Apparently you are the one that doesn't know what those worlds mean, but there is still hope for you. You just have to accept your ignorance and educate yourself.
Nope, you are the troll, my good sir, the one who brought absolutely nothing to the discussion except personal attacks. Next time you want to argue about anything remember of bringing arguments.
Well it is natural to suppose the marketing plan for the car includes the necessary number of charging stations. If you claim it does not you should show evidence about it.
Firstly it is "hypocrisy" not "hypocracy", but I guess the literacy level in this thread went down the drain for some time now.
Secondly, apparently you don't even know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"
Last, but not least, no, I am not holding any standard of proof, you are (apparently you seem to have a lot of problems with logic in addition to your inabilities regarding languages). There is nothing extraordinary in my claim and it should be self evident for anyone that has a thread of common sense, which apparently is not your case. The precision and calibration of the speedometers, that of the accelerator pedals, the need to accelerate and deaccelerate often, the fact that transit is a chaotic system, the fact the speed limits vary from place to place, and at least a few dozen other factors, make impossible for this to happen even if by some weird motive it was attempted on purpose.
But by all means keep feeling butthurt about being blatantly wrong in everything you said and spilling nonsense. It will be entertaining.
You inferred a meaning from his text, a meaning that has nothing to do with what he wrote. It may be what he wanted to say, then again it may be not. The objective of language is to transmit information. Whenever you force people to guess what you wanted to say with a sentence you are using it wrong and it is failing its purpose.
Furthermore, just to illustrate how silly your inference is, try to answer these questions: Does he mean that averaging people driving speeds they exceed which speed exactly by 5 mph? Does he means in highways? In the city? In every street? If so in peak traffic time? During the night? In zones where there are radars and photographic surveillance? If some zones are excluded does it means in others people go in average beyond this speed to compensate?
See the problem here? It is not just a discussion about semantics, even though it would be relevant on its own, as semantics does matter. The failure to transmit an idea in this case, stems from the idea being flawed from the start, among other things.
No, that should be his opportunity to realize he needs to improve his ability to transmit the information he wishes, and your opportunity to realize that defending ignorance as a virtue, like you are doing, is ridiculous.
Nope. Being pedantic and arrogant is to feel outraged when something that is wrong is corrected. What he said was wrong, and as such should be corrected. It was not only a badly constructed sentence, or a sentence with orthographic or grammatical mistakes, it was a sentence that transmitted an absurd idea.
Oh, you can take long detours, as long as you have enough battery charge for that. You need to manage your battery charge in the very same way you have to deal with your gas tank in combustion engines.
Although I do not doubt that you are correct about Ukranian justice, I must argue that, at least regarding high profile cases, Western justice is not very far from that. The pirate bay farse of a judgement proves how far western justice can bend to political interest, for example.
You live in fantasy land. Please, enlighten us with one example of corruption that could be easily stopped if wikileaks had leaked its information, and even if there was such a thing, it would be something so insignificant that I, and most people, would rather have every journalistic resource possible focused elsewhere,
Sure it is, but who cares about Wikileaks skeletons. Wikileaks can't put your or me in jail, can't violate our constitutional rights, can't interrogate or kill us, and no matter how corrupt it may be it has a very small effect in our lives. US government, on the other hand, can do all this and more.
The rest of your post is complete nonsense and doesn't even deserve an answer.
The other problem is the mission of Wikileaks was originally to discover corruption. All corruption is local. Wikileaks is global but seemed to exclusively focus on the US government in the last few years. Why? Corruption is all over the world in all kinds of organizations, corporate, government, church, even in organizations similar to wikileaks. So why focus only on the USA for the past 5 years? Tactically it was stupid for Wikileaks to do that. The USA was the one government with the resources to take it down and they gave them the motivation to do it with Cablegate.
It hardly matters to me and to most people in the world if John Doe is cheating on his electric bill. Corruption is as relevant to people as its ability to affect them. US dirty policies affect the world as a whole significantly and so does US corruption, considerably more than corruption in any other institution. Wikileaks does publish embarrassing documents of other nations showing corruption, but given what I just explained it is no surprise that US is in the hot spot.
And that is why licenses like this should not be permitted. It is a blatant attempt to circumvent laws of purchase that exist to protect the consumer rights.
On the contrary, I think the world is highly imperfect where the governments are seldom accountable for anything, have far too much power, hide way too many things, and get away with doing pretty much anything they want, and it gets worse as time passes and technology further empower such governments.
but if you accept them as the boss things can work out reasonably well
You definitely live in fantasy land. I know it is hard for you to accept the truth, but in today's world, there is very little difference between dealing with US and dealing with China. And you often are better off dealing with the latter.
Wikileaks is accountable and has a duty of transparency to the people that create and empower it in their names, just like governments. It is just a hell lot less people. Assange is accountable and has a duty of transparency about his life with no one but himself
We wouldn't be too happy as individuals if the contents of our lives were copied and published online so why is Wikileaks so immune from criticism? Its high time there was more constructive criticism of Wiki-leaks and its role in the world.
Because governments are not people. They should not enjoy any rights of privacy at all. It is anathema to what they stand for,
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you are the one that doesn't know what those worlds mean, but there is still hope for you. You just have to accept your ignorance and educate yourself.
Nope, you are the troll, my good sir, the one who brought absolutely nothing to the discussion except personal attacks. Next time you want to argue about anything remember of bringing arguments.
Which obviously is not the case here.
Well it is natural to suppose the marketing plan for the car includes the necessary number of charging stations. If you claim it does not you should show evidence about it.
Firstly it is "hypocrisy" not "hypocracy", but I guess the literacy level in this thread went down the drain for some time now.
Secondly, apparently you don't even know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"
Last, but not least, no, I am not holding any standard of proof, you are (apparently you seem to have a lot of problems with logic in addition to your inabilities regarding languages). There is nothing extraordinary in my claim and it should be self evident for anyone that has a thread of common sense, which apparently is not your case. The precision and calibration of the speedometers, that of the accelerator pedals, the need to accelerate and deaccelerate often, the fact that transit is a chaotic system, the fact the speed limits vary from place to place, and at least a few dozen other factors, make impossible for this to happen even if by some weird motive it was attempted on purpose.
But by all means keep feeling butthurt about being blatantly wrong in everything you said and spilling nonsense. It will be entertaining.
As long as there are enough electric charging stations that is irrelevant.
You inferred a meaning from his text, a meaning that has nothing to do with what he wrote. It may be what he wanted to say, then again it may be not. The objective of language is to transmit information. Whenever you force people to guess what you wanted to say with a sentence you are using it wrong and it is failing its purpose.
Furthermore, just to illustrate how silly your inference is, try to answer these questions: Does he mean that averaging people driving speeds they exceed which speed exactly by 5 mph? Does he means in highways? In the city? In every street? If so in peak traffic time? During the night? In zones where there are radars and photographic surveillance? If some zones are excluded does it means in others people go in average beyond this speed to compensate?
See the problem here? It is not just a discussion about semantics, even though it would be relevant on its own, as semantics does matter. The failure to transmit an idea in this case, stems from the idea being flawed from the start, among other things.
No, that should be his opportunity to realize he needs to improve his ability to transmit the information he wishes, and your opportunity to realize that defending ignorance as a virtue, like you are doing, is ridiculous.
Again, as I said: impossible. Zero deviation is impossible in anything but on paper, period.
On a side note, if you can't use language to communicate ideas correctly, please refrain from engaging in discussions until you acquire this ability.
Nope. Being pedantic and arrogant is to feel outraged when something that is wrong is corrected. What he said was wrong, and as such should be corrected. It was not only a badly constructed sentence, or a sentence with orthographic or grammatical mistakes, it was a sentence that transmitted an absurd idea.
Furthermore he took the +5 mph from his ass.
As I said: impossible.
Oh, you can take long detours, as long as you have enough battery charge for that. You need to manage your battery charge in the very same way you have to deal with your gas tank in combustion engines.
"Everyone" can't do anything "on average".
Although I do not doubt that you are correct about Ukranian justice, I must argue that, at least regarding high profile cases, Western justice is not very far from that. The pirate bay farse of a judgement proves how far western justice can bend to political interest, for example.
You live in fantasy land. Please, enlighten us with one example of corruption that could be easily stopped if wikileaks had leaked its information, and even if there was such a thing, it would be something so insignificant that I, and most people, would rather have every journalistic resource possible focused elsewhere,
Sure it is, but who cares about Wikileaks skeletons. Wikileaks can't put your or me in jail, can't violate our constitutional rights, can't interrogate or kill us, and no matter how corrupt it may be it has a very small effect in our lives. US government, on the other hand, can do all this and more.
The other problem is the mission of Wikileaks was originally to discover corruption. All corruption is local. Wikileaks is global but seemed to exclusively focus on the US government in the last few years. Why? Corruption is all over the world in all kinds of organizations, corporate, government, church, even in organizations similar to wikileaks. So why focus only on the USA for the past 5 years? Tactically it was stupid for Wikileaks to do that. The USA was the one government with the resources to take it down and they gave them the motivation to do it with Cablegate.
It hardly matters to me and to most people in the world if John Doe is cheating on his electric bill. Corruption is as relevant to people as its ability to affect them. US dirty policies affect the world as a whole significantly and so does US corruption, considerably more than corruption in any other institution. Wikileaks does publish embarrassing documents of other nations showing corruption, but given what I just explained it is no surprise that US is in the hot spot.
And that is why licenses like this should not be permitted. It is a blatant attempt to circumvent laws of purchase that exist to protect the consumer rights.
On the contrary, I think the world is highly imperfect where the governments are seldom accountable for anything, have far too much power, hide way too many things, and get away with doing pretty much anything they want, and it gets worse as time passes and technology further empower such governments.
but if you accept them as the boss things can work out reasonably well
You definitely live in fantasy land. I know it is hard for you to accept the truth, but in today's world, there is very little difference between dealing with US and dealing with China. And you often are better off dealing with the latter.
Sorry to break the news to you, but American business interests is the de facto American government.
Wikileaks is accountable and has a duty of transparency to the people that create and empower it in their names, just like governments. It is just a hell lot less people. Assange is accountable and has a duty of transparency about his life with no one but himself
And accountable to the people that created it, just like governments.
No, they do not. Privacy means no accountability, which means absolute trust and absolute power, which is always stupid.
We wouldn't be too happy as individuals if the contents of our lives were copied and published online so why is Wikileaks so immune from criticism? Its high time there was more constructive criticism of Wiki-leaks and its role in the world.
Because governments are not people. They should not enjoy any rights of privacy at all. It is anathema to what they stand for,