It was objectively unacceptable the entire time, both in essence and in public opinion. You're touching on some of the most talked about issues in America - things that get a whole shit-load of attention and action against them, so no, it didn't "become unacceptable" suddenly and there isn't an air of acceptance when this goes the other way. Stop rationalizing why this is acceptable, it's not.
You can agree with certain opinions and disagree with others without being contradictory. Unless you're asserting that you must either validate a person in entirety to quote them, and I surely hope you're not saying that, what's your point?
Hi, you ignored the second half of the sentence, "in public opinion". That's kinda important here, because it mentions in what scope they're marginalized. For example, your opinions - quite popular! - are discarding of conservatives. You're who I'm talking about.:)
If we credit the definitions of political terms to the actions of governments that have worn those words as badges, we will quickly find all political terms to homogeneously mean 'tyrant'.
Gitmo is a bad example to throw in, as the President signed a EO to close it - but got snared in red tape on the "how-to" part. Aside from that I generally agree.
Not that the IRS would do this, that's a gimmie. Or that they'd lie to cover it up, throw some small-time employees under the bus and try to wash their hands of it, we expect that. What's hard to believe is that there will be any real changes past the initial scandal.
The righty groups are already so marginalized in public opinion that most people will look at this article and rather than actually have any issue with the actions of the IRS, they'll feel horrified that the Tea Party was right on something that was already discarded as conspiracy theory. Like a crazy uncle that will never shut up about the time he called it.
Case in point: If this happened to anyone else the outrage would be unquantifiable. But because the systemic harassment of political affiliations only targeted conservatives we will see a whole lot of rationalizing, and IRS apologists. That's the real story.
Yes. My entire family will be calling for free tech support as their machines eat crap. This affects me directly and greatly, as I'm sure it similarly affects many other frequent posters here. Also personally, yes, no browser is invincible and I'd like to avoid infection as well.
There are not enough details to comment on how it happened, or why, and the people that it's affecting are unable to read or comment easily, for obvious reasons. There's just not much to be said at this point; what insightful comments can one expect at this point?
A required security module can not be activated. Your comment can not be posted.
SecuROM has determined a debugging or an emulation tool is running. Please refer to the following procedure to remedy:
Please deactivate these tools before starting the program. It's not necessary to uninstall them.
If the problem persists, please send a SecuROM analysis file to...
This, right here, is actually the best unintentional point made in this entire argument. The 'violent games' argument has been researched exhaustively. Yet idiots like Immerman continue to harp on the subject quoting only their perception. This is the kind of 'gun control studies' we can expect; ignoring contrary results, and repeating the same studies until they get it right.
Concerns over how the 'study' would be framed and who funds it would be the concern, not an aversion to any introspection on the topic. The term "gun study" in this thread means little more than "repeatedly politicizing the outlying events, combined with emotional mantras." See: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence
Slashdot Mirror
It was objectively unacceptable the entire time, both in essence and in public opinion. You're touching on some of the most talked about issues in America - things that get a whole shit-load of attention and action against them, so no, it didn't "become unacceptable" suddenly and there isn't an air of acceptance when this goes the other way. Stop rationalizing why this is acceptable, it's not.
You can agree with certain opinions and disagree with others without being contradictory. Unless you're asserting that you must either validate a person in entirety to quote them, and I surely hope you're not saying that, what's your point?
I wouldn't be surprised, but I would be upset. Just as I'm upset here. Don't write it off because you dislike the victim, that's the point.
When shit hits the fan you get to pick one; incompetent or malicious.
Hi, you ignored the second half of the sentence, "in public opinion". That's kinda important here, because it mentions in what scope they're marginalized. For example, your opinions - quite popular! - are discarding of conservatives. You're who I'm talking about. :)
If we credit the definitions of political terms to the actions of governments that have worn those words as badges, we will quickly find all political terms to homogeneously mean 'tyrant'.
Gitmo is a bad example to throw in, as the President signed a EO to close it - but got snared in red tape on the "how-to" part. Aside from that I generally agree.
You're confusing the word "Fascist" with "Bully." This has nothing to do with nationalism and market control.
The idea that protesting a law makes you an automatic violator of said law doesn't stand. (e.g. Protesting weed laws doesn't make you a drug dealer.)
It's hard to believe.
Not that the IRS would do this, that's a gimmie. Or that they'd lie to cover it up, throw some small-time employees under the bus and try to wash their hands of it, we expect that. What's hard to believe is that there will be any real changes past the initial scandal.
The righty groups are already so marginalized in public opinion that most people will look at this article and rather than actually have any issue with the actions of the IRS, they'll feel horrified that the Tea Party was right on something that was already discarded as conspiracy theory. Like a crazy uncle that will never shut up about the time he called it.
Case in point: If this happened to anyone else the outrage would be unquantifiable. But because the systemic harassment of political affiliations only targeted conservatives we will see a whole lot of rationalizing, and IRS apologists. That's the real story.
Yes. My entire family will be calling for free tech support as their machines eat crap. This affects me directly and greatly, as I'm sure it similarly affects many other frequent posters here. Also personally, yes, no browser is invincible and I'd like to avoid infection as well.
Why isn't there a list of infected sites? Avoiding them would seem to be a priority.
There are not enough details to comment on how it happened, or why, and the people that it's affecting are unable to read or comment easily, for obvious reasons. There's just not much to be said at this point; what insightful comments can one expect at this point?
...but it's nothing to lose your head over.
But you can. Go order a rare steak -- you'll be reminded that raw meat is raw, and that's a EULA in form of legal waiver.
Won't someone think of the children?!
A required security module can not be activated. Your comment can not be posted.
SecuROM has determined a debugging or an emulation tool is running. Please refer to the following procedure to remedy:
Most issues with software are PEBKAC; that's why. There's a reason that checklists in tech support take care of 80% of calls.
This, right here, is actually the best unintentional point made in this entire argument. The 'violent games' argument has been researched exhaustively. Yet idiots like Immerman continue to harp on the subject quoting only their perception. This is the kind of 'gun control studies' we can expect; ignoring contrary results, and repeating the same studies until they get it right.
Concerns over how the 'study' would be framed and who funds it would be the concern, not an aversion to any introspection on the topic. The term "gun study" in this thread means little more than "repeatedly politicizing the outlying events, combined with emotional mantras." See: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence
Because that is the 'solution' that is repeatedly submitted, ad nauseum, on the hill.
Hi, you have no clue how police work. You're arguing from general perception and caricature, stop it.
The UK has a violent crime rate 3.5x that of the US.
Observation of the "scientific community" disagrees. :P
>Implying that background checks 'fix' anything.