yes, i am familiar with this argument that risk is simply a numbers game. car accidents, cancer, etc. kill more
this argument just means i'm dealing with someone who is not too bright. you can't apparently understand more factors in ascribing risk, some of those factors ridiculously obvious, like intent. there's not much intent in cancer or a car accident, for example. but there is with al qaeda, which would gladly nuke a major city if they got their hands on a nuke. and of course, for saying that, i'm an alarmist in your eyes. a falsely complacent person would view someone more alarmed with a more rational lock on the nature of a threat would indeed just scoff. its this same false complacency that allowed 9/11: al qaida wouldn't do anything so audacious, they're just attacking the uss cole and african embassies. you're not listening to what they are promising to do and their persistence, logistics, motivation, support, perseverance, etc.
but i'm wasting my time. if you can't understand the obvious point that there are many factors in ascribing risk, that a simple number tally isn't even remotely valid, all there is to say is you're not too bright and move on
you generally have to have more substance in your comment than simply reversing and reflecting someone's accusations back at them to make an impression. "no, you!" hasn't been a useful rhetorical turn of phrase since elementary school
i hope i have helped educate you to some extent as to the precariousness of your thinking about our world, and that you will find the time to reflect and grow intellectually. good luck kid
yes, it is sad that a guy who can't use the shift key is schooling you on a subject matter you comment on from a position of ignorance, false complacency, and false equivalency
this man was invested with meaning to many of his followers. kill him and you hurt their morale and resolve
of course killing bin laden doesn't win the war, no one thinks that. but it's a major battle that is won in the war. very much a significant thing you celebrate
how about INTENT. a cancer is a mindless growth. a car accident is a mistake. a human being with the intent, promise, willpower, means, desire and opportunity to kill you... in your mind, same thing. oh wow, i see your genius now
al qaeda obviously intended the deaths of as many as they could get away with. the african embassy bombings, the uss cole, 9/11... notice a trajectory? what would al qaeda do with nukes? am i scaremongering? maybe you're falsely complacent. maybe you engage in false equivalency
oh but right, more people die of bladder cancer. therefore i don't have to worry about al qaeda. you actually think like this?
if the usa hadn't broken japan's will, many more would have died defending japanese soil, both american and japanese. as for the dresden firebombing, i agree: that was overkill
however i notice you didn't cite a single japanese or german atrocity, or the context in which those events took place. now, will you cite me the context of 9/11? i guess this is where you compare 1990s american foreign policy (or hell, trot out the cold war) as justification on par with the crimes of imperial japan and nazi germany. typical, stupid, tired.
false alarmism is a problem in this world, people hysterically overreacting in proportion to the nature of the threat
equally a problem, is exhibit A above: false complacency. unperceptive people underreacting in proportion to the nature of the threat
but don't worry my friend. you are completely untouchable and terrorism has absolutely no meaning in your life. don't worry your pretty little head about it. put your head back in the cloud, because we all know you are above it all
it is of course a sign of unintelligent obsession that so many can't bring themselves to view the world except through the lens of one mildly amusing piece of orwell fiction. i liked that book, "1984." i actually like "animal farm" better. but in either case, i didn't feel the need to form a religious cult around it and alter my entire perception of reality around the stupid book's themes
it is especially ironic to see orwell cited under this story, a story about a guy using twitter to tell the world what the government is doing. which is the ultimate expression of LITTLE BROTHER
the state can't abuse you in today's world without someone taking a cellphone picture or tweeting about it. and yet so many fools persist with the delusion that orwell is prescient about the reality we live in today, when he's OBVIOUSLY NOT
1984 is a just a piece of entertaining science fiction that lost its relevancy to reality sometime in 1970s. jesus fucking christ: the video of rodney king being beaten in 1991, 20 years ago, shows how technology has empowered LITTLE BROTHER, not big brother
really, some of you fucking morons and your quasi-religious cult surrounding "1984" really need to grow some brain cells and lose your obsession. it's not relevant anymore, by decades. your mind is ossified into irrelevancy with ideas outmoded well into the last century
so what do you do when the rabid dog is chewing on your throat or leg?
you assume wrongly that a blithe sort of untouchability is a possible reaction, nevermind a proper reaction, to someone who is intent on making you dead
"I don't hate rabid dogs nor do I celebrate when one is euthanized"
maybe you'd locate the impulse after they euthanized the dog that ripped your daughter's throat out
the point is, you deliver your blase opinions from this ivory tower devoid of sense or meaning to the rest of the world and its problems, as if osama bin laden never represented a threat to your well-being or the well-being of your beliefs. he did. that you don't know that simply represents that you are out of touch with reality
sitting in that ivory tower and delivering judgments from the point of view of false untouchability simply tells us you are unaware that you are part of this world. i'm glad some clueless teenaged twits are so comfortable in their western luxuries they feel so untouchable. i think marie antoinette felt the same way
you are part of this world, and touched by its events. don't forget that when you form your opinions, at your own peril
you are correct, i am not a well-mannered individual. politeness and civility have never been my strong points
however, the truth is sometimes an ugly thing. i said the guy above thinks like a slave, and he does. it may not be nice to say it, but it is true
i am not throwing baseless insults. i am objectively describing someone's mentality
to do so means i am a poorly mannered person. it also means i am a truthful person
i'm not politician, i never will be. so fuck civility. if someone says something stupid, i will call them out on it. you don't like my behavior? good for you. i fail to see the basis on which i should care
at some point you are going to have to attack the words i have actually written, rather than attacking a mentality that doesn't have anything fucking remotely to do with how i actually think, or words that i have actually written
good luck on your path to intelligence and communication skills, retard
the weird part is where you think xenophobia is the fault of those whom the xenophobe hates
the hate that bin laden represents is the creation and initiative of people whose hate would be pointed at anyone outside the muslim world. people who consider outsiders as the source of all the muslim world's frustrations do so with magical thinking, not facts. this is a mentality that has a life of its own completely regardless of anything the usa did. all you need is a need to blame others for your problems
thank you for helping them continue that mentality by agreeing with their inability to take responsibility for their own parts of the world. those who created the arab spring are working to improve the middle east, and if they succeed, blaming foreigners won't be anywhere near how they think. because taking responsibility for your own is how you begin to improve. meanwhile if those in the arab spring continue to blame outsiders, then the middle east will continue to be doomed
understand yet how your one-sided view of how accountability works is so stupid?
you do realize that the definition of the word coward has room for more meanings than the narrow one you have latched onto and are vigorously defending against all other meanings, for some reason
why is it so important to you that only one definition of the word prevail? my usage of the word is perfectly appropriate. but never mind that: it's interesting to me why you take such offense that the idea of cowardice should have broader meaning
what is the motivation here for you exactly? its quite odd to me
right, only the usa meddles in other people's affairs
and the usa is the only actor on the world stage, and the only source of motivation for everyone else. the usa causes all things. everyone else is merely reacting to the usa, and never has their own original motivations. if the usa disappeared tomorrow, the world would become peaceful and serene, since the usa causes all problems
or perhaps, a simpleton can only keep track one actor, and a simpleton has to ascribe all misery and blame to this one actor, because a simpleton isn't a very bright person and they can't understand that the world is a complicated place, with many actors
Slashdot Mirror
my favorite underutilized internet term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledildonics
were you to invent a transport protocol for teledildonics, you better call it PPintheTP, i don't care how you arrive at the abbreviation
you are saying simply using the file system causes one to become a murdering psychopath?
let me look at the warning label...
body odor due to infrequent bathing, involuntary celibacy, paleness due to lack of sun exposure...
nope, nothing about murder
is the only city I can think of in New Caledonia
the file system of choice for murdering psychopaths everywhere
how about some used sneakers?
yes, i am familiar with this argument that risk is simply a numbers game. car accidents, cancer, etc. kill more
this argument just means i'm dealing with someone who is not too bright. you can't apparently understand more factors in ascribing risk, some of those factors ridiculously obvious, like intent. there's not much intent in cancer or a car accident, for example. but there is with al qaeda, which would gladly nuke a major city if they got their hands on a nuke. and of course, for saying that, i'm an alarmist in your eyes. a falsely complacent person would view someone more alarmed with a more rational lock on the nature of a threat would indeed just scoff. its this same false complacency that allowed 9/11: al qaida wouldn't do anything so audacious, they're just attacking the uss cole and african embassies. you're not listening to what they are promising to do and their persistence, logistics, motivation, support, perseverance, etc.
but i'm wasting my time. if you can't understand the obvious point that there are many factors in ascribing risk, that a simple number tally isn't even remotely valid, all there is to say is you're not too bright and move on
you generally have to have more substance in your comment than simply reversing and reflecting someone's accusations back at them to make an impression. "no, you!" hasn't been a useful rhetorical turn of phrase since elementary school
i hope i have helped educate you to some extent as to the precariousness of your thinking about our world, and that you will find the time to reflect and grow intellectually. good luck kid
yes, it is sad that a guy who can't use the shift key is schooling you on a subject matter you comment on from a position of ignorance, false complacency, and false equivalency
this man was invested with meaning to many of his followers. kill him and you hurt their morale and resolve
of course killing bin laden doesn't win the war, no one thinks that. but it's a major battle that is won in the war. very much a significant thing you celebrate
where do i start?
how about INTENT. a cancer is a mindless growth. a car accident is a mistake. a human being with the intent, promise, willpower, means, desire and opportunity to kill you... in your mind, same thing. oh wow, i see your genius now
al qaeda obviously intended the deaths of as many as they could get away with. the african embassy bombings, the uss cole, 9/11... notice a trajectory? what would al qaeda do with nukes? am i scaremongering? maybe you're falsely complacent. maybe you engage in false equivalency
oh but right, more people die of bladder cancer. therefore i don't have to worry about al qaeda. you actually think like this?
right. you establish your mastery of the subject matter by saying its a braindead numbers game. of course, absolutely no other factors matter. naaaaah
if the usa hadn't broken japan's will, many more would have died defending japanese soil, both american and japanese. as for the dresden firebombing, i agree: that was overkill
however i notice you didn't cite a single japanese or german atrocity, or the context in which those events took place. now, will you cite me the context of 9/11? i guess this is where you compare 1990s american foreign policy (or hell, trot out the cold war) as justification on par with the crimes of imperial japan and nazi germany. typical, stupid, tired.
false alarmism is a problem in this world, people hysterically overreacting in proportion to the nature of the threat
equally a problem, is exhibit A above: false complacency. unperceptive people underreacting in proportion to the nature of the threat
but don't worry my friend. you are completely untouchable and terrorism has absolutely no meaning in your life. don't worry your pretty little head about it. put your head back in the cloud, because we all know you are above it all
it is of course a sign of unintelligent obsession that so many can't bring themselves to view the world except through the lens of one mildly amusing piece of orwell fiction. i liked that book, "1984." i actually like "animal farm" better. but in either case, i didn't feel the need to form a religious cult around it and alter my entire perception of reality around the stupid book's themes
it is especially ironic to see orwell cited under this story, a story about a guy using twitter to tell the world what the government is doing. which is the ultimate expression of LITTLE BROTHER
the state can't abuse you in today's world without someone taking a cellphone picture or tweeting about it. and yet so many fools persist with the delusion that orwell is prescient about the reality we live in today, when he's OBVIOUSLY NOT
1984 is a just a piece of entertaining science fiction that lost its relevancy to reality sometime in 1970s. jesus fucking christ: the video of rodney king being beaten in 1991, 20 years ago, shows how technology has empowered LITTLE BROTHER, not big brother
really, some of you fucking morons and your quasi-religious cult surrounding "1984" really need to grow some brain cells and lose your obsession. it's not relevant anymore, by decades. your mind is ossified into irrelevancy with ideas outmoded well into the last century
so what do you do when the rabid dog is chewing on your throat or leg?
you assume wrongly that a blithe sort of untouchability is a possible reaction, nevermind a proper reaction, to someone who is intent on making you dead
"I don't hate rabid dogs nor do I celebrate when one is euthanized"
maybe you'd locate the impulse after they euthanized the dog that ripped your daughter's throat out
the point is, you deliver your blase opinions from this ivory tower devoid of sense or meaning to the rest of the world and its problems, as if osama bin laden never represented a threat to your well-being or the well-being of your beliefs. he did. that you don't know that simply represents that you are out of touch with reality
sitting in that ivory tower and delivering judgments from the point of view of false untouchability simply tells us you are unaware that you are part of this world. i'm glad some clueless teenaged twits are so comfortable in their western luxuries they feel so untouchable. i think marie antoinette felt the same way
you are part of this world, and touched by its events. don't forget that when you form your opinions, at your own peril
because right now, since he was dumped at sea, they are probably feasting on him:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2067970&cid=35707738
hagfish, the ocean's morticians, the fate of all bodies that go to the deep
nastiest things on earth, consuming the nastiest human being
appropriate
that was war time. also, in which germany and japan happily committed the same atrocities, and were the aggressors
you are correct, i am not a well-mannered individual. politeness and civility have never been my strong points
however, the truth is sometimes an ugly thing. i said the guy above thinks like a slave, and he does. it may not be nice to say it, but it is true
i am not throwing baseless insults. i am objectively describing someone's mentality
to do so means i am a poorly mannered person. it also means i am a truthful person
i'm not politician, i never will be. so fuck civility. if someone says something stupid, i will call them out on it. you don't like my behavior? good for you. i fail to see the basis on which i should care
at some point you are going to have to attack the words i have actually written, rather than attacking a mentality that doesn't have anything fucking remotely to do with how i actually think, or words that i have actually written
good luck on your path to intelligence and communication skills, retard
the weird part is where you think xenophobia is the fault of those whom the xenophobe hates
the hate that bin laden represents is the creation and initiative of people whose hate would be pointed at anyone outside the muslim world. people who consider outsiders as the source of all the muslim world's frustrations do so with magical thinking, not facts. this is a mentality that has a life of its own completely regardless of anything the usa did. all you need is a need to blame others for your problems
thank you for helping them continue that mentality by agreeing with their inability to take responsibility for their own parts of the world. those who created the arab spring are working to improve the middle east, and if they succeed, blaming foreigners won't be anywhere near how they think. because taking responsibility for your own is how you begin to improve. meanwhile if those in the arab spring continue to blame outsiders, then the middle east will continue to be doomed
understand yet how your one-sided view of how accountability works is so stupid?
Orwellian?
am i supposed to laugh?
yes, that would be odd
assuming that what you just wrote had anything fucking remotely to do with how i actually think
"if Obama fails to close Gitmo with a year, that I advocate sending a team of special forces to take his ass out."
congratulations on threatening the life of the president publicly on the internet. this might be a problem with some law enforcement agencies
you do realize that the definition of the word coward has room for more meanings than the narrow one you have latched onto and are vigorously defending against all other meanings, for some reason
why is it so important to you that only one definition of the word prevail? my usage of the word is perfectly appropriate. but never mind that: it's interesting to me why you take such offense that the idea of cowardice should have broader meaning
what is the motivation here for you exactly? its quite odd to me
right, only the usa meddles in other people's affairs
and the usa is the only actor on the world stage, and the only source of motivation for everyone else. the usa causes all things. everyone else is merely reacting to the usa, and never has their own original motivations. if the usa disappeared tomorrow, the world would become peaceful and serene, since the usa causes all problems
or perhaps, a simpleton can only keep track one actor, and a simpleton has to ascribe all misery and blame to this one actor, because a simpleton isn't a very bright person and they can't understand that the world is a complicated place, with many actors