semantics get more attention than meaning for them
semantics n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) 1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language. 2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology. 3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics. (American Heritage Dictionary)
So the sentence-like thingy I quoted is meaningless. Since your whole argument is that your shitty grammar, punctuation, spelling, and general difficult-to-read quality can be ignored because you get the meaning across, you've managed to refute yourself. Kudos.
Just so you understand, let me break it down: You said all those grammar freaks suck because they're all about semantics, while you're all about meaning. That's nonsense.
Ignorance is one thing. Congratulating yourself for being intentionally ignorant is pretty nauseating.
The fact is that owning a functional TV set grants no more real freedom than owning a 30 yards yatch or a 100.000US$ sports car.
Good to own? Hell, yes. Either a human right or a liberty enhancer? Quite not.
3 things: First, this is all opinion, not fact. Second, I deliberately chose the word "freedom" over "liberty," because this isn't a matter of civil rights, it's access to technology. Third, you seem to have missed the part where I wrote:
It's got nothing to do with rights or needs.
With all due respect, you're missing my point. I'm not calling TV a necessity or a symbol of liberty. I'm just saying we might at least consider the impact of changes we make on those who are most impacted and least able to influence the debate. Also, that we might at least refrain from patting them on the head and saying, "Don't worry. It's for the best."
I disagree. There is plenty of complete horsecrap on TV, of course, but there is also a lot of good quality programming, like Frontline. Good movies, too.
Owning a TV doesn't mean you're a slave to it, but not owning a TV (or not being able to pick up OTA broadcasts) guarantees you are not a slave to it.
That's a lot like the thinking behind prohibition. I prefer to keep as many options for as many people as possible. The fact that people can screw themselves up by being irresponsible with their freedoms (not just rights - also having choices available) doesn't justify taking away those choices.
How so? The fact of the matter is there is little downside to not having a TV. It's not a right, it's not a requirement to fit in to society, it's not a requirement for local or national news. I just can't get too upset about a certain percentage of the population not being able to use their TV sets.
Because it's someone with the means to utilize a resource telling someone who doesn't have the means "I know what's best for you anyway." It's got nothing to do with rights or needs. It has to do with the fact that people in poverty have very high stress and very few pleasures in their lives. Maybe those of us who can make these choices shouldn't be so quick to rationalize decisions that take those choices away from others. Not because we owe it to them, or their lives will be a shambles without it. Just because it's basic decency.
I understand there are economic reasons for making these decisions, and I don't expect everything to be done with the plight of the poor guiding the decision. I just take exception to blithely saying, "Oh well, it's best for them anyway." That's patronizing. I'm not arguing against shutting off OTA per se, just objecting to this particular justification.
You may not believe this, but a lot of people do a lot of useful things with their time and also like to have to option of watching TV now and then. Owning a TV doesn't mean you're a slave to it and will never do anything else. That fact that we can all cite examples of someone who just watches TV all the time doesn't refute what I'm saying.
People always talk about this in terms of a (false) dichotomy: Either you're a professional couch potato, or you read 4 novels a week and spend the rest of the time training for the Tour de France. I realize parent didn't outright say this, but his comments sound rooted in this kind of thinking.
One we admit that TV is something that can be used responsibly, the argument that it doesn't matter if poor people can't afford it because it's good for them turns into something incredibly patronizing, which is how I see it.
OK, I'll answer seriously. I think the examples you gave are complete red herrings, because he hasn't ever done anything like cure cancer or discover unlimited energy. I'm honestly trying to think of something he's done that's laudable, and I'm not doing too well. The only one I can think of is his calling for tolerance and respect for Muslims in the US in the wake of the anti-Muslim backlash after 9/11. I was pleased by his call in the State of the Union address in 2003 (I think) to make a concerted effort to wipe out AIDS in Africa. But then he failed to fund it in any realistic way, and hasn't said anything about it since.
So yeah, I and people like me have criticized most of the things he's ever done, but they deserved criticism! Can you give me any examples of something wonderful Bush has done? Anything that prmotes the common good, that doesn't merely benefit big business or the wealthy, or throw a bone to the Christian right (e.g. effectively killing stem cell research)? Maybe his space program ideas are an example, but it's hard not to be suspicious given his past record. I'm taking a "wait and see" approach on that, but I'm not condemning it, either.
It's an honest question. What has he done that has made things better for us middle class folk? If you can give me an example, then maybe your hypotheticals are fair, but as I see it, it's unfair to say Bush can't do anything to please us, simply because he hasn't done anything that might please us.
But notice that the poster I replied to said: "You sound like the Mac or Firefox evangelist who spends half an hour showing how cool his tool is, changes someone's mind by revealing how it can be useful..."
So this hypothetical person is shown how great X is, but then decides against it because he doesn't like the evangelism. It ain't about credibility.
Not only that, but if someone tells me a bunch of stuff that makes rational sense, and then goes on to frothing irrationally, it does damage their credibility, but I think I'd be doing myself a disservice if I dismissed the sensible things he'd said. In either of the cases you presented, I'd probably at least look into it.
Re:Dvorak is very good
on
Advocating Dvorak
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You sound like the Mac or Firefox evangelist who spends half an hour showing how cool his tool is, changes someone's mind by revealing how it can be useful, then changes it back by going all weepy over it and making it clear this isn't about the tool qua tool. Big neon culty warning signs.
I don't understand this mentality. If someone convinces you something works, why would you decide to discard that simply because the person who convinced you turned out to be annoying? Either he's right or wrong. Why does the attitude of the messenger enter into it?
I agree that zealots are annoying. That doesn't mean they're always wrong, though.
I dunno how many years it's been since I was first link-spoofed into seeing goatse.cx, and I still have nightmares about it. Yes, I am easily disturbed by unnatural contortions of human anatomy. No, I was not too above this to pass it along to "friends."
I work in digital color management, and Quark's CM is unusable. Well, not quite unusable, just horrible. We've never been able to figure out what it's doing with ICC profiles. The best you can do is let a RIP do it all and hope Quark doesn't do anything weird upstream.
Problem is, so many prepress houses have used Quark for so long, they're stuck with it until they get up the gumption to undergo what may be a painful migration to InDesign.
With all the delays in OS compatibility, the color management nightmare, and all the other problems that have been metioned elsewhere, I can't imagine using it. They act as if they hate their customers.
It's a good example of how poor spelling, grammar, and syntax really undermine one's message. Those comma splices were egregious. Unfortunately, that's a common foible on the net. It's why I can't read gamer boards like gamefaqs for long. The all lower case, hyperabbreviated, comma-spliced, over-punctuated (!!!!!!!!) drivel just drives me insane after a while.
OS X ships with the firewall "on" by default, and every Mac user I know uses a virus scanner. Are you saying Apple doesn't make safe software?
Agreed about the firewall, but every Mac user I know doesn't use a virus scanner. They're unnecessary.
I do tech support for products that are about 50% Mac/50% Windows. There are some software problems caused by Mac antivirus programs (Norton or Virex), so I always ask if the user has one, and after having talked to many hundreds of Mac users, I'd say no more than 10% say yes. I've never run into a Mac user who's had one of those products actually detect a Mac virus.
This is setting off my bullshit detector big time. There has been so much nonsense lately about "pentawater," and homeopathic solutions that contain no active agent but supposedly retain a "memory" of it, not to mention the bottled water that's supposed to be charged up with extra oxygen (Dissolved O2 in water will just lay in your stomach and do nothing). Until they can come up with some chemical details and studies, I'm not ready to buy this.
The super-cheezy presentation doesn't really help, either.
Maybe the problems are going from hardware to software to some extent, but they aren't new. My first car I bought new was an 87 Topaz. I was driving it southbound on I-5 in Seattle, when it started slowing down for no reason. I stepped on the gas and it slowed down more. I let my foot up, thinking the engine was just failing, and I sped up like crazy. Turned out that whatever chip was controlling the throttle got borked somehow and it got inverted.
Man, that was weird. I pulled over, and had to floor it to stop. It required replacement of a pretty expensive part. Maybe if it were in software they could fix it more cheaply.
You spent an entire post talking about how ignorant and stupid I was,
Show me, please, where I ONCE called you ignorant, or stupid. Please. Just quote it. If you find it, I will apologize. I never called you a single name.
without offering a single fucking argument in the discussion
I argued that there was more to a sentence than doing time or paying a fine. I argued that it's reasonable to add surveillance to a sentence. In fact, I was very polite. Here's what I wrote:
I appreciate your viewpoint, and definitely have reservations about registration requirements. However, I think it's not unreasonable to assess penalties beyond a prison sentence.
I argued that slippery slope arguments tend to be flawed. In that post, I used "With all due respect," and also said "I understand your concerns." I was very polite, and made logical arguments, whether or not you agreed with them.
Then you came back with a lot of snarkiness yourself. You put the "It's for the children!" thing in my mouth and did exactly what you accuse me of: "It's just because." The terrorism argument was ridiculous, and I pointed it out.
You spent an entire post talking about how ignorant and stupid I was, without offering a single fucking argument in the discussion. How does that make me the first one calling names?
Yeah, I was snarky, but I never called you anything at all. Not once. I never called you stupid or ignorant. That is a lie. You called me patronizing and condescending.
Get a fucking clue, asshole.
Well, now it's crystal clear you're the first one to call names.
You haven't made a single argument against my argument other than calling it stupid.
I just searched all the text I wrote. I never typed "stupid." I said "silly" once. I was sarcastic, that's all.
That's not an argument. It's a "just because" argument. The rest of us grew out of that back in the sandbox years. Have you?
It's interesting. You earlier wrote this:
Why stop with sex offenders? Why not do this to all criminals? It would certainly make solving crimes a lot easier if you could look up a crime scene in a database and see who was there at the time. Well, like so many have pointed out, it's a privacy issue - and the presumption of innocence.
So you're wrong when you say this is not the first step on a slippery slope. This is in fact a running leap down the slippery slope... not just a first step.
Look what you did. The first paragraph says it's a slippery slope, and from that, the second paragraph concludes that it's therefore a slippery slope. You did exactly what you accuse me of. You were also pretty sarcastic as well. You seem to be able to dish it out, but when someone does the same to you, you get upset and indignant.
So, I repeat my offer: If you can find a sigle example of me calling you a name, quote it, and I will apologize.
To sum up: You offered sarcastic arguments to someone else, and I replied in disagreement, and gave the reasons I disagreed. So it's not true that I haven't made a single argument. I never once used the "just because" argument, but you did. I never called you a name, but you called me an asshole. I admit I was more sarcastic than you were. It wasn't enough to warrant your thin-skinned response, though.
Looks as if you don't have much of a leg to stand on, so you flew off the handle. I understand. You could accept my challenge and show me where I'm wrong, or honorably retract your falsehoods against me and apologize for calling me names.
That won't happen. Once of these will:
1 - Silence (most likely) 2 - Give an excuse (this has gone on too long, etc.) 3 - Say I'm not worth a reply and repeat accusation 4 - Call me an asshole and worse 5 - Act wounded
Congratulations. You are a humourless wad with a now terribly ironic Nick.
Huh huh. Racism funny.
Humor is stuff that's like, actually funny. Pretending to be exactly like the paranoid bigot wingnuts that infest the net isn't funny on its own. You need a little finesse. That was just stupid.
Show me some actual humor before calling me humorless.
I usually stop talking to people once they become condecending and patronizing.
Well, if you look carefully, you're the first one to call names here. I ridiculed your ideas, which deserved it, but not you. Still, I understand it's hard to keep going when you realize your argument is indefensible. Claiming the moral high road is always a good way to save face.
But, since I've been labeled patronizing, I may as well go all the way and point out that you misspelled "condescending."
Also, anybody who disapproves of Blacks is really just scared of them. Don't dignify their positions by saying that they disagree or that they don't approve. Instead, accuse 'em of having a phobia. That way was can totally ignore their point of view without having to feel bad about doing it
Congratulations. You've surpassed countless hot grits down the pants references to post the most asinine comment ever to appear on slashdot.
Strike a blow for bigots! What a noble and brave stand. How oppressed are the poor independent thinkers with thoughtful, reasonable reasons for blanket disapproval of an entire race. Kudos!
First, I never said I was against penalties beyond a prison term. I said I was against them being applied retroactively - and of course if they're unconstitutional.
To be fair, you didn't say that. You said applying it retroactively would be unconstitutional, and I agree. But you also said if you do the time or pay the fine, you're "square with the house." I'm not sure how to interpret that as anything other than the way I did.
In my state during the 90's, they came up with some scheme in which they kept sex offenders incarcerated after their sentences were over, based on some cockamamie loophole. I was dead set against it, because it was just slapped on as they were about to be released. It was rightly ruled unconstitutional. So we agree that applying a tacked-on penalty after trial is wrong. But what if it's part of the sentence?
I also have a problem with the fact that felons are stripped of their right to vote. The right to vote is a constitutional right, and is not something the government can take away from you.
Apparently it can, since it does. But it looks to me as if you are saying that rights explicitly given in the constitution can't be revoked. Then you say...
We as a society can temporarily revoke your freedom as punishment for a crime (or if you're too dangerous to live in our society), but we (society - congress and the justice system are an extension of society) cannot under any circumstances revoke your constitutionally guaranteed rights.
So a life sentence is "temporary?" That appears to be a permanent revocation of one's liberty, as is the death penalty. But then you say...
The constitution is what gives the government its powers. The Bill of Rights doesn't give us rights, it simply outlines the rights the government cannot under any circumstances violate. Since the government is an extension of the people, it cannot usurp power over the people
Now you say the constitution doesn't give us rights. Which is it? If it doesn't give us rights, how can we say you can't take away rights the constitution gives us?
The fact is, we take away basic rights from convicted criminals, temporarily sometimes, permanently others. It's contradictory to say we can take away some rights temporarily but cannot under any circumstances take them away, which you did say.
You know what... shit happens. You can't possibly watch over your kid 24 hours a day (even though you technically should, seeing as the kid is not responsible for him or herself). But you can take precautions that don't include violating the civil liberties of other citizens just to make you feel better.
Yeah, shit happens. You're raped and mutilated...aw, shit happens. You should have kept away from that rapist.
If the "shit happens" argument makes any sense at all, then we shouldn't have law enforcement at all. You have to take away a citizen's civil rights to lock him up, and of course we're doing it ONLY to "feel better," so how can it be justified? We can all take sensible precautions like not going near violent criminals, so what's the problem?
I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the "if we draw the line, there's no slippery slope" argument. Drawing a line in the sand doesn't mean it won't be crossed by overzealous politicians. Give the authoritarians an inch, and they'll swallow you whole when you're not looking.
I'm sorry you're frustrated, but you mischaracterize my argument. I'm not saying "if we draw the line, there's no slippery slope," I'm saying there already IS a line, and the only question is where we put it. Clearly the government can take away civil rights of felons, so what we need to figure out is which rights can and cannot be taken away. Or, we can go with the "shit happens" rule and not have any line, which means quit punishing criminals.
If we allow the current government to monitor citizens remotely, just to make us feel better, you can be certain a
The society we have built, uses a system of punishment for crimes committed. Once you've done your time or paid your fine, you're "square with the house".
This is not true. I don't know if it's true in all states (I'm just talking U.S. here), but felons usualy have their civil rights revoked (can't vote, serve on a jury, hold public office, a few other things). I realize this doesn't mean they have no rights at all. I'm just saying that it's not true that all penalties have been paid in full after release from prison.
So, talking about GPS tracking of sex offenders who have already served their time, is not the way to go and any law to that effect would be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm personally opposed to the sex offender registration requirements. They've already done their time. If you want to know where they are, change the sentencing guidelines offered through the legal system, don't punish them again after they've served their time.
I appreciate your viewpoint, and definitely have reservations about registration requirements. However, I think it's not unreasonable to assess penalties beyond a prison sentence.
It's your job as a parent to keep track of your children. It's your job as a parent to assume every stranger is dangerous to your child until you know otherwise. Don't expect the government to take care of your parental responsibilities.
With all due respect, this is a silly application of the "don't expect government to ___" argument. In the first place, it's not possible to watch children continuously, even for the most diligent parent. If a child is snatched on the way home from school, or playing in the park, is that parental negligence? Please. In the second place, law enforcement isn't a parental responsibility.
Why stop with sex offenders? Why not do this to all criminals? It would certainly make solving crimes a lot easier if you could look up a crime scene in a database and see who was there at the time. Well, like so many have pointed out, it's a privacy issue - and the presumption of innocence.
So you're wrong when you say this is not the first step on a slippery slope. This is in fact a running leap down the slippery slope... not just a first step.
What you're doing here is restating the slippery slope argument and then saying you've thereby demonstrated it's correct.
The problem I have with slippery slope arguments in general and this one in particular is that it has a (sometimes unstated) premise that if the line isn't drawn right here, there can be NO LINE AT ALL. Yes, we have to be careful with this sort of thing. Even so, I don't buy that it's simply impossible to implement this for higher level (here in WA, sex offenders are classified in levels) sex offender without it being applied to everyone else, too. It isn't just because we're afraid for children, it's because the recidivism rate for pedophiles is insanely high, and it's very hard to prevent.
I'm not necessarily advocating this kind of surveillance, but I'm not closed to the possibility, either.
BTW, I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I understand your concerns.
Sir, please refrain from stealing my jokes in the future. Thank you for your cooperation.
P.S. This is not a flame. It's just (-1, Offtopic) or perhaps (5, Charitable Mods).
P.P.S. Yeah, I know neither of us thought of it first. I've been here longer than most of you all, so I know what goes on, and poopy poo-poo on you. (-0.1 Lameflame)
Slashdot Mirror
And I don't expect editors to proof-read, either.
So being an editor doesn't require editing?
semantics get more attention than meaning for them
semantics
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
So the sentence-like thingy I quoted is meaningless. Since your whole argument is that your shitty grammar, punctuation, spelling, and general difficult-to-read quality can be ignored because you get the meaning across, you've managed to refute yourself. Kudos.
Just so you understand, let me break it down: You said all those grammar freaks suck because they're all about semantics, while you're all about meaning. That's nonsense.
Ignorance is one thing. Congratulating yourself for being intentionally ignorant is pretty nauseating.
Why was parent modded Funny?
I know, it's a rhetorical question.
The fact is that owning a functional TV set grants no more real freedom than owning a 30 yards yatch or a 100.000US$ sports car.
Good to own? Hell, yes. Either a human right or a liberty enhancer? Quite not.
3 things: First, this is all opinion, not fact. Second, I deliberately chose the word "freedom" over "liberty," because this isn't a matter of civil rights, it's access to technology. Third, you seem to have missed the part where I wrote:
It's got nothing to do with rights or needs.
With all due respect, you're missing my point. I'm not calling TV a necessity or a symbol of liberty. I'm just saying we might at least consider the impact of changes we make on those who are most impacted and least able to influence the debate. Also, that we might at least refrain from patting them on the head and saying, "Don't worry. It's for the best."
OTOH, TV has very little redeeming value
I disagree. There is plenty of complete horsecrap on TV, of course, but there is also a lot of good quality programming, like Frontline. Good movies, too.
Owning a TV doesn't mean you're a slave to it, but not owning a TV (or not being able to pick up OTA broadcasts) guarantees you are not a slave to it.
That's a lot like the thinking behind prohibition. I prefer to keep as many options for as many people as possible. The fact that people can screw themselves up by being irresponsible with their freedoms (not just rights - also having choices available) doesn't justify taking away those choices.
How so? The fact of the matter is there is little downside to not having a TV. It's not a right, it's not a requirement to fit in to society, it's not a requirement for local or national news. I just can't get too upset about a certain percentage of the population not being able to use their TV sets.
Because it's someone with the means to utilize a resource telling someone who doesn't have the means "I know what's best for you anyway." It's got nothing to do with rights or needs. It has to do with the fact that people in poverty have very high stress and very few pleasures in their lives. Maybe those of us who can make these choices shouldn't be so quick to rationalize decisions that take those choices away from others. Not because we owe it to them, or their lives will be a shambles without it. Just because it's basic decency.
I understand there are economic reasons for making these decisions, and I don't expect everything to be done with the plight of the poor guiding the decision. I just take exception to blithely saying, "Oh well, it's best for them anyway." That's patronizing. I'm not arguing against shutting off OTA per se, just objecting to this particular justification.
You may not believe this, but a lot of people do a lot of useful things with their time and also like to have to option of watching TV now and then. Owning a TV doesn't mean you're a slave to it and will never do anything else. That fact that we can all cite examples of someone who just watches TV all the time doesn't refute what I'm saying.
People always talk about this in terms of a (false) dichotomy: Either you're a professional couch potato, or you read 4 novels a week and spend the rest of the time training for the Tour de France. I realize parent didn't outright say this, but his comments sound rooted in this kind of thinking.
One we admit that TV is something that can be used responsibly, the argument that it doesn't matter if poor people can't afford it because it's good for them turns into something incredibly patronizing, which is how I see it.
OK, I'll answer seriously. I think the examples you gave are complete red herrings, because he hasn't ever done anything like cure cancer or discover unlimited energy. I'm honestly trying to think of something he's done that's laudable, and I'm not doing too well. The only one I can think of is his calling for tolerance and respect for Muslims in the US in the wake of the anti-Muslim backlash after 9/11. I was pleased by his call in the State of the Union address in 2003 (I think) to make a concerted effort to wipe out AIDS in Africa. But then he failed to fund it in any realistic way, and hasn't said anything about it since.
So yeah, I and people like me have criticized most of the things he's ever done, but they deserved criticism! Can you give me any examples of something wonderful Bush has done? Anything that prmotes the common good, that doesn't merely benefit big business or the wealthy, or throw a bone to the Christian right (e.g. effectively killing stem cell research)? Maybe his space program ideas are an example, but it's hard not to be suspicious given his past record. I'm taking a "wait and see" approach on that, but I'm not condemning it, either.
It's an honest question. What has he done that has made things better for us middle class folk? If you can give me an example, then maybe your hypotheticals are fair, but as I see it, it's unfair to say Bush can't do anything to please us, simply because he hasn't done anything that might please us.
But notice that the poster I replied to said: "You sound like the Mac or Firefox evangelist who spends half an hour showing how cool his tool is, changes someone's mind by revealing how it can be useful..."
So this hypothetical person is shown how great X is, but then decides against it because he doesn't like the evangelism. It ain't about credibility.
Not only that, but if someone tells me a bunch of stuff that makes rational sense, and then goes on to frothing irrationally, it does damage their credibility, but I think I'd be doing myself a disservice if I dismissed the sensible things he'd said. In either of the cases you presented, I'd probably at least look into it.
You sound like the Mac or Firefox evangelist who spends half an hour showing how cool his tool is, changes someone's mind by revealing how it can be useful, then changes it back by going all weepy over it and making it clear this isn't about the tool qua tool. Big neon culty warning signs.
I don't understand this mentality. If someone convinces you something works, why would you decide to discard that simply because the person who convinced you turned out to be annoying? Either he's right or wrong. Why does the attitude of the messenger enter into it?
I agree that zealots are annoying. That doesn't mean they're always wrong, though.
I dunno how many years it's been since I was first link-spoofed into seeing goatse.cx, and I still have nightmares about it. Yes, I am easily disturbed by unnatural contortions of human anatomy. No, I was not too above this to pass it along to "friends."
I work in digital color management, and Quark's CM is unusable. Well, not quite unusable, just horrible. We've never been able to figure out what it's doing with ICC profiles. The best you can do is let a RIP do it all and hope Quark doesn't do anything weird upstream.
Problem is, so many prepress houses have used Quark for so long, they're stuck with it until they get up the gumption to undergo what may be a painful migration to InDesign.
With all the delays in OS compatibility, the color management nightmare, and all the other problems that have been metioned elsewhere, I can't imagine using it. They act as if they hate their customers.
It's a good example of how poor spelling, grammar, and syntax really undermine one's message. Those comma splices were egregious. Unfortunately, that's a common foible on the net. It's why I can't read gamer boards like gamefaqs for long. The all lower case, hyperabbreviated, comma-spliced, over-punctuated (!!!!!!!!) drivel just drives me insane after a while.
OS X ships with the firewall "on" by default, and every Mac user I know uses a virus scanner. Are you saying Apple doesn't make safe software?
Agreed about the firewall, but every Mac user I know doesn't use a virus scanner. They're unnecessary.
I do tech support for products that are about 50% Mac/50% Windows. There are some software problems caused by Mac antivirus programs (Norton or Virex), so I always ask if the user has one, and after having talked to many hundreds of Mac users, I'd say no more than 10% say yes. I've never run into a Mac user who's had one of those products actually detect a Mac virus.
This is setting off my bullshit detector big time. There has been so much nonsense lately about "pentawater," and homeopathic solutions that contain no active agent but supposedly retain a "memory" of it, not to mention the bottled water that's supposed to be charged up with extra oxygen (Dissolved O2 in water will just lay in your stomach and do nothing). Until they can come up with some chemical details and studies, I'm not ready to buy this.
The super-cheezy presentation doesn't really help, either.
Maybe the problems are going from hardware to software to some extent, but they aren't new. My first car I bought new was an 87 Topaz. I was driving it southbound on I-5 in Seattle, when it started slowing down for no reason. I stepped on the gas and it slowed down more. I let my foot up, thinking the engine was just failing, and I sped up like crazy. Turned out that whatever chip was controlling the throttle got borked somehow and it got inverted.
Man, that was weird. I pulled over, and had to floor it to stop. It required replacement of a pretty expensive part. Maybe if it were in software they could fix it more cheaply.
Nahhhhh. Who am I kidding?
Thanks. I respect anyone who can admit when he's wrong (I recently made an ass of myself here and fessed up). I apologize for the tone.
Yep. I feel like an ass. Enjoy it.
Nope, I got no problem admitting it. You're right. I messed up. I admit it. Was having a bad day and my knee jerked.
Oh, well.
You spent an entire post talking about how ignorant and stupid I was,
Show me, please, where I ONCE called you ignorant, or stupid. Please. Just quote it. If you find it, I will apologize. I never called you a single name.
without offering a single fucking argument in the discussion
I argued that there was more to a sentence than doing time or paying a fine.
I argued that it's reasonable to add surveillance to a sentence. In fact, I was very polite. Here's what I wrote:
I appreciate your viewpoint, and definitely have reservations about registration requirements. However, I think it's not unreasonable to assess penalties beyond a prison sentence.
I argued that slippery slope arguments tend to be flawed. In that post, I used "With all due respect," and also said "I understand your concerns." I was very polite, and made logical arguments, whether or not you agreed with them.
Then you came back with a lot of snarkiness yourself. You put the "It's for the children!" thing in my mouth and did exactly what you accuse me of: "It's just because." The terrorism argument was ridiculous, and I pointed it out.
You spent an entire post talking about how ignorant and stupid I was, without offering a single fucking argument in the discussion. How does that make me the first one calling names?
Yeah, I was snarky, but I never called you anything at all. Not once. I never called you stupid or ignorant. That is a lie. You called me patronizing and condescending.
Get a fucking clue, asshole.
Well, now it's crystal clear you're the first one to call names.
You haven't made a single argument against my argument other than calling it stupid.
I just searched all the text I wrote. I never typed "stupid." I said "silly" once. I was sarcastic, that's all.
That's not an argument. It's a "just because" argument. The rest of us grew out of that back in the sandbox years. Have you?
It's interesting. You earlier wrote this:
Why stop with sex offenders? Why not do this to all criminals? It would certainly make solving crimes a lot easier if you could look up a crime scene in a database and see who was there at the time.
Well, like so many have pointed out, it's a privacy issue - and the presumption of innocence.
So you're wrong when you say this is not the first step on a slippery slope. This is in fact a running leap down the slippery slope... not just a first step.
Look what you did. The first paragraph says it's a slippery slope, and from that, the second paragraph concludes that it's therefore a slippery slope. You did exactly what you accuse me of. You were also pretty sarcastic as well. You seem to be able to dish it out, but when someone does the same to you, you get upset and indignant.
So, I repeat my offer: If you can find a sigle example of me calling you a name, quote it, and I will apologize.
To sum up: You offered sarcastic arguments to someone else, and I replied in disagreement, and gave the reasons I disagreed. So it's not true that I haven't made a single argument. I never once used the "just because" argument, but you did. I never called you a name, but you called me an asshole. I admit I was more sarcastic than you were. It wasn't enough to warrant your thin-skinned response, though.
Looks as if you don't have much of a leg to stand on, so you flew off the handle. I understand. You could accept my challenge and show me where I'm wrong, or honorably retract your falsehoods against me and apologize for calling me names.
That won't happen. Once of these will:
1 - Silence (most likely)
2 - Give an excuse (this has gone on too long, etc.)
3 - Say I'm not worth a reply and repeat accusation
4 - Call me an asshole and worse
5 - Act wounded
I hope I'm wrong.
Congratulations. You are a humourless wad with a now terribly ironic Nick.
Huh huh. Racism funny.
Humor is stuff that's like, actually funny. Pretending to be exactly like the paranoid bigot wingnuts that infest the net isn't funny on its own. You need a little finesse. That was just stupid.
Show me some actual humor before calling me humorless.
I usually stop talking to people once they become condecending and patronizing.
Well, if you look carefully, you're the first one to call names here. I ridiculed your ideas, which deserved it, but not you. Still, I understand it's hard to keep going when you realize your argument is indefensible. Claiming the moral high road is always a good way to save face.
But, since I've been labeled patronizing, I may as well go all the way and point out that you misspelled "condescending."
Also, anybody who disapproves of Blacks is really just scared of them. Don't dignify their positions by saying that they disagree or that they don't approve. Instead, accuse 'em of having a phobia. That way was can totally ignore their point of view without having to feel bad about doing it
Congratulations. You've surpassed countless hot grits down the pants references to post the most asinine comment ever to appear on slashdot.
Strike a blow for bigots! What a noble and brave stand. How oppressed are the poor independent thinkers with thoughtful, reasonable reasons for blanket disapproval of an entire race. Kudos!
"Disapproves of Blacks." WTF?
First, I never said I was against penalties beyond a prison term. I said I was against them being applied retroactively - and of course if they're unconstitutional.
To be fair, you didn't say that. You said applying it retroactively would be unconstitutional, and I agree. But you also said if you do the time or pay the fine, you're "square with the house." I'm not sure how to interpret that as anything other than the way I did.
In my state during the 90's, they came up with some scheme in which they kept sex offenders incarcerated after their sentences were over, based on some cockamamie loophole. I was dead set against it, because it was just slapped on as they were about to be released. It was rightly ruled unconstitutional. So we agree that applying a tacked-on penalty after trial is wrong. But what if it's part of the sentence?
I also have a problem with the fact that felons are stripped of their right to vote. The right to vote is a constitutional right, and is not something the government can take away from you.
Apparently it can, since it does. But it looks to me as if you are saying that rights explicitly given in the constitution can't be revoked. Then you say...
We as a society can temporarily revoke your freedom as punishment for a crime (or if you're too dangerous to live in our society), but we (society - congress and the justice system are an extension of society) cannot under any circumstances revoke your constitutionally guaranteed rights.
So a life sentence is "temporary?" That appears to be a permanent revocation of one's liberty, as is the death penalty. But then you say...
The constitution is what gives the government its powers. The Bill of Rights doesn't give us rights, it simply outlines the rights the government cannot under any circumstances violate.
Since the government is an extension of the people, it cannot usurp power over the people
Now you say the constitution doesn't give us rights. Which is it? If it doesn't give us rights, how can we say you can't take away rights the constitution gives us?
The fact is, we take away basic rights from convicted criminals, temporarily sometimes, permanently others. It's contradictory to say we can take away some rights temporarily but cannot under any circumstances take them away, which you did say.
You know what... shit happens. You can't possibly watch over your kid 24 hours a day (even though you technically should, seeing as the kid is not responsible for him or herself). But you can take precautions that don't include violating the civil liberties of other citizens just to make you feel better.
Yeah, shit happens. You're raped and mutilated...aw, shit happens. You should have kept away from that rapist.
If the "shit happens" argument makes any sense at all, then we shouldn't have law enforcement at all. You have to take away a citizen's civil rights to lock him up, and of course we're doing it ONLY to "feel better," so how can it be justified? We can all take sensible precautions like not going near violent criminals, so what's the problem?
I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the "if we draw the line, there's no slippery slope" argument.
Drawing a line in the sand doesn't mean it won't be crossed by overzealous politicians. Give the authoritarians an inch, and they'll swallow you whole when you're not looking.
I'm sorry you're frustrated, but you mischaracterize my argument. I'm not saying "if we draw the line, there's no slippery slope," I'm saying there already IS a line, and the only question is where we put it. Clearly the government can take away civil rights of felons, so what we need to figure out is which rights can and cannot be taken away. Or, we can go with the "shit happens" rule and not have any line, which means quit punishing criminals.
If we allow the current government to monitor citizens remotely, just to make us feel better, you can be certain a
The society we have built, uses a system of punishment for crimes committed. Once you've done your time or paid your fine, you're "square with the house".
This is not true. I don't know if it's true in all states (I'm just talking U.S. here), but felons usualy have their civil rights revoked (can't vote, serve on a jury, hold public office, a few other things). I realize this doesn't mean they have no rights at all. I'm just saying that it's not true that all penalties have been paid in full after release from prison.
So, talking about GPS tracking of sex offenders who have already served their time, is not the way to go and any law to that effect would be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm personally opposed to the sex offender registration requirements. They've already done their time. If you want to know where they are, change the sentencing guidelines offered through the legal system, don't punish them again after they've served their time.
I appreciate your viewpoint, and definitely have reservations about registration requirements. However, I think it's not unreasonable to assess penalties beyond a prison sentence.
It's your job as a parent to keep track of your children. It's your job as a parent to assume every stranger is dangerous to your child until you know otherwise. Don't expect the government to take care of your parental responsibilities.
With all due respect, this is a silly application of the "don't expect government to ___" argument. In the first place, it's not possible to watch children continuously, even for the most diligent parent. If a child is snatched on the way home from school, or playing in the park, is that parental negligence? Please. In the second place, law enforcement isn't a parental responsibility.
Why stop with sex offenders? Why not do this to all criminals? It would certainly make solving crimes a lot easier if you could look up a crime scene in a database and see who was there at the time.
Well, like so many have pointed out, it's a privacy issue - and the presumption of innocence.
So you're wrong when you say this is not the first step on a slippery slope. This is in fact a running leap down the slippery slope... not just a first step.
What you're doing here is restating the slippery slope argument and then saying you've thereby demonstrated it's correct.
The problem I have with slippery slope arguments in general and this one in particular is that it has a (sometimes unstated) premise that if the line isn't drawn right here, there can be NO LINE AT ALL. Yes, we have to be careful with this sort of thing. Even so, I don't buy that it's simply impossible to implement this for higher level (here in WA, sex offenders are classified in levels) sex offender without it being applied to everyone else, too. It isn't just because we're afraid for children, it's because the recidivism rate for pedophiles is insanely high, and it's very hard to prevent.
I'm not necessarily advocating this kind of surveillance, but I'm not closed to the possibility, either.
BTW, I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I understand your concerns.
Sir, please refrain from stealing my jokes in the future. Thank you for your cooperation.
P.S. This is not a flame. It's just (-1, Offtopic) or perhaps (5, Charitable Mods).
P.P.S. Yeah, I know neither of us thought of it first. I've been here longer than most of you all, so I know what goes on, and poopy poo-poo on you. (-0.1 Lameflame)
P.P.P.S. Slow work day.