Probably a modification of the infamous phrase from Comic Book Guy, 'Worst. Episode. Ever.', with the full stops there to add dramatic pause between each word. Personally I'd have used semicolons.
No, it doesn't, but then I'm not trying to prove a logical argument. This isn't mathematics, it's politics. How often can you guarantee a political argument to be correct? Likelihood with uncertainty is surely what argument is all about; if you could prove it, there wouldn't be much to argue about, would there?
I think people that say it's a fallacy in formal logic are missing the rather obvious point that debate isn't formal logic.
I think I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I do have to insert a 'not really true' here.
It's fair enough to say that about fundamental human rights (like the right not to have the government fuck about with your body, or whatever one that falls under), but I wouldn't say that about everything. For example, I think it's right that an immigrant should get deported if they commit a serious criminal offence, and perhaps right that they should have to take a citizenship test after a period of time to be allowed to stay in the country. Clearly these don't apply to citizens. Other circumstances no doubt exist where it's reasonable to treat immigrants differently as well.
How is the slippery slope argument always a fallacy?
What if I say that implementing a law that allows police to use lethal force when dealing with terrorists is a slippery slope as it would make future laws allowing police to use lethal force in other situations more likely? As long as you accept that the enactment of the first law makes the others more likely, which in this case we do because it softens public resistance to them, the argument holds.
Yup. No way should you be able to stop a murderer, or someone having consentual sex with your 8 year old daughter, you don't get to control what they do.
Those bits aren't out in public, they're covered by clothing. Hence the phrase "private parts". But if someone walks naked down the street, then you absolutely have the right to take their photo and stick it on the internet.
Someone walking naked down the street is not the test. That kind of person would expect to draw attention to themselves anyway, without CCTV. The test is an average person, walking down the street minding their own business; would they expect to get watched without CCTV? If the answer is no, they should NOT be monitored with CCTV either, IMHO. OK, at the entrance to a nightclub you'd expect to get monitored by the bouncers anyway, CCTV is OK. In a residential car park you'd expect to get watched by the odd person out of their window, CCTV is OK. But on a high street, in a park, etc... I think it's unjustifiable.
But if something can be seen without extraordinary effort (such as your upskirt camera), and you do it in public, you shouldn't expect it to be secret.
Then we totally disagree. You sound like a sick voyeur. Get a life.
Back when I had Sky Digital, the only thing I did notice the phoneline being used for was.... interactive things like polls on Sky News you could vote on. Not surprising really.
Anyhow about this movies-over-terrestrial thing - I presume this service is terrestrial transmission - how exactly does it work? Yeah I read the article, and it says it piggybacks on PBS's signal. I presume it's some kind of digital transmission. But we have quite a bit of digital terrestrial transmission going on here in the UK, and even we can only get 30-40 channels on the stream. So, I presume the movies aren't being streamed live, they're being downloaded slowly. In which case, what happens with you first buy the box? I guess either you have no movies at first until some have been downloaded, or it comes pre-installed with a set of recent ones?
No need to worry. In future, Firefox will by default silently download updates in the background and silently install them when you restart the browser. You won't even know! Who says it has to be spyware to install stuff without your knowledge?
Heh. The BBC in the UK has been running this story on TV and radio in the UK all day now. I found it rather amusing at lunchtime hearing the woman tell her story. Simply because it was the story of just another person that clicked on a popup ad in IE, downloaded/ran some software and got hijacked. Yet the BBC chose to make a deal out of it. Must have been a slow news day, Iraq just doesn't interest like it used to.
But does it save as much energy as turning the thing off? If it uses as much as, say, a TV in standby mode, imagine that extra being used in millions of PCs all over the world, all night, every night (at minimum). Lots of cumulative extra enrgy usage.
Just to point out: Although it may have been implied in the summary, notice that the poster didn't actually specify that it was VB6. He could've been talking about VB.net anyway.
One of my favourites is Americans' use of the word 'bathroom'. Sure, we use it, but to mean we're going to a room that has a bath. You use it to mean you're taking a shit. This culminates with such hilarious lines as "I'm not going to the bathroom in the back yard!"; sure, because the bathroom is in the house! Thanks to The Simpsons for that one.
Perhaps it's made you a more tolerant person, more able to derive their own morals than having to accept them from a 2000 year old book.
Perhaps it's meant you have a lot more time because you're not regularly having to go praise a god you're not at all sure exists, at least in a form described by religions.
but who may have, at the end of the story, "saved" himself by shooting himself in the head
Yeah, well that ending is retarded. He shoots himself with the gun pointed to the back of his throat. The best that would happen is he would seriously damage his spine and be crippled for life, or (very likely) rupture an artery and choke/bleed to death very quickly. The end of the film shows him choking a bit but recovering to virtually normal. Dumb. He should have actually died. Anyway, wasn't the point that the only way to relieve his insanity was to, well, die? Shooting and wounding himself wouldn't have done it.
I've been punched, kicked, and kneed in the head, I took a car door to the side of the head, fell off a mezzanine on my head, and been hit in the side of the head with a baseball bat.
grumpfucker wrote, "The so-called 'hypocrisy' is no different than any other country - all play their own game."
On the contrary, there are differences of hypocrisy. The magnitude of Chinese hypocrisy is shocking.
This is nitpicky, but for the record: 'on the contrary' means that the truth is the opposite of what you're referring to. The contrary would be that the so-called hypocracy *IS* different to any other country. Your point is one of magnitude, not opposites. Don't misuse the term.:-)
AP Bio was tied with anatomy so we dissected a cat in June. It really doesn't get better than that.
Oh, I bet it does. How about disecting a baby, ever done that? Or maybe a cripple. Ya know, another form of life that's less important than ours. I bet that's a real wheeze.
Note: This is rather tongue-in-cheek, not meant to be flamebait.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably a modification of the infamous phrase from Comic Book Guy, 'Worst. Episode. Ever.', with the full stops there to add dramatic pause between each word. Personally I'd have used semicolons.
No, it doesn't, but then I'm not trying to prove a logical argument. This isn't mathematics, it's politics. How often can you guarantee a political argument to be correct? Likelihood with uncertainty is surely what argument is all about; if you could prove it, there wouldn't be much to argue about, would there?
I think people that say it's a fallacy in formal logic are missing the rather obvious point that debate isn't formal logic.
I think I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I do have to insert a 'not really true' here.
It's fair enough to say that about fundamental human rights (like the right not to have the government fuck about with your body, or whatever one that falls under), but I wouldn't say that about everything. For example, I think it's right that an immigrant should get deported if they commit a serious criminal offence, and perhaps right that they should have to take a citizenship test after a period of time to be allowed to stay in the country. Clearly these don't apply to citizens. Other circumstances no doubt exist where it's reasonable to treat immigrants differently as well.
How is the slippery slope argument always a fallacy?
What if I say that implementing a law that allows police to use lethal force when dealing with terrorists is a slippery slope as it would make future laws allowing police to use lethal force in other situations more likely? As long as you accept that the enactment of the first law makes the others more likely, which in this case we do because it softens public resistance to them, the argument holds.
Did someone just pass an English as the official language bill, too? Brave patriotism, craven-politician-style.
Definitely, especially when the president can't speak it.
Yup. No way should you be able to stop a murderer, or someone having consentual sex with your 8 year old daughter, you don't get to control what they do.
Those bits aren't out in public, they're covered by clothing. Hence the phrase "private parts". But if someone walks naked down the street, then you absolutely have the right to take their photo and stick it on the internet.
Someone walking naked down the street is not the test. That kind of person would expect to draw attention to themselves anyway, without CCTV. The test is an average person, walking down the street minding their own business; would they expect to get watched without CCTV? If the answer is no, they should NOT be monitored with CCTV either, IMHO. OK, at the entrance to a nightclub you'd expect to get monitored by the bouncers anyway, CCTV is OK. In a residential car park you'd expect to get watched by the odd person out of their window, CCTV is OK. But on a high street, in a park, etc... I think it's unjustifiable.
But if something can be seen without extraordinary effort (such as your upskirt camera), and you do it in public, you shouldn't expect it to be secret.
Then we totally disagree. You sound like a sick voyeur. Get a life.
If you oppose this data retention, you must hate children. You don't hate children, do you?
Well, paedophiles sure don't.
Back when I had Sky Digital, the only thing I did notice the phoneline being used for was.... interactive things like polls on Sky News you could vote on. Not surprising really.
Anyhow about this movies-over-terrestrial thing - I presume this service is terrestrial transmission - how exactly does it work? Yeah I read the article, and it says it piggybacks on PBS's signal. I presume it's some kind of digital transmission. But we have quite a bit of digital terrestrial transmission going on here in the UK, and even we can only get 30-40 channels on the stream. So, I presume the movies aren't being streamed live, they're being downloaded slowly. In which case, what happens with you first buy the box? I guess either you have no movies at first until some have been downloaded, or it comes pre-installed with a set of recent ones?
No need to worry. In future, Firefox will by default silently download updates in the background and silently install them when you restart the browser. You won't even know! Who says it has to be spyware to install stuff without your knowledge?
Wouldn't a lightbulb be a little small, and uncomfortable, to screw in?
They were dumb enough to click on a popup ad, download the software and run it in the first place. Think about it. :-)
Heh. The BBC in the UK has been running this story on TV and radio in the UK all day now. I found it rather amusing at lunchtime hearing the woman tell her story. Simply because it was the story of just another person that clicked on a popup ad in IE, downloaded/ran some software and got hijacked. Yet the BBC chose to make a deal out of it. Must have been a slow news day, Iraq just doesn't interest like it used to.
Oh well, glad I don't pay my licence fee.
But does it save as much energy as turning the thing off? If it uses as much as, say, a TV in standby mode, imagine that extra being used in millions of PCs all over the world, all night, every night (at minimum). Lots of cumulative extra enrgy usage.
Just to point out: Although it may have been implied in the summary, notice that the poster didn't actually specify that it was VB6. He could've been talking about VB.net anyway.
One of my favourites is Americans' use of the word 'bathroom'. Sure, we use it, but to mean we're going to a room that has a bath. You use it to mean you're taking a shit. This culminates with such hilarious lines as "I'm not going to the bathroom in the back yard!"; sure, because the bathroom is in the house! Thanks to The Simpsons for that one.
Perhaps it's made you a more tolerant person, more able to derive their own morals than having to accept them from a 2000 year old book.
Perhaps it's meant you have a lot more time because you're not regularly having to go praise a god you're not at all sure exists, at least in a form described by religions.
but who may have, at the end of the story, "saved" himself by shooting himself in the head
Yeah, well that ending is retarded. He shoots himself with the gun pointed to the back of his throat. The best that would happen is he would seriously damage his spine and be crippled for life, or (very likely) rupture an artery and choke/bleed to death very quickly. The end of the film shows him choking a bit but recovering to virtually normal. Dumb. He should have actually died. Anyway, wasn't the point that the only way to relieve his insanity was to, well, die? Shooting and wounding himself wouldn't have done it.
I've been punched, kicked, and kneed in the head, I took a car door to the side of the head, fell off a mezzanine on my head, and been hit in the side of the head with a baseball bat.
Is your name Homer Simpson?
Now if only the Chinese people would rather execute their current government than hear what they have to say.
grumpfucker wrote, "The so-called 'hypocrisy' is no different than any other country - all play their own game."
:-)
On the contrary, there are differences of hypocrisy. The magnitude of Chinese hypocrisy is shocking.
This is nitpicky, but for the record: 'on the contrary' means that the truth is the opposite of what you're referring to. The contrary would be that the so-called hypocracy *IS* different to any other country. Your point is one of magnitude, not opposites. Don't misuse the term.
AP Bio was tied with anatomy so we dissected a cat in June. It really doesn't get better than that.
Oh, I bet it does. How about disecting a baby, ever done that? Or maybe a cripple. Ya know, another form of life that's less important than ours. I bet that's a real wheeze.
Note: This is rather tongue-in-cheek, not meant to be flamebait.
Doesn't everyone take a calculator with them?
(Actually, after I thought for a few seconds, this probably is actually true now - most mobile phones!!!)
You just can't pick and choose when you want the government's involvement on an issue.
Excuse me for being naive, but I thought that was *exactly* what democracy was about; this compromise.
The alternatives are anarchy, or 100% government control.