A couple of years ago, I was working in a PC repair shop (a real one, not a Geek Squad) with 6 other techs of varying ages (20ish to 45ish), most with 4-year college degrees or working towards them. We were having a discussion about the RIAA's actions, and I mentioned that I'm surprised that no jury in a RIAA-related case has voted for nullfication.
None of the other techs knew what jury nullification was. Furthermore, none of them believed that it was a real thing once I explained it. And *furthermore,* once I brought up the Wikipedia entry on jury nullification, they all just assumed that Wikipedia was wrong.
So it does not surprise me at all that people are unfamiliar with the concept. Most high schools don't even teach civics any more.
I think it was really more the introductory paragraph that claimed that relativity was some sort of liberal invention that affects people's ability to think. That's got to be one of the stupidest allegations I've ever heard.
Nowhere did the GP say that prisons are not effective at all. Good job beating up on a strawman. GP was implying that despite our huge incarceration rate, we don't seem to be better off than any other country in terms of crime statistics, so we clearly aren't getting much of a benefit from all the additional resources we're spending on it. If you can't understand the nuance of that position, I'm sorry.
Also, your signature suggests that you won't be interested in hearing any "theories" that disagree with your simplistic perspective, but here goes:
What if the current system, while protecting the general public for those 10 years of incarceration, then releases a criminal who is capable of even more negative consequences and has less regard for society in general than someone who went uncaught and had just been committing the same class of crimes for 10 years?
What if the current system encourages an us-vs.-them mentality between law enforcement and regular citizens, and makes dealing with law enforcement a much worse problem for people who are innocent?
What if the current system rewards a for-profit endeavor that causes longer sentences and creates more crime in the long run?
Yeah, they're all just theories, but if any one of them is true then we should probably look at fixing the system. Or we could just stick our heads in the sand and keep throwing money and law enforcement at the problem and just lock everyone up as you seem to endorse.
Well in this case, the government demanded a monopoly on doing something about it, so the only thing either side can do is demand that the government do something about it. I suspect there's plenty of folks (probably more right wing folk than left) who'd be perfectly willing to "do something" about the criminals, if they were allowed to do so.
Hmm, so you take away the government's monopoly on punishment, and that means that vigilante justice is the law of the land. That means criminals will have just as much right to exact their own form of justice as gun-toting right wingers.
Without the government backing those gun-toting right wingers, my bet is on the criminals.
Either way, I think someone has to be a complete idiot to suggest that vigilante justice would make the country a better place.
You don't have to do O(f(x)) calculations, you just have to be aware of them. Someone who understands big O should also understand that a construct like:
for (x = 0 to n)
for (y = 0 to m)
will grow proportionally to m*n. Someone with no understanding of big O might end up writing a painter's algorithm that does the same thing, and not understand why it performs so poorly as the size of the inputs grows.
Man, when/. posts a story on advertising all the whackos come out of the woodwork.
Ahh, so the truth finally comes out; anybody who has gotten fed up with the unethical (yes, unethical) nature of modern advertising is a whacko.
There couldn't possibly be *any* legitimate gripes against the advertising industry, right? Exploiting human psychology to sell shit is absolutely, without question, beyond reproach.
Marketing is fine, actually. Marketing is a useful function.
A lot of people conflate marketing with advertising though, and advertisers, for the most part, are scum that prey on people's base fears and emotions. Advertising should be informative; in almost all cases, it is not.
This isn't some sort of anti-piracy legislation, where Allofmp3.com or the Pirate Bay can just move their servers if needed.
These are real companies, selling real stuff, with real distributors and the vast majority will have a physical presence in the US. If they want to continue to do business in the US, they would need to follow the rules, just like everyone else.
Your point about costs still stands, but overall I see nothing wrong with putting tools in the hands of the public to force these invasive assholes to back off.
Alright, so you dispute the obvious hyperbole -- doctors don't really get paid in drugs and hookers. However, I find it telling that you don't seem to have any issues with the more important statements about payola in general.
I find it amusing that I'm coming to jcr's defense here, seeing as how he's one of those posters that makes me wish Slashdot had an "ignore" list, but seriously, that's the best you have?
And if it irritates the fuck out of you, I suggest you lighten the fuck up.
So, what you're saying is that you're a better informed 360 buyer?
I'm a fairly picky gamer, but my Wii library has about 35 games in it currently, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend nearly all of them to anybody. (My only real regret was Mad World... what a bore.)
My suggestion to you would be to stay out of the Imagine: Babiez section. You won't have to return so many that way. If you're returning so many games, it suggests that maybe you don't actually read up on them or know what you're getting beforehand. It's not like there are many surprises in games these days; FPSes are FPSes, EA Sports games are EA Sports games, and shovelware has always been shovelware. There's really no excuse for not knowing what you're getting before you play it.
So you think that if you agree when you sign up that you won't use more than a certain amount of bandwidth, and you end up using more than that, Comcast should just have to suck it up?
Strawman.
[you say...] The goal of society and government is to benefit certain people to the detriment of other people, based on who is part of the largest group and hence has the most votes.
Strawman.
So you want to legislate morality
Strawman.
You generally believe the purpose of the government is to benefit people you like at the expense of people you don't like.
Strawman.
If you really want to understand your debate opponent's position, try asking questions. Don't tell them what they think. If you want to expose your position, try statements with "I" in them. You have exactly one:
Personally, I don't believe forcing others to benefit you against their will is right, no matter what sort of populist veneer you put on it.
I don't think many people would disagree with you on this one, but because you don't say anything else about your opinion, it's difficult to know for sure if you have one beyond that overly simplistic statement.
If that's all he had said, the analogy would have been fine.
The part that I found hilarious was that he described it as a series of tubes as opposed to a truck. "The internet is not a truck." And then went on to say that, unlike a truck, tubes could be filled and get clogged. The problem is that a truck doesn't have infinite capacity either, so his comparison fell flat.
It *also* didn't help that he was using this analogy as a justification to violate net neutrality.
So no, I don't give a shit of the POTUS takes an emergency pee break in the farmer's field. I give a shit if the punk in his 20s pisses in my cola at the fast food restaurant.
<blinks>
So... I'm unclear on this. What are your feelings about the POTUS taking an emergency pee break in your cola at the fast food restaurant?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I spent the last 10-15 years relatively ambivalent towards Apple. They overcharge for their hardware, sure, but there's nothing wrong with that if you can get people to pay for it.
Then I saw an ad for the iPad that called it "magical." Then Steve Jobs went and lied about his competitors phones and got in an email argument with someone about how restricting porn on the iPhone app store makes people free.
At this point, my stance has changed to, "fuck Apple," and particularly, "fuck Steve Jobs."
Maybe they got a $3000 check for tuition and they blew it on a computer, and otherwise don't have a dime to their name.
That person is a fucking idiot that needs to learn to prioritize and to live within their means.
Sure, a small minority of people have an unlimited supply of $$, but I wouldn't be surprised if vast majority took out some line of credit to buy a $2500 "multimedia" PC for their college kid, simply because a highschooler from BestBuy told them that that computer will totally help them with photos, and movies, and homework...
Honestly, I don't think you could find a $2500 PC at BestBuy (or anywhere else at retail) unless you wander into the Apple section. Even finding a $1000 computer at retail is kind of tough unless you get something with a rounded corners or a unibody aluminum case.
I'm confronted with people who try and force their beliefs down my throat all the time.
Or, more likely, when confronted by a Christian "forcing their beliefs down your throat," you just don't notice, because it doesn't bother you as much as one of those damn gays trying to force you to not persecute or discriminate against them.
The way single player games are made challenging are to have bad guys with more strength/weapons/power than you, and/or cheating.
Yeah, you must be a FPS "hardcore" gamer. I'll bet the main bad guy at the end of Tetris was tough for you because of all the strength, weapons, and power he had.
Slashdot Mirror
A couple of years ago, I was working in a PC repair shop (a real one, not a Geek Squad) with 6 other techs of varying ages (20ish to 45ish), most with 4-year college degrees or working towards them. We were having a discussion about the RIAA's actions, and I mentioned that I'm surprised that no jury in a RIAA-related case has voted for nullfication.
None of the other techs knew what jury nullification was. Furthermore, none of them believed that it was a real thing once I explained it. And *furthermore,* once I brought up the Wikipedia entry on jury nullification, they all just assumed that Wikipedia was wrong.
So it does not surprise me at all that people are unfamiliar with the concept. Most high schools don't even teach civics any more.
--Jeremy
I think it was really more the introductory paragraph that claimed that relativity was some sort of liberal invention that affects people's ability to think. That's got to be one of the stupidest allegations I've ever heard.
--Jeremy
That's definitely one plausible explanation. Or it could be a combination of factors that don't entirely fit what you have already decided is true.
--Jeremy
So are you in favor of returning to alcohol prohibition?
--Jeremy
Nowhere did the GP say that prisons are not effective at all. Good job beating up on a strawman. GP was implying that despite our huge incarceration rate, we don't seem to be better off than any other country in terms of crime statistics, so we clearly aren't getting much of a benefit from all the additional resources we're spending on it. If you can't understand the nuance of that position, I'm sorry.
Also, your signature suggests that you won't be interested in hearing any "theories" that disagree with your simplistic perspective, but here goes:
What if the current system, while protecting the general public for those 10 years of incarceration, then releases a criminal who is capable of even more negative consequences and has less regard for society in general than someone who went uncaught and had just been committing the same class of crimes for 10 years?
What if the current system encourages an us-vs.-them mentality between law enforcement and regular citizens, and makes dealing with law enforcement a much worse problem for people who are innocent?
What if the current system rewards a for-profit endeavor that causes longer sentences and creates more crime in the long run?
Yeah, they're all just theories, but if any one of them is true then we should probably look at fixing the system. Or we could just stick our heads in the sand and keep throwing money and law enforcement at the problem and just lock everyone up as you seem to endorse.
--Jeremy
Hmm, so you take away the government's monopoly on punishment, and that means that vigilante justice is the law of the land. That means criminals will have just as much right to exact their own form of justice as gun-toting right wingers.
Without the government backing those gun-toting right wingers, my bet is on the criminals.
Either way, I think someone has to be a complete idiot to suggest that vigilante justice would make the country a better place.
--Jeremy
You don't have to do O(f(x)) calculations, you just have to be aware of them. Someone who understands big O should also understand that a construct like:
for (x = 0 to n)
for (y = 0 to m)
will grow proportionally to m*n. Someone with no understanding of big O might end up writing a painter's algorithm that does the same thing, and not understand why it performs so poorly as the size of the inputs grows.
--Jeremy
Ahh, so the truth finally comes out; anybody who has gotten fed up with the unethical (yes, unethical) nature of modern advertising is a whacko.
There couldn't possibly be *any* legitimate gripes against the advertising industry, right? Exploiting human psychology to sell shit is absolutely, without question, beyond reproach.
--Jeremy
Marketing is fine, actually. Marketing is a useful function.
A lot of people conflate marketing with advertising though, and advertisers, for the most part, are scum that prey on people's base fears and emotions. Advertising should be informative; in almost all cases, it is not.
--Jeremy
This isn't some sort of anti-piracy legislation, where Allofmp3.com or the Pirate Bay can just move their servers if needed.
These are real companies, selling real stuff, with real distributors and the vast majority will have a physical presence in the US. If they want to continue to do business in the US, they would need to follow the rules, just like everyone else.
Your point about costs still stands, but overall I see nothing wrong with putting tools in the hands of the public to force these invasive assholes to back off.
--Jeremy
Wow, an "I told you so" in the context of someone losing a baby? You must be a big hit at parties.
--Jeremy
I dunno, Terror Babies is also up there on the list of insane political ramblings, and it's a current national hot topic.
--Jeremy
Alright, so you dispute the obvious hyperbole -- doctors don't really get paid in drugs and hookers. However, I find it telling that you don't seem to have any issues with the more important statements about payola in general.
--Jeremy
Wow, what a rebuttal.
I find it amusing that I'm coming to jcr's defense here, seeing as how he's one of those posters that makes me wish Slashdot had an "ignore" list, but seriously, that's the best you have?
And if it irritates the fuck out of you, I suggest you lighten the fuck up.
--Jeremy
That's pretty much a wash, as "Controlled by Sun" isn't much better.
--Jeremy
So, what you're saying is that you're a better informed 360 buyer?
I'm a fairly picky gamer, but my Wii library has about 35 games in it currently, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend nearly all of them to anybody. (My only real regret was Mad World ... what a bore.)
My suggestion to you would be to stay out of the Imagine: Babiez section. You won't have to return so many that way. If you're returning so many games, it suggests that maybe you don't actually read up on them or know what you're getting beforehand. It's not like there are many surprises in games these days; FPSes are FPSes, EA Sports games are EA Sports games, and shovelware has always been shovelware. There's really no excuse for not knowing what you're getting before you play it.
--Jeremy
Those people are just the liberal counterpart to the conservatives who still think that GWB was the best president ever.
There are idiots who root for the home team on both sides.
--Jeremy
Strawman.
Strawman.
Strawman.
Strawman.
If you really want to understand your debate opponent's position, try asking questions. Don't tell them what they think. If you want to expose your position, try statements with "I" in them. You have exactly one:
I don't think many people would disagree with you on this one, but because you don't say anything else about your opinion, it's difficult to know for sure if you have one beyond that overly simplistic statement.
--Jeremy
If that's all he had said, the analogy would have been fine.
The part that I found hilarious was that he described it as a series of tubes as opposed to a truck. "The internet is not a truck." And then went on to say that, unlike a truck, tubes could be filled and get clogged. The problem is that a truck doesn't have infinite capacity either, so his comparison fell flat.
It *also* didn't help that he was using this analogy as a justification to violate net neutrality.
--Jeremy
<blinks>
So ... I'm unclear on this. What are your feelings about the POTUS taking an emergency pee break in your cola at the fast food restaurant?
--Jeremy
I can't speak for anyone else, but I spent the last 10-15 years relatively ambivalent towards Apple. They overcharge for their hardware, sure, but there's nothing wrong with that if you can get people to pay for it.
Then I saw an ad for the iPad that called it "magical." Then Steve Jobs went and lied about his competitors phones and got in an email argument with someone about how restricting porn on the iPhone app store makes people free.
At this point, my stance has changed to, "fuck Apple," and particularly, "fuck Steve Jobs."
--Jeremy
That person is a fucking idiot that needs to learn to prioritize and to live within their means.
Honestly, I don't think you could find a $2500 PC at BestBuy (or anywhere else at retail) unless you wander into the Apple section. Even finding a $1000 computer at retail is kind of tough unless you get something with a rounded corners or a unibody aluminum case.
--Jeremy
Or, more likely, when confronted by a Christian "forcing their beliefs down your throat," you just don't notice, because it doesn't bother you as much as one of those damn gays trying to force you to not persecute or discriminate against them.
--Jeremy
No, you just posted a flamebait-laden reply to something, and someone decided (justifiably) to spend their mod points on it.
When you write a post constructing a strawman, and then calling people names for "supporting" your strawman, you tend to attract flamebait mods.
--Jeremy
Yeah, you must be a FPS "hardcore" gamer. I'll bet the main bad guy at the end of Tetris was tough for you because of all the strength, weapons, and power he had.
--Jeremy