As a parent, I get how easy it is to be absolutely paralyzed by fear of $everyBadThingEver happening to your child. I still have no sympathy for those who subject their own children and everyone else's to the very real threat of deadly, preventable diseases because of thoroughly discredited nonsense.
You're not allowed to put uranium in your kid's lunchbox because you mistakenly believe it emits Healing Jesus Waves; you shouldn't be able to send your kid to school with (even the potential of) active measles virus because you mistakenly believe the not-mercury in vaccines is going to give her autism.
Your freedom to believe post-truth pseudoscience bullshit ends at the point where it endangers my child's safety.
Sorry, I came at that obliquely. You are "preaching to the choir." What Trump is doing is fundamentally different (and worse) than whatever shenanigans any president in living memory** has done (or been accused of doing).
Just then the reverend wheeled about to face the singers, his back now to the congregation, and continued his sermon—oblivious as the choir mouthed back to him, in silent unison, "Whoosh."
Hasn't made it into the dictionary so far, but I can't think of another word for "Government by all the evil things you denounced to get you there in the first place."
It's funny that all of this stuff wasn't a big deal to you hyper-partisans when Clinton was accused of them, but they suddenly are a big deal when Trump is doing them.
Your rah-rah-my-team bullshit is fucking up our world. It's a big deal when both teams do it. (And I'm calling you out, Ami, because you were defending Clinton for these very same things.)
It's perfectly valid to point out and criticize hypocracy, regardless of whether one personally agrees or disagrees with the underlying position.
We have no evidence that the money being used to bribe Trump for access isn't being used for the good of the country. Somebody has to pay the troll armies to combat all the fake news! How do you think the dozen anon sockpuppet posts get to the top of any article about Trump?
I've yet to meet a single person that needs, or even wants, a laptop/tablet/phone that is 0.5mm thinner.
But everybody needs longer battery life and more durable devices. And many of us need features (looking at you, headphone jack) that are sacrificed in the dubious pursuit of thinness above all else.
Ah, your use of SAT-words makes me feel so inferior, I'm going to cry now... Your chops are so intimidating.
Dude, you're on/., not Yahoo Answers. Using big boy words is not a badge of honor or an intimidation tactic. It's how adults discuss shit. For someone who loves to link dictionary definitions, you're going to dodge on this with some feigned sarcasm because the words I typed are too tough for you?
That 1st response you wrote response to me was "internally inconsistent; illogical" (incoherent, adj.) and "a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said" (non sequitur, n.).
If Trump's "grabbing pussy" without first obtaining a written permission from the owner was an assault, then so is making somebody "feel unsafe".
See, that's the definition of fallacy. The two have no logical relationship to each other. The dictionary definition you posted actually works against....
God damn it! I just realized I'm arguing with a fucking bot! Okay, you got me. To the computer scientist who created a nutty, illogical, derailing, pro-Trump bot that passes the Turing Test and sounds just like the real thing: Khoroshaya rabota, tovarishch!
For all the incoherent non sequiturs, you actually implied something very astute. Some of Trump's "pussy grabbing" may indeed not have been assault, strictly speaking. It appears sometimes he advanced his tongue and grabbin' hand so abruptly that there was no time for his victim to be "in apprehension" of the unwanted contact — he skipped straight past assault to sexual battery.
1) No, your analogy is ridiculous. It shows that, despite your desire to buff up the scholarly chops of your post with a link to a dictionary definition, you do not understand the legal concept of assault.
2) Not every goddamn thing is about "The Left" (or I suppose, by corollary, the heroic "Right"). By choosing to couch your entire worldview** in these terms, you do yourself a great disservice. When the only tool you have is a shoehorn, everything looks like a left or right shoe (to paraphrase Maslow).
But often times, as is the case here, you'll find yourself trying to jam a 1L Torts textbook into some weird partisan ideological clog, and it comes off as ham-fisted and inapt. What's next? Can we work "SJWs" in here somehow? Is it too much of a stretch to blame this one on Islam?
**If your worldview is somehow more nuanced, it hasn't come across in your prodigious post history.
Or possibly he was trashing the divide-and-conquer concept of 'minorities' as it's practiced by the plantation operators known as the Democrats.
If nothing else, insights like this are a significant takeaway from the November election. But there is a large body of people who refuse to acknowledge such insights.
That's not an insight, that's Andy Dufresne's Rita Hayworth poster. You can paper over the truth with all the contrived whitelash apologism you can muster, but Trump is still the gaping hole who ran a proudly racist campaign.
Hell, I don't even have to go outside of my own post history to find the rebuttal.
GS: "Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?"
Trump: "No, not at all"
That was the final word on Trump's proposal to create a database to track all Muslims, which he had tried to backtrack to just "refugees". I'm not sure if it came before or after his idea that mosques need to be placed under surveillance.
I can update that statement with some better dates. The instances I can find of Trump talking about tracking Muslims ("Ooops! What I said about Muslims wasn't about Muslims, but refugees, mainly Muslim ones, or not, except wink wink it's about Muslims!") occurred in (at least) November 2015. The instances I can find of Trump talking about surveilling mosques occurred in (at least) November 2015 and June 2016. The instances I can find of Trump saying he wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the country occurred in (at least) December 2015.
I'd put in all the extra work to meticulously link all this stuff, where Donny is saying it, on video, but I assume you haven't been living under a rock for the last 18 months, and thus already know about it and have somehow rationalized it all away. Maybe the Lamestream Media had an evil Trump stunt double who was saying all that crazy bullshit on video? Or it was secretly Hillary in orangeface and a bad wig?
Of course, we've all taken Trump too literally, which I learned just this week from the Lewmeister. Maybe trashing minorities of every stripe and giving the middle finger to women (which he bragged about doing in a grossly literal way) was just pleasant banter and he doesn't remember saying it. Or maybe he remembers saying it, but he didn't mean it because that's just how us Americans all talk around the dinner table and in the bar and in the locker room, "You know, Norm, there oughta be a way to track all those damn terr'ist moslems. Maybe like a number or something they have to wear all the time so we can know who the bad guys are."
This, exactly. Look, Trump's Muslim tracking plan (and most everything else about Trump) is batshit crazy and not-even-trying-to-hide-it evil.
BUT the fact that most huge companies don't wring their hands over responding to every question posed to them by random strangers is... common sense and completely unsurprising?
I could just as easily send a flurry of questionnaires to the mail room of every Forbes 50 company asking whether they support genocide and puppy punting. Get one of them to write back "No, we think that's awful" and all of a sudden "Only 1 of 50 Top Companies is Opposed to Genocide and Puppy Punting."
It's not even "gotcha" journalism--no one was gotten. MS said $formResponseToDiversityQuestion, and Twitter said "No." Everyone else didn't feel obligated to give these folks an answer.
The Trump Promise to the Good White Folks of America: No more facts you don't like, no more guff from those uppity minorities, plenty of pussy to grab, lots of new beachfront real estate.
Evil demagogue? You're saying this about GP and not Trump, am I getting this right? And you have no idea what GP is talking about? Here you go:
GS: "Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?"
Trump: "No, not at all"
That was the final word on Trump's proposal to create a database to track all Muslims, which he had tried to backtrack to just "refugees". I'm not sure if it came before or after his idea that mosques need to be placed under surveillance. In combination with the unconstitutional Muslim ban he proposed, and the... you know what, he's said so much fucked up shit just on this one topic that if you haven't bothered to educate yourself on it by now, I'm not going to waste my time. Here's a quarter, go fuck yourself.
Wait, was she an bloodthirsty anti-Russian crusader, just itching for her chance to start a nuclear war**? Or was she bought off by a $100M Putin bribe and nailed to the wall with ample Putin blackmail material, making her the perfect Russian puppet? I'm just trying to get the crazy Clinton theories straight. Though I would imagine the more fervent Trumpite conspiracists believed both at the same time. Gotta nuke em to get rid of the blackmail evidence!
**This might explain why Putin that he hacked our election to sink her. Or the more reasonable explanation that they just wanted to see chaos and weakness in their adversary, and heping elect a sociopathic narcissist with the attention span of a small child was a great way to do it.
Quick without looking it up. I have a plasma with a temperature of 1keV. How much Kelvin is that?
Are you really equating unit conversions that are really only needed if you're a physicist, with unit conversions ordinary people have to do all the time in their everyday lives?
But first, can we finally kill the pointless, arbitrary, and downright absurd concept of daylight "savings"?
No, lets start with metric measurements.
Even that, in small steps. We could start with the least beloved English units: weight and volume. Ounces, cups, quarts, and bushels can all suck it. If we're honest, probably no one here knows how many cups are in a gallon without looking it up--and we're an abnormally unit-conscious subset of the population. We can kill DST while we make this transition.
Then we can work our way up to the most contentious units. People are not going to give up their inches and miles and degrees F so easily, but they'll eventually come around.
And then, after that, we can go ahead and never adopt the idea from TFA because it's pointless, ridiculously hard to accomplish (and yet only works) on a global scale, and somehow manages to give the abstract notion of time even less meaning.
Instead of doing a bit of mental math or looking up what time it is in London, I have to know what everyone around the globe does at the (now meaningless) hour of 4pm. I touch down in Sydney at 10:45am, great! What do people do here midmorning? Because the moon is almost directly overhead, and the gate agents are vacuuming up a deserted concourse.
I'm trying very hard to think of a problem, big or small, that this nutty ideas actually solves for us. I guess it would save you the step of selecting a city in your time zone when you install a new OS? Sysadmins rejoice!
Slashdot Mirror
This.
As a parent, I get how easy it is to be absolutely paralyzed by fear of $everyBadThingEver happening to your child. I still have no sympathy for those who subject their own children and everyone else's to the very real threat of deadly, preventable diseases because of thoroughly discredited nonsense.
You're not allowed to put uranium in your kid's lunchbox because you mistakenly believe it emits Healing Jesus Waves; you shouldn't be able to send your kid to school with (even the potential of) active measles virus because you mistakenly believe the not-mercury in vaccines is going to give her autism.
Your freedom to believe post-truth pseudoscience bullshit ends at the point where it endangers my child's safety.
Sorry, I came at that obliquely. You are "preaching to the choir." What Trump is doing is fundamentally different (and worse) than whatever shenanigans any president in living memory** has done (or been accused of doing).
** Yes, Nixon included.
Just then the reverend wheeled about to face the singers, his back now to the congregation, and continued his sermon—oblivious as the choir mouthed back to him, in silent unison, "Whoosh."
hypocracy
I see what you did there.
Hasn't made it into the dictionary so far, but I can't think of another word for "Government by all the evil things you denounced to get you there in the first place."
It's funny that all of this stuff wasn't a big deal to you hyper-partisans when Clinton was accused of them, but they suddenly are a big deal when Trump is doing them.
Your rah-rah-my-team bullshit is fucking up our world. It's a big deal when both teams do it. (And I'm calling you out, Ami, because you were defending Clinton for these very same things.)
It's perfectly valid to point out and criticize hypocracy, regardless of whether one personally agrees or disagrees with the underlying position.
We have no evidence that the money being used to bribe Trump for access isn't being used for the good of the country. Somebody has to pay the troll armies to combat all the fake news! How do you think the dozen anon sockpuppet posts get to the top of any article about Trump?
Not even saying the name of the "college" in the summary is gong-worthy. I refuse to RTFA if TFS is a POS.
Kluge: An ordinary high-speed death toboggan, but with KDE graphical interface. Those who prefer GNOME on their bullet sleds might call it a "kludge."
#fuckthisheadline
/. editors.
Seriously, we know when we're being clickbaited. Knock it the fuck off,
They meant the hype for the asteroid is almost as large as Mars. This steely space rock is gonna be uuuuuuuuuge!
The Social Network 2:
Zuckerberg Gets Deposed About a Bunch More Shit
... How do I deal with this outside the normal and accepted channels modern humans are expected to go through?
Presuming you don't wish to do violence to his person or property... are you okay with marching into his office and beating the shit out of yourself?
This. To parent post and to HP.
I've yet to meet a single person that needs, or even wants, a laptop/tablet/phone that is 0.5mm thinner. But everybody needs longer battery life and more durable devices. And many of us need features (looking at you, headphone jack) that are sacrificed in the dubious pursuit of thinness above all else.
Ah, your use of SAT-words makes me feel so inferior, I'm going to cry now... Your chops are so intimidating.
Dude, you're on /., not Yahoo Answers. Using big boy words is not a badge of honor or an intimidation tactic. It's how adults discuss shit. For someone who loves to link dictionary definitions, you're going to dodge on this with some feigned sarcasm because the words I typed are too tough for you?
That 1st response you wrote response to me was "internally inconsistent; illogical" (incoherent, adj.) and "a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said" (non sequitur, n.).
If Trump's "grabbing pussy" without first obtaining a written permission from the owner was an assault, then so is making somebody "feel unsafe".
See, that's the definition of fallacy. The two have no logical relationship to each other. The dictionary definition you posted actually works against....
God damn it! I just realized I'm arguing with a fucking bot! Okay, you got me. To the computer scientist who created a nutty, illogical, derailing, pro-Trump bot that passes the Turing Test and sounds just like the real thing: Khoroshaya rabota, tovarishch!
For all the incoherent non sequiturs, you actually implied something very astute. Some of Trump's "pussy grabbing" may indeed not have been assault, strictly speaking. It appears sometimes he advanced his tongue and grabbin' hand so abruptly that there was no time for his victim to be "in apprehension" of the unwanted contact — he skipped straight past assault to sexual battery.
1) No, your analogy is ridiculous. It shows that, despite your desire to buff up the scholarly chops of your post with a link to a dictionary definition, you do not understand the legal concept of assault.
2) Not every goddamn thing is about "The Left" (or I suppose, by corollary, the heroic "Right"). By choosing to couch your entire worldview** in these terms, you do yourself a great disservice. When the only tool you have is a shoehorn, everything looks like a left or right shoe (to paraphrase Maslow).
But often times, as is the case here, you'll find yourself trying to jam a 1L Torts textbook into some weird partisan ideological clog, and it comes off as ham-fisted and inapt. What's next? Can we work "SJWs" in here somehow? Is it too much of a stretch to blame this one on Islam?
**If your worldview is somehow more nuanced, it hasn't come across in your prodigious post history.
Something something Trump something Clinton something Putin something something Brexit something Westworld!
That's a pretty weird list of items to wear on your wedding day.
Maybe trashing minorities of every stripe
Or possibly he was trashing the divide-and-conquer concept of 'minorities' as it's practiced by the plantation operators known as the Democrats.
If nothing else, insights like this are a significant takeaway from the November election. But there is a large body of people who refuse to acknowledge such insights.
That's not an insight, that's Andy Dufresne's Rita Hayworth poster. You can paper over the truth with all the contrived whitelash apologism you can muster, but Trump is still the gaping hole who ran a proudly racist campaign.
GS: "Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?" Trump: "No, not at all"
That was the final word on Trump's proposal to create a database to track all Muslims, which he had tried to backtrack to just "refugees". I'm not sure if it came before or after his idea that mosques need to be placed under surveillance.
I can update that statement with some better dates. The instances I can find of Trump talking about tracking Muslims ("Ooops! What I said about Muslims wasn't about Muslims, but refugees, mainly Muslim ones, or not, except wink wink it's about Muslims!") occurred in (at least) November 2015. The instances I can find of Trump talking about surveilling mosques occurred in (at least) November 2015 and June 2016. The instances I can find of Trump saying he wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the country occurred in (at least) December 2015.
I'd put in all the extra work to meticulously link all this stuff, where Donny is saying it, on video, but I assume you haven't been living under a rock for the last 18 months, and thus already know about it and have somehow rationalized it all away. Maybe the Lamestream Media had an evil Trump stunt double who was saying all that crazy bullshit on video? Or it was secretly Hillary in orangeface and a bad wig?
Of course, we've all taken Trump too literally, which I learned just this week from the Lewmeister. Maybe trashing minorities of every stripe and giving the middle finger to women (which he bragged about doing in a grossly literal way) was just pleasant banter and he doesn't remember saying it. Or maybe he remembers saying it, but he didn't mean it because that's just how us Americans all talk around the dinner table and in the bar and in the locker room, "You know, Norm, there oughta be a way to track all those damn terr'ist moslems. Maybe like a number or something they have to wear all the time so we can know who the bad guys are."
They were also the only one to give *any* answer.
This, exactly. Look, Trump's Muslim tracking plan (and most everything else about Trump) is batshit crazy and not-even-trying-to-hide-it evil.
BUT the fact that most huge companies don't wring their hands over responding to every question posed to them by random strangers is... common sense and completely unsurprising?
I could just as easily send a flurry of questionnaires to the mail room of every Forbes 50 company asking whether they support genocide and puppy punting. Get one of them to write back "No, we think that's awful" and all of a sudden "Only 1 of 50 Top Companies is Opposed to Genocide and Puppy Punting."
It's not even "gotcha" journalism--no one was gotten. MS said $formResponseToDiversityQuestion, and Twitter said "No." Everyone else didn't feel obligated to give these folks an answer.
The Trump Promise to the Good White Folks of America: No more facts you don't like, no more guff from those uppity minorities, plenty of pussy to grab, lots of new beachfront real estate.
Evil demagogue? You're saying this about GP and not Trump, am I getting this right? And you have no idea what GP is talking about? Here you go:
GS: "Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?"
Trump: "No, not at all"
That was the final word on Trump's proposal to create a database to track all Muslims, which he had tried to backtrack to just "refugees". I'm not sure if it came before or after his idea that mosques need to be placed under surveillance. In combination with the unconstitutional Muslim ban he proposed, and the... you know what, he's said so much fucked up shit just on this one topic that if you haven't bothered to educate yourself on it by now, I'm not going to waste my time. Here's a quarter, go fuck yourself.
Wait, was she an bloodthirsty anti-Russian crusader, just itching for her chance to start a nuclear war**? Or was she bought off by a $100M Putin bribe and nailed to the wall with ample Putin blackmail material, making her the perfect Russian puppet? I'm just trying to get the crazy Clinton theories straight. Though I would imagine the more fervent Trumpite conspiracists believed both at the same time. Gotta nuke em to get rid of the blackmail evidence!
**This might explain why Putin that he hacked our election to sink her. Or the more reasonable explanation that they just wanted to see chaos and weakness in their adversary, and heping elect a sociopathic narcissist with the attention span of a small child was a great way to do it.
Quick without looking it up. I have a plasma with a temperature of 1keV. How much Kelvin is that?
Are you really equating unit conversions that are really only needed if you're a physicist, with unit conversions ordinary people have to do all the time in their everyday lives?
But first, can we finally kill the pointless, arbitrary, and downright absurd concept of daylight "savings"?
No, lets start with metric measurements.
Even that, in small steps. We could start with the least beloved English units: weight and volume. Ounces, cups, quarts, and bushels can all suck it. If we're honest, probably no one here knows how many cups are in a gallon without looking it up--and we're an abnormally unit-conscious subset of the population. We can kill DST while we make this transition.
Then we can work our way up to the most contentious units. People are not going to give up their inches and miles and degrees F so easily, but they'll eventually come around.
And then, after that, we can go ahead and never adopt the idea from TFA because it's pointless, ridiculously hard to accomplish (and yet only works) on a global scale, and somehow manages to give the abstract notion of time even less meaning.
Instead of doing a bit of mental math or looking up what time it is in London, I have to know what everyone around the globe does at the (now meaningless) hour of 4pm. I touch down in Sydney at 10:45am, great! What do people do here midmorning? Because the moon is almost directly overhead, and the gate agents are vacuuming up a deserted concourse.
I'm trying very hard to think of a problem, big or small, that this nutty ideas actually solves for us. I guess it would save you the step of selecting a city in your time zone when you install a new OS? Sysadmins rejoice!