustain the position that execution is wrong on the basis of facts or logic. Such positions are ideological or religious. Matters of belief.
Whatever you might feel about such things, understand that it is just your faith or your ideology backing that up. And such things can't be debated because you're likely not open to the possibility that you're wrong. The problem with all faiths is that they're ultimately tautology. Circular logic. Something is wrong because it is wrong. It is logically fallacious. You don't know it is wrong. In fact, right and wrong aren't even developed rational concepts in that context. Its just more circular reasoning.
I regret the rant... but I've gone round and around enough times with people on these issues that it has grown tiresome. Very rarely does anyone actually back up their side leaving me with nothing to actually work with...
As to what you do when the DRM is in the CPU... it doesn't matter because the CPU has to decode whatever it is and you have the CPU and the bios and all those things. You have everything required to decode it and if you own the legit copy it will decode.
All you have to do is confuse the system into thinking a copy is a legit copy. And given that all the data on either disk is going to be just about the same you're not giving the CPU a lot to work with here.
On the dreamcast and a few other early consoles, the order of the day was custom bootloaders. You'd stick a bootloader disk in first, wait for it to load, then it would prompt you to stick in the disk for the actual game. you'd do that... and the bogus disk would work. This worked on a couple other consoles.
Later consoles needed chips that would interfere with the DRM chips at a hardware level. Those chips so far as I know are still quite effective.
DRM only works against casual users and casual users are not what you're fighting in the current DRM arms race. You have some extremely sophisticated people breaking the DRM. I've seen no DRM withstand the first law of computer security. If the cracker has physical access then you're fucked.
1. Your defense of malthus is a dead give away. He is speciously held as meaningful to certain ideologies but he has no utility beyond a historical example of hubris and folly. But by all means, correct me. What are your politics?
2. What is this absurd strawman you're inserting suggesting that I said educating women had anything to do with neo marxism? And for clarification, I said you were probably a crypto marxist not a neo marxist. I'm not even sure what a neo marxist is but for your information, a crypto marxist is a secret marxist. Someone what pretends to be something else.
I don't blame you for being a crypto marxist by the way, I just find it to be annoying. Some ideologies are persecuted... and those that believe in them learn to keep silent about it least they suffer persecution. And because they continue to believe in their ideologies they find other ways to express their views without outing themselves.
It is this last element that I find irritating because it leads such people into sophistry as they presume to advocate things they don't actually care about but which have a duel use in being applicable to their ideology.
One of the more amusing tells that tends to pop up in these discussions about gender for example are attacks on "meritocracy" which has nothing what so ever to do with gender or sexism. But which is quite applicable to marxism and especially crypto marxism or crypto communism.
But I'm getting ahead of myself... you've said I have you all wrong? Correct me. One must infer and deduct with sophists... so forgive me for leaping to conclusions. There is no alternative when you deal with these issues.
That's mindlessly bitter. First off, the internet has a frontier still... the deep web or dark web or whatever they want to call it is entirely unregulated... you can go to it right now and buy heroine with bitcoins or something if you want.
Second, how does something die because civilization arrives?
Your entire post makes no sense. I'm sitting here rereading it trying to find some redeemable thought you're trying to express and... there does not appear to be one. You're conflating concepts that don't mean the same thing and saying things that are patiently false.
Help me out here. Restate your position so it makes some sense.
Our relative positions are more analogous to the defense and the prosecution.
Since you are in the position of positing that there is a sexism problem, you are in the position of the prosecution.
While I am in the position of the defense given that I am not positing such a thing so much as undermining your position.
The burden of proof for me is quite a bit lower than for you. All I have to do is undermine your case. I don't have to prove mine.
I can come up with nearly limitless problems with your position because it is very poorly defined, the chain of evidence is in fucking tatters, and entire thing reads more like a Creationist theory than anything else.
What you have to understand, cupcake... is that science does not find evidence to support theories. It finds data and then tries theories to see which ones best fit the data.
Creationists and similar ideological factions have a vested interest in given conclusions. So they do it backwards. They start with their conclusion and then they look for evidence to support it. That isn't science.
And if we want to talk politics or law or morality, then again... burden of proof is on THEE - not me.:)
You can't win. You lack the rhetorical and intellectual foundation to even begin to have this discussion. If weren't so woefully ignorant, than you'd at least understand the underlying flaws in your position whether or not you agreed with me. You'd at least understand the intellectual footing you're on and not fall on your fucking face over and over again.
I don't even need to undermine you. You're so hapless that you keep self destructing.
First off, the only way they'll be able to tell one thing from another is by filtering ad domains. Well, if the ads all come from the same domain as the content then you can't filter out the ads without filtering out the content. So that's really easy to do... you can proxy stuff without any trouble. It means the ad companies need to trust google isn't inventing clicks but that shouldn't be a big problem.
Second off, as other people have said, google could just pop up a message saying "sorry, due to actions by your local ISP, we cannot deliver this content"... and the consumer base in Europe would get their torches and pitchforks so fast the ISPs couldn't even maniacly cackle by arc light before their little castles were stormed.
Third, the very nature of the internet is that information flows on it transparently. Forget net neutrality, what the european mobile ISPs are threatening here is more extreme. They're presuming to control web content. It isn't even a matter of speed or bandwidth... they want to literally control which ads show up. Their whole push is antithetical to the whole nature of the internet in the first place. Whomever is pushing this is doubtless someone that doesn't understand the internet at all. And that means they're incompetent to make these choices and shouldn't be in a position of power in the first place. Just boot those fools out and try again.
So, an AC tells me vaguely that I made some mistake in my argument but won't say what error I made. Then presumes intellectual superiority and walks away.
You're an intellectual coward. Substantiate your claim. For all you know, the mitigating issue you think is so important is something I will annihilate on sight.
Perhaps that is why you don't disclose it? To preserve your own cognitive dissonance?
People with threatened belief systems will often resort to your behavior to protect themselves from enlightenment. It is why various religious cults don't encourage their followers to communicate with people outside the faith.
What is more, your faction is the biggest fucking echo chamber I've ever seen. You people forbid anyone outside your group from communicating with your group.
Who has the twitter block bots?
You.
Who bans people from speaking on university campuses?
You.
Who appropriated mental health terms like "safe space" meant to protect mentally unstable people as a pretext to censor detractors?
You.
And you have the fucking gall to suggest that anyone else is echo chambering you fucking AC pile of dog filth? You're fucking human garbage.
Either stand up here like an adult and present your argument with the understanding that it is to be audited... or fuck off you cowardly dribble of excrement.:D
It is an additional variable you have to account for to sustain your position of sexism. You can't say you've proven sexism unless you've accounted for all mitigating circumstances.
You can't claim to have proven anything unless you've really isolated your variables.
Your entire position is extremely anecdotal as well. How many of these stupid sexism charges are all based on one person's experiences? And of course, we don't get full context to realize whether this person is credible or not. We get some sob story about how no one respected some random woman in an office and then are expected to go off on a grand crusade slashing and burning everything in our way in the name of Social Justice.
And you have the fucking temerity to suggest that I am putting out anecdotal arguments? Come the fuck on.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all. Romney did well in the primary amongst the rank and file republicans. Jeb polls very badly in that context and it is in that context that you have to win.
Correct. You can absolutely refute that the media is controlled by liberals.
You could of course point at specific news papers or specific news stations and say they are controlled by liberals or conservatives.
I don't think anyone with any credibility is claiming that ALL of anything is controlled by anyone. You can say MOST of something is controlled by one faction or another IF you can substantiate that. And in some cases... you can.
In this case, saying that everything negative about Hillary is just republican propaganda is idiocy. That is... something idiots say.
End of discussion. That's all folks.
Wrong. While you are standing behind the notion that your issue is flaws in the legal system, as I pointed out it is sophistry because you're not interested in actually fixing that problem. You just want to use it as a pretext.
As to whether people rant about plea bargains or drug sentences, that is AGAIN not an issue with the legal system in general. If your problem is that the court findings are not valid then that doesn't apply in any one case but IN EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CASE.
So no, plea bargains and drug sentences are not proof to the contrary because the problems with those cases are not related to innocent people being convicted.
A person that confesses in a plea bargain is confessing. Now you can argue that they shouldn't confess or that they were pressured or something. but they did in fact confess.
As to conflating this with the stupid fucking drug war... we're mostly talking about murder charges here, sport. Not whether or not you had some weed on you. So you can jam that stupid rebuttal up your ass sideways and give it a little twist.
As to children, that isn't an ideological statement so apparently you don't know what ideology means. You clearly just tried to do a I'm rubber you're glue" defense and were so fucking sloppy about it that you didn't even bother to question whether the statement was reversible.
Continuing on children, you're the one saying " think of the innocent man"... to reflexively turn around and say I am clutching at pearls when I respond "they fucking murdered children"... would be hypocritical if you were smart enough to have actually considered your position in any depth.
What I can see here though is that you didn't. You have bought a line of argument almost verbatim and you never actually internalized the logic or questioned it to any extent. You're like one of those sad religious radicals that mumbles religious scripture under his breath while rocking back and forth like a madman.
You are unworthy of my attention or concern because I'm not actually arguing with a person here but rather some fool spitting back crap he's memorized like a human parrot.
So have a cracker and go fuck yourself. ;)
You know that if you just call anyone that says anything you don't like a liar, you've rendered yourself unreasonable and unreasoning...
Are some of the things said about Hillary lies? Sure... same goes for all politicians.
But then a good deal of it is not.
As to this notion that the New York Times is controlled by republicans... idiocy. Even MSNBC is coming down on hillary.
If the media were controlled by republicans then MSNBC wouldn't exist. It does.
Bush is unlikely to be nominated. He is getting no traction with the base. He is supported by the establishment but has no credibility elsewhere.
Since you're not telling me what your ideology is I have to assume I was actually correct and I spotted you instantly.
Really my entire argument is sustained on that point and since you're not correcting me... this is pretty much a slam dunk for me.
Is that where you want to leave it? Because it works for me.
That puts the lie to the skills argument.
Yes it is because you're racially discriminating.
I think what you meant to say was that it wasn't racism.
Racism has as part of it the notion that a given race is superior to another and then favoring the superior race.
Affirmative action favors what is believed to be disadvantaged races thus is reverse racism.
However, racial discrimination is not the same thing as racism. Racial discrimination requires discriminating on the basis of race indifferent to which ever race is seen as advantages or disadvantaged.
So, yes... affirmative action is racial discrimination. And reverse racism.
Look, I don't care about feminists or MRAs... they're both different halves of the same shit sandwich so far as I can tell.
I will say as someone that saw the movie that it is terrible.
First, they made the pitch black 2 mistake... they Necromongered the hell out it. In pitch black 1 they spent almost no money on a very simple action movie that was very popular. In pitch black 2 they spent about 100 times more money on it and the movie was fucking awful. It was very complicated for no reason and was generally no fun.
Second, the plot of Fury Road is completely different from the first three movies. The first movie basically had no plot at all. It was a guy running from some other guys. The second one was about keeping some gas away from from raiders. The third one had some kind of political struggle between Tina Turner and Master blaster... and that was the worst Mad Max movie until Fury Road. Look, the best movie was The Road Warrior. Why? Because it has SOME plot but not a lot. Just enough to sustain the action. It was also a proper post apocalyptic setting.
Third, my god the overdone props. Okay, so your industrial base is smashed because the world has ended. Where are they getting all these custom made props from then? See, a post apocalyptic setting requires IMPROVISED props. Go to a city dump and pick shit up. That is what you're going to use to make stuff. And don't have master craftsman make any of it. Have people that are outright terrible at making things make it. It should look crude.
Fourth, yeah there was a lot of odd feminist stuff in the movie and it could stand to not have that for the same reason that putting a bunch of MRA shit in it would also be stupid.
Would I protest the movie on MRA grounds? Nope. I'd protest it on the grounds that it is a shitty movie.
Its just indy and the crystal skull again. All these great directors are coming back to make another installment of existing franchises and fucking it up... Jar Jar binks style. And it needs to stop.
Something to try instead is get another director. Someone younger and less full of themselves.
No. You can't get out of this by playing word games. If the automation is cheaper, faster, more efficient, then we are not advancing progress by creating a bunch of make work jobs, holding back the automation, etc.
Sorry. The rustbelt tried that and instead of losing a portion of the factory's labor force to automation and getting a more modern skill set, and retaining american manufacturing... they caused the company to shut it down, move the whole thing to asia, the factory workers lost 100 percent of their jobs, the US lost out on the opportunity to get modern training on modern machines, etc.
We are going through a technological revolution. Whenever this happens workers get fucked.
It happened in the agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago. It happened in the industrial revolution. And it is going to happen now.
You can't stop it. Your might as well yell at the Sun. It is unstoppable.
The best thing you can do is tack into the tidal wave and try to ride it. What you're trying to do is ignore it. That's death.
And the rust belt proved quite clearly what happens.
Do NOT try to stop it. You can't. It is coming and it WILL happen. You can either make the process as smooth and civilized as possible... getting your communities as much of the jobs and industry as possible.
Or you can get fucked raw.
I choose option 1. Getting fucked raw means our people are without jobs by the millions and the unemployment is structural meaning we can't get them more jobs EVER because that entire generation is burned. It means our industrial competitors get all our business.
This is a situation where you either choose option 1 or I have nothing but insults for you. Because option 2 is fucking stupid.
And let me be clear, option 2 nearly anything that isn't option 1. The way out of this is to embrace the automation. You do that and Asia loses its advantage in a flash. The old days of American industrial supremacy can come again. Your factory towns can hum with life again.
But this has a price... and that price is for once not fucking with industry when it needs to go through an upgrade cycle. Just fucking stop it. Or industry go through its upgrade cycle anyway... just somewhere else with NONE of your labor force.
No, it isn't even the fucking parties period. Forget the little letter after people's names. That shit is pointless.
Look at the MAN/or woman. The person. A reasonable democrat is going to be as good for a community as a reasonable republican as a reasonable green party as a reasonable whatever.
If you're reasonable. If people can sit down with the guy and talk to him. If he listens. If he understands that while he has opinions other people have rights. If his highest goal is to see that the people in his community get what THEY want... Then he'll be fine.
I really don't care which party they come from so long as they do that.
Take Obama an example of someone that isn't reasonable
He doesn't listen to anyone.
He sits down with people to talk AT them not with them.
He believes that his opinions are more important than your rights.
His highest goal is to see HIS vision applied. He doesn't care if you want it or not.
And that has NOTHING to do with the fact that he's a democrat. I'm perfectly happy with a democrat in office. They just can't be fucking assholes. And that goes for republicans or whatever other party. We've had asshole republicans and asshole democrats.
We occasionally get someone that is considerate of everyone. But it is damned rare.
And that is what we need.
The office of the president especially needs to operate this way because the country is too big to shove any one vision down the whole country's throat. This make sense to people that live in one part of the country, think the idea makes sense in their part of the country and know NOTHING about the rest of the country.
The more you learn, the more you understand that you can't just govern the whole country that way. You have to respect each regions nature. Many of the large states are even too big to govern this way much less the whole fucking country.
Take california. There are HUGE differences between northern and southern california. Big differences between east and western california. You can't apply the same rules to San Diego that you'd apply to San Francisco. They have very different politics. Suggesting that anyone in Washington is going to have ONE plan that is going to work for the whole country is moronic. And that is what needs to stop.
I would sooner vote for a communist in power that respected my rights and didn't try to impose his view on people that didn't want it, then someone that held more of my views but lacked respect for opposing opinions.
Not really. The issue is more complicated than that. First Past the Post is fine so long as applied properly.
The good thing about FPtP is that it marginalizes crackpots and it forces various communities to ACTUALLY make a fucking choice.
Without it you have everyone voting for their own niche candidate. I mean, we could all just vote for ourselves no? Then each of us goes to office representing our one vote.
I would argue that the real problem with most of these systems is that they over centralize powers that should be decentralized. Your own community should be making most of these choices for themselves without external interference.
Lets say your community wants to go full blown communist. I don't see why the rest of the country should have any say in that. The only thing I'd require is that they continue to obey the US constitution while they did it. So long as they aren't violating people's rights while imposing communism... Go for it. but ONLY in the communities that actually voted for it. The community next door might not have voted for it and if they didn't... then they're not to be forced into it any more than the communist community would be forced out of it.
When you over centralize things you're inevitably going to undermine the rights of most people.
First, you can't un-imprison someone because you don't have a time machine. You can stop imprisoning them but you can't undo what you did.
Lets say you imprisoned me for 10 years... and that was my sentence. You let me out because the sentence is up... then it is proven I didn't do it. Okay... where are my ten years? Either show me how you give me my ten years or have the intellectual integrity to admit you can't undo it.
As to your admission that this fellow doesn't apply to your position because he's clearly guilty. Thank you for that. If we can be sure, then the execution should be just fine according to you. Now you say "but everyone thinks they're sure"... well, not so much. What we've found when there are bad execution trials is that there was evidence tampering etc. There was no such thing in this case.
So by your own reasoning, this execution is fine.
Good.
We circle back to your ACTUAL issue when stripped of the sophistry which is systemic problems in the legal system. A point I'll note continues to be proven to be sophistry because you are showing zero interest in actually talking about except as a pretext to ban executions.
As to great revelations, the argument is not only one you have made and nearly without fail, people that make this argument only show an interest in the topic when executions are involved.
Imprisonments don't seem to trigger it which reveals it to be sophistry.
As to MY argument being ideology... *gets popcorn* Do try to turn this back on me. I'd love to see the attempt.
if that's what you're into...
As to your pointless strawman, there's nothing in it to comment on it. You're not on topic, you're not addressing anything I said, and you're not advancing your own position. So... its null.
As to your axiomatic position, what about imprisoning people that are innocent? Apparently that's fine.
Your argument falls apart once you notice that what you're arguing against is not executions but the accuracy of the legal system itself. And as you're doing that, you're actually undermining the entire justice system... not just one type of punishment.
What makes your position sophistry is that you seem to only be interested in actually reforming the justice system but rather removing this one punishment. Which is odd because your thesis rests on the notion that the justice system is flawed... not that execution is bad.
As to being in favor of killing innocents, I'm no more in favor of that then you are in favor of kidnapping people, subjecting them to a show trial, and then holding them in human zoos for decades on end full of psychopaths.
Is that something you're in favor of? Obviously not. And neither am I in favor of killing innocent people. That the justice system will get the wrong people on occasion is unavoidable.
Lets get on topic and consider this specific case. Because this is really the Kryptonite for sophists... facts and staying on point. It lays you people every time.
So lets do that, you seem arrogant enough to not realize how utterly fucked you are if you let me get you between a fact and hard place, so I suspect you'll just let me do this...
Do you think THIS person that was JUST sentenced to death is innocent?
Shadow of a doubt etc? Yes or no? The evidence seems pretty fucking overwhelming. In fact, there are a lot of people that try to say "science" have proven things with less evidence than convicted this kid.
So... your bullshit ideological nonsense aside... did this kid do it? Yes or no? *dusts off old sparky*
*pfft* And you're telling me the Democrats give a flying fuck about your jobs either? Who is pushing the H1-B visas so fucking hard? Oh that's right, Democrats.
The politicians are shitty but a lot of the reason they're so shitty is because of tribalistic asshats like you that slavishly associate with a faction. This permits which ever faction you associate with to get away with ANYTHING and you'll forgive them. And the opposing faction could be fucking Jesus Christ walking around giving sight to the blind and you'd still hate them.
You're a fucking cancer on the political system.
Do not vote political parties. Neither the democrats nor the republicans are actually on the ballots. It is just people. PEOPLE. Individuals. Vote for them. Fuck parties. Just look at the people. Evaluate them on a personal level.
That's as good as you'll be able to do in this political system. But really you're not helping anyone by saying "oh its all this political party's fault"...
What if the republicans didn't exist at all? And lets say we a choice between the democrats and some other leftish party. I don't know... the Greens or something. Who wants to bet that someone would be saying in no time "If only the greens weren't there everything would be better".
Its bullshit. This is the sort of crap dictators tell their starving people to explain why their country is shitty. They say "it is because of those evil foreigners!"...
Look at Baltimore, chump. You know the city that recently rioted. Riddle me this, when was the last time that city was run by Republicans? Exactly. The whole country could be run lock stock and barrel by the democrats and most of the shit you're upset about would either not change or might even get worse.
You're mad about markets and capitalism? Tough shit. Not even the Soviets could kill capitalism INSIDE the soviet union during the cold war. The market is forever. You can't kill it. It is a dynamic inevitability, No stable society can exist that does not account for the market in a substantive way.
This fool wants to keep makework jobs where people pretend they're useful just so they can have a bullshit job.
That isn't going to give you a healthy economy.
Do we need to worry about how people are going to get work? Yep.
But you do that by getting them competitive jobs that robots don't do better than them.
Did holding back automation save the manufacturing jobs in the rust belt? Nope. All the work went to china instead. So good work. Instead of losing 50 percent of the jobs in the factory you lost 100 percent. Genius.
This is a tech site... embrace the technology or I don't even want to hear your stupid whining Luddite ass.
What do you mean by humanity? And who said anything about giving something up?
I'm not giving anything up. I'm just going to waste pointless sentement on a person that went to a marathon to kill as many people as possible. Total innocents. Families. Children. He went there with bombs to indiscriminately kill.
What mercy did he show his victims?
None.
What pity did he show his victims?
None.
What remorse has he shown for the people he's killed? Seemling not only has he shown no remorse but he's actually tried to exploit softies like you to save his skin.
The piece of shit cares nothing for you or your beliefs. He's manipulating you. Have enough self respect to realize you're being played.
You don't like executions on principle? Then don't talk about any specific issue because the facts don't matter to you. What matters is that anyone is being executed and you don't care why. Someone could genocide 99 percent of the human population and some fool would say "but execution is wrong"...
And the reasons for this? There are no reasons. You can't sustain the position that execution is wrong on the basis of facts or logic. Such positions are ideological or religious. Matters of belief.
Whatever you might feel about such things, understand that it is just your faith or your ideology backing that up. And such things can't be debated because you're likely not open to the possibility that you're wrong. The problem with all faiths is that they're ultimately tautology. Circular logic. Something is wrong because it is wrong. It is logically fallacious. You don't know it is wrong. In fact, right and wrong aren't even developed rational concepts in that context. Its just more circular reasoning.
I regret the rant... but I've gone round and around enough times with people on these issues that it has grown tiresome. Very rarely does anyone actually back up their side leaving me with nothing to actually work with...
As to what you do when the DRM is in the CPU... it doesn't matter because the CPU has to decode whatever it is and you have the CPU and the bios and all those things. You have everything required to decode it and if you own the legit copy it will decode.
All you have to do is confuse the system into thinking a copy is a legit copy. And given that all the data on either disk is going to be just about the same you're not giving the CPU a lot to work with here.
On the dreamcast and a few other early consoles, the order of the day was custom bootloaders. You'd stick a bootloader disk in first, wait for it to load, then it would prompt you to stick in the disk for the actual game. you'd do that... and the bogus disk would work. This worked on a couple other consoles.
Later consoles needed chips that would interfere with the DRM chips at a hardware level. Those chips so far as I know are still quite effective.
DRM only works against casual users and casual users are not what you're fighting in the current DRM arms race. You have some extremely sophisticated people breaking the DRM. I've seen no DRM withstand the first law of computer security. If the cracker has physical access then you're fucked.
1. Your defense of malthus is a dead give away. He is speciously held as meaningful to certain ideologies but he has no utility beyond a historical example of hubris and folly. But by all means, correct me. What are your politics?
2. What is this absurd strawman you're inserting suggesting that I said educating women had anything to do with neo marxism? And for clarification, I said you were probably a crypto marxist not a neo marxist. I'm not even sure what a neo marxist is but for your information, a crypto marxist is a secret marxist. Someone what pretends to be something else.
I don't blame you for being a crypto marxist by the way, I just find it to be annoying. Some ideologies are persecuted... and those that believe in them learn to keep silent about it least they suffer persecution. And because they continue to believe in their ideologies they find other ways to express their views without outing themselves.
It is this last element that I find irritating because it leads such people into sophistry as they presume to advocate things they don't actually care about but which have a duel use in being applicable to their ideology.
One of the more amusing tells that tends to pop up in these discussions about gender for example are attacks on "meritocracy" which has nothing what so ever to do with gender or sexism. But which is quite applicable to marxism and especially crypto marxism or crypto communism.
But I'm getting ahead of myself... you've said I have you all wrong? Correct me. One must infer and deduct with sophists... so forgive me for leaping to conclusions. There is no alternative when you deal with these issues.
That's mindlessly bitter. First off, the internet has a frontier still... the deep web or dark web or whatever they want to call it is entirely unregulated... you can go to it right now and buy heroine with bitcoins or something if you want.
Second, how does something die because civilization arrives?
Your entire post makes no sense. I'm sitting here rereading it trying to find some redeemable thought you're trying to express and... there does not appear to be one. You're conflating concepts that don't mean the same thing and saying things that are patiently false.
Help me out here. Restate your position so it makes some sense.
I'm no the one suggesting science is sexist.
Our relative positions are more analogous to the defense and the prosecution.
Since you are in the position of positing that there is a sexism problem, you are in the position of the prosecution.
While I am in the position of the defense given that I am not positing such a thing so much as undermining your position.
The burden of proof for me is quite a bit lower than for you. All I have to do is undermine your case. I don't have to prove mine.
I can come up with nearly limitless problems with your position because it is very poorly defined, the chain of evidence is in fucking tatters, and entire thing reads more like a Creationist theory than anything else.
What you have to understand, cupcake... is that science does not find evidence to support theories. It finds data and then tries theories to see which ones best fit the data.
Creationists and similar ideological factions have a vested interest in given conclusions. So they do it backwards. They start with their conclusion and then they look for evidence to support it. That isn't science.
And if we want to talk politics or law or morality, then again... burden of proof is on THEE - not me. :)
You can't win. You lack the rhetorical and intellectual foundation to even begin to have this discussion. If weren't so woefully ignorant, than you'd at least understand the underlying flaws in your position whether or not you agreed with me. You'd at least understand the intellectual footing you're on and not fall on your fucking face over and over again.
I don't even need to undermine you. You're so hapless that you keep self destructing.
they can try... but they'll fail.
First off, the only way they'll be able to tell one thing from another is by filtering ad domains. Well, if the ads all come from the same domain as the content then you can't filter out the ads without filtering out the content. So that's really easy to do... you can proxy stuff without any trouble. It means the ad companies need to trust google isn't inventing clicks but that shouldn't be a big problem.
Second off, as other people have said, google could just pop up a message saying "sorry, due to actions by your local ISP, we cannot deliver this content"... and the consumer base in Europe would get their torches and pitchforks so fast the ISPs couldn't even maniacly cackle by arc light before their little castles were stormed.
Third, the very nature of the internet is that information flows on it transparently. Forget net neutrality, what the european mobile ISPs are threatening here is more extreme. They're presuming to control web content. It isn't even a matter of speed or bandwidth... they want to literally control which ads show up. Their whole push is antithetical to the whole nature of the internet in the first place. Whomever is pushing this is doubtless someone that doesn't understand the internet at all. And that means they're incompetent to make these choices and shouldn't be in a position of power in the first place. Just boot those fools out and try again.
So, an AC tells me vaguely that I made some mistake in my argument but won't say what error I made. Then presumes intellectual superiority and walks away.
You're an intellectual coward. Substantiate your claim. For all you know, the mitigating issue you think is so important is something I will annihilate on sight.
Perhaps that is why you don't disclose it? To preserve your own cognitive dissonance?
People with threatened belief systems will often resort to your behavior to protect themselves from enlightenment. It is why various religious cults don't encourage their followers to communicate with people outside the faith.
What is more, your faction is the biggest fucking echo chamber I've ever seen. You people forbid anyone outside your group from communicating with your group.
Who has the twitter block bots?
You.
Who bans people from speaking on university campuses?
You.
Who appropriated mental health terms like "safe space" meant to protect mentally unstable people as a pretext to censor detractors?
You.
And you have the fucking gall to suggest that anyone else is echo chambering you fucking AC pile of dog filth? You're fucking human garbage.
Either stand up here like an adult and present your argument with the understanding that it is to be audited... or fuck off you cowardly dribble of excrement. :D
It is an additional variable you have to account for to sustain your position of sexism. You can't say you've proven sexism unless you've accounted for all mitigating circumstances.
You can't claim to have proven anything unless you've really isolated your variables.
Your entire position is extremely anecdotal as well. How many of these stupid sexism charges are all based on one person's experiences? And of course, we don't get full context to realize whether this person is credible or not. We get some sob story about how no one respected some random woman in an office and then are expected to go off on a grand crusade slashing and burning everything in our way in the name of Social Justice.
And you have the fucking temerity to suggest that I am putting out anecdotal arguments? Come the fuck on.