I've said it before, I'll say it again: selective enforcement. Blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a much higher rate than whites, for the same rate of crime. So implying that blacks are more criminal because we prosecute and incarcerate them more frequently is inherently racist.
This is hilarious. You are a conspiracy theorist. This is a conspiracy theory for "racism." Anything you can say to make me look like an idiot is wrong, because the government made it look that way. If you want to believe that, fine, but if you want to say it, please provide evidence.
You brought up the drug war issue, that is part of the overall racist picture of law enforcement. Think about the level of damage a single white collar criminal can inflict, stealing millions of dollars, putting whole neighborhoods at risk with criminal pollution and avoidance of regulation, and even leading to wide scale death, as in Bhopal. Yet they are rarely caught, even more rarely prosecuted, yet more rarely incarcerated, and when they are, it is for minimal time.
If you were to compare the level of damage caused by white criminals as opposed to black criminals, the white criminals would be off the charts. Yet blacks are the ones targeted. And we have the highest overall rate of incarceration in the free world. Yep, it's a great country.
You know what? You are almost right. There is a bigger emphasis on victimless crime, and that's a shame. But you're the racist here. You're the one who seems people as groups and think there's some sort of inherent advantage or disadvantage to any particular group. If you didn't look at people collectively (instead of individually), then you'd just be saying we need to stop all of this nonsense like the War on Drugs. But no! You have to put this 'oppressing the black' people spin on it. Not only that, but you keep saying 'white people do this' and 'black people do that.' Really? In case you hadn't noticed, there are both white people dealing in drugs and black people dealing in shady business practices. Yes, black people can have white collar jobs too. Did you not realize that? Yeah, that's because they're free.. since quite a while now. Maybe you should've been paying attention.
And I don't know who said anything about the country being great. I don't know if you're just a bitter douchebag, a pseudotroll, or you really are this stupid. I'll hedge my bets on the latter.
I think the comment I quoted in bold last is pretty telling. Who is reallythe one with the "racist comments" here?
Screw you for being a fucking MORON. For one thing, there's no such god damn thing as a "racist comment." Racism is an idea. It's not a comment.
Second, you didn't provide any evidence for your claims whatever.
Third, your reading comprehension is HORRIBLE. Ron Paul never said anything about 95% of black males being criminals. He was making a point about the criminal justice system.
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.
Perhaps you'd like to take your dumb fucking ass and read it a few times before spouting your stupid mouth off.
Fourth,
Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
Not only is this a valid statistical argument, but, even if he truly meant that black people are inherently more likely to commit murders because of their "race" alone (and he didn't -- again, he was using a rhetorical device), that's not "racism." Racism is the belief that one race is either superior or inferior to another race or races. You may be confusing racism with what we like to call 'stereotyping.'
Fifth,
Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.
I honestly don't even see how that's arguable. It certainly has nothing to do with racism, even if it's wrong. It just doesn't have anything to do with it whatsoever. Please prove that your claims of it being "racist" or right. And while you're fucking at it, you dumbshit, why don't you actually prove that Ron Paul made these statements for a start?
All of us should support his basic platform: people should govern themselves.
Umm.. Except that's not what happens in a direct democracy. A bunch of people govern everyone else, instead. Not that I disagree with you about Gravel or that I think direct democracy is necessarily bad or can't work. I just thought I'd point that out.
It's not like I didn't take that into account. I don't know if I'm being literal, though, but what else would I be? The only evidence I have to go on is what's presented to me. And just because I pointed out the flaws in what I saw doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the joke or am not 'playing along' or whatever it is you're talking about. I like seeing how things work and what's true about them. I actually quite enjoyed that comic and several others on xkcd, for what it's worth.
I still don't think it's the case, though, that he was trying to establish a "cruising speed" or anything of that nature, if not specifically because of the reminder presented. And I think you're probably reading into this a bunch more than I am. I don't know how people can be so.. hrm, what's a good word? unnecessarily contrary?
I don't know how people can be so dumb. I pointed out the very same thing the grandparent did in a thread several months ago, and I got the exact same response.
You need a longer attention span, better reading comprehension, and less of a hair trigger. The problem states that raptors move at 25m/s. It is correct that 2) states one raptor is injured and limited to 10m/s as a result. However, the relevant portion is in a different section, 3), wherein it says plainly that raptors reach a maximum speed of 10m/s, contradicting 1).
Have a nice day.
Of course, it doesn't really "require" that for you to peruse of its contents. They don't make it very difficult to get the URL to the actual file, and I usually get 500kB/s or better, so it doesn't take that long.
But yeah, the actual website itself expects this stupid plugin, and that's retarded.
What about saying people who believe in god are "defective" has anything to do with saying god doesn't exist? And what makes you think they're saying definitively god doesn't exist any more than a scientist who understands a negative can't be proven and says the same thing for the sake of conversational efficiency?
First of all, that's not proof at all. It's circumstantial evidence. But you can't even spell Caribbean, so I guess I didn't expect you to be the brightest nail in the bucket.
Second, WHOIS for.COM / . NET (the Verisign-GRS TLDs) is absolutely FLAWED. It is not an all-inclusive database. It is per-registrar, unlike other TLDs (such as.ORG or whatever else the Public Interest Registry owns at the moment).
To determine whether a domain actually exists, you need to do as the poster above says, and query the root / gtld servers themselves, e.g. dig psysci.net +norec @a.gtld-servers.net.
Relying on WHOIS data for anything is just a sign of your lack of knowledge.
Hmm... Civility. Do I need an excuse to behave what you would call 'uncivil?' I didn't really think so at the time of my posting, but maybe I'll consider that next time I ever say anything that's in my head.
Honestly, I don't care about being civil. I care about being logical, and I care about what things are true and which things aren't. I have a problem with the entire designation of "hate speech." It seems a little too close to 'thought crime' to me, and that's the way things in my political system (that being the United States) seem to be heading. There is no reason it should be frowned upon to speak your mind out about anything, regardless of how you say it. That's what our country is founded upon it, and I'll fight for your right and my right to say as much "hate speech" as we feel like. I'll also fight for your right to speak about your religion (well, so long as you don't do it in school [when discussed in factual context] or government.. please), and even to be 'insensitive' to my atheist/ignostic views. That's the beauty of it, and I really wouldn't have it any other way. Also, I don't feel it's necessary to add legislation for 'hate crime laws,' because we already have generic laws covering things that are crimes. The only thing this legislation serves to achieve is demoralization and control of the populace, and it's incredibly hypocritical, at best. But that's another point.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let me say that I don't hate anything. I don't hate the person or hate the speech, but I think the speech is stupid. I didn't say that I the person, either. This seems to be a common error of people who like to appeal to emotion and commit similarl logical fallacies. I'm all about good argument, and not appeals to ignorance. You can't just go around conflating what someone says with that person themselves. Yeah, I did call him a retard or an idiot, but that's a rhetorical device to convey my point. Granted, I do really think he is an idiot, or atleast probably so, but the overall idea behind what I was saying is to just gawk in amazement at the amount of illogic present in his writing. I don't generally go around hating or even disliking people when I read their forum posts. In fact, I take each post on its own merits. If you manage to write something stupid, you could even be someone I truly admire or respect, and I will call you out for it -- quite possibly call you an idiot, as well. I like to call people idiots when I think they're being that thing. The fact that you think I should stop doing this just shows to me what an idiot you are, and how much you really dislike having to deal with freedom of speech. Personally, I love the stuff, and I don't think religion or anything else should be shielded from my vitriolic rants or any other form of polemic. That's how I react no matter the subject, if someone says something completely absurd, and I'll continue to do that, unless you can bring up good evidence that being free and expressing myself is a bad thing. Sure, you can argue that being 'uncivil' (laugh), again, isn't favoring myself in the 'community,' but why should I care, again, when I only care for what is true, and I really quite enjoy not having to respect people's idiotic beliefs, and I'd prefer to live in a society of people with some form of common sense?
I don't claim anything. You do claim, however, that I make assumptions about the way this guy thinks, which I just said I really don't. And why would I? You're making assumptions about the way I'm thinking. I take each comment on its own merits, and I apply logic to it. To his comment, there was none. I don't have to personally object or find it 'offensive' what he said to be critical of it, unlike some people whose only standards for ever doing anything are 'insensitivity.' I think we need more insensitivity, really. It's tiring when people like you (did I just make an assumption about you?!?!?) go around pandering to emotional appeals to propagate whatever so-called progressive agenda you migh
Except I didn't say that they are rare, but just that they're rare enough that the designers wouldn't even think about it.
I specifically qualified "rare" that way for this very reason. It seems we disagree, though, on the perception of people who aren't color blind, in terms of their familiarity with it or its prevalence. Note, also, though, that this was not just about color blindedness, but also blindedness itself.
My guess is that one of the questions which will start getting asked is "how do I block visually impaired users in California?"
Make a website that isn't accessible for them.
ZING!
I think it's odd how economically conservative* our society is. We seem to be generally libertarian (not just liberal!) when it comes to social issues, but we (mostly the left, I guess, but that's representative of a large subset of us as a whole, and our government at the moment) are mostly for regulation of business. Why is that?
I honestly don't claim to know much about the principles of this country or its constitution, but I think it is founded on somewhat libertarian ideals. Maybe that's just at the federal level, though. We don't regulate things (well, we aren't supposed to) at that level, but we let the states decide. Effectively, though, the ideology is that government shouldn't be meddling in our affairs, at some level atleast. California seems to be a pretty progressive state, too, so far as I know. Why is it that 'progression' seems to be intermixed with economic regulation, anyway?
* I am not sure this is what I really mean. Conservatism seems like a really difficult term to pin down. Many of the modern, so-called "conservatives" (including the neo-cons) are for free-market principles, a liberal/libertarian sort of idea. But I guess I'm trying to extrapolate conservatism in the social sense (restriction) to the economic side of things.
That means most groups are fairly likely to have at least one color-blind person in them.
Right, but do they know that, and, more importantly, do the people in their group know that? And, more importantly still, are the people designing a map of the internet likely to have a large enough sample size (12 people) to ever encounter color blindedness?
I know that generally one shouldn't dignify the opinion of anyone who ever uses the word "hate speech." My speech is free speech, and I live in a country that has it.
The only thing you shouldn't be doing is being so fucking remarkably stupid. There's nothing "objectionable" about what he said. He's just fucking hysterically stupid.
Not only does he actually BELIEVE THAT A PERSONAL GOD EXISTS ANSWERING ALL OF HIS PRAYERS AND OVERSEEING THE ACTIONS OF THE WORLD WHO SENT HIS SON TO THE WORLD TO BE NAILED TO A CROSS SO YOU CAN EAT HIS FLESH (or likely something along these lines), but he thinks he talks to him! What a fucking RETARD!
People like him really should be looked at with fucking puzzlement. And that's what I'm doing. What the hell is wrong with these people?
The main similarity being, of course, that both color blindedness and.. blindedness.. are rare enough that the designers of the image hadn't even thought of it.
If he were against it, I'd still play because I know it's just fine with God.
You're seriously one fucked up, freaky motherfucker. I think it should be mandatory for religious morons like you to have their heads examined, and perhaps placed into isolation from normal society.
Actually, I think that's one of the few times I've seen that written in any related Slashdot thread, and I've read quite a few of said threads. It was quite refreshing to read.
Absolutely, it implies that this is a web server (not exactly a "web site"), but why would FTP.SITENAME.COM or SMTP.SITENAME.COM or DNS1.SITENAME.COM be a web server?
Oh. They wouldn't (most likely). Right.
Slashdot Mirror
From great grandparent:
You know what? You are almost right. There is a bigger emphasis on victimless crime, and that's a shame. But you're the racist here. You're the one who seems people as groups and think there's some sort of inherent advantage or disadvantage to any particular group. If you didn't look at people collectively (instead of individually), then you'd just be saying we need to stop all of this nonsense like the War on Drugs. But no! You have to put this 'oppressing the black' people spin on it. Not only that, but you keep saying 'white people do this' and 'black people do that.' Really? In case you hadn't noticed, there are both white people dealing in drugs and black people dealing in shady business practices. Yes, black people can have white collar jobs too. Did you not realize that? Yeah, that's because they're free.. since quite a while now. Maybe you should've been paying attention.
And I don't know who said anything about the country being great. I don't know if you're just a bitter douchebag, a pseudotroll, or you really are this stupid. I'll hedge my bets on the latter.
I think the comment I quoted in bold last is pretty telling. Who is reallythe one with the "racist comments" here?
Second, you didn't provide any evidence for your claims whatever.
Third, your reading comprehension is HORRIBLE. Ron Paul never said anything about 95% of black males being criminals. He was making a point about the criminal justice system. Perhaps you'd like to take your dumb fucking ass and read it a few times before spouting your stupid mouth off.
Fourth, Not only is this a valid statistical argument, but, even if he truly meant that black people are inherently more likely to commit murders because of their "race" alone (and he didn't -- again, he was using a rhetorical device), that's not "racism." Racism is the belief that one race is either superior or inferior to another race or races. You may be confusing racism with what we like to call 'stereotyping.'
Fifth, I honestly don't even see how that's arguable. It certainly has nothing to do with racism, even if it's wrong. It just doesn't have anything to do with it whatsoever. Please prove that your claims of it being "racist" or right. And while you're fucking at it, you dumbshit, why don't you actually prove that Ron Paul made these statements for a start?
What does any of that have to do with racism?
It's not like I didn't take that into account. I don't know if I'm being literal, though, but what else would I be? The only evidence I have to go on is what's presented to me. And just because I pointed out the flaws in what I saw doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the joke or am not 'playing along' or whatever it is you're talking about. I like seeing how things work and what's true about them. I actually quite enjoyed that comic and several others on xkcd, for what it's worth.
I still don't think it's the case, though, that he was trying to establish a "cruising speed" or anything of that nature, if not specifically because of the reminder presented. And I think you're probably reading into this a bunch more than I am. I don't know how people can be so.. hrm, what's a good word? unnecessarily contrary?
I guess the point was that a lot of people don't want to play DivX video in their browsers?
...
I don't know how people can be so dumb. I pointed out the very same thing the grandparent did in a thread several months ago, and I got the exact same response.
You need a longer attention span, better reading comprehension, and less of a hair trigger. The problem states that raptors move at 25m/s. It is correct that 2) states one raptor is injured and limited to 10m/s as a result. However, the relevant portion is in a different section, 3), wherein it says plainly that raptors reach a maximum speed of 10m/s, contradicting 1). Have a nice day.
Of course, it doesn't really "require" that for you to peruse of its contents. They don't make it very difficult to get the URL to the actual file, and I usually get 500kB/s or better, so it doesn't take that long.
But yeah, the actual website itself expects this stupid plugin, and that's retarded.
What about saying people who believe in god are "defective" has anything to do with saying god doesn't exist? And what makes you think they're saying definitively god doesn't exist any more than a scientist who understands a negative can't be proven and says the same thing for the sake of conversational efficiency?
First of all, that's not proof at all. It's circumstantial evidence. But you can't even spell Caribbean, so I guess I didn't expect you to be the brightest nail in the bucket.
.COM / . NET (the Verisign-GRS TLDs) is absolutely FLAWED. It is not an all-inclusive database. It is per-registrar, unlike other TLDs (such as .ORG or whatever else the Public Interest Registry owns at the moment).
Second, WHOIS for
To determine whether a domain actually exists, you need to do as the poster above says, and query the root / gtld servers themselves, e.g. dig psysci.net +norec @a.gtld-servers.net.
Relying on WHOIS data for anything is just a sign of your lack of knowledge.
Hmm... Civility. Do I need an excuse to behave what you would call 'uncivil?' I didn't really think so at the time of my posting, but maybe I'll consider that next time I ever say anything that's in my head.
Honestly, I don't care about being civil. I care about being logical, and I care about what things are true and which things aren't. I have a problem with the entire designation of "hate speech." It seems a little too close to 'thought crime' to me, and that's the way things in my political system (that being the United States) seem to be heading. There is no reason it should be frowned upon to speak your mind out about anything, regardless of how you say it. That's what our country is founded upon it, and I'll fight for your right and my right to say as much "hate speech" as we feel like. I'll also fight for your right to speak about your religion (well, so long as you don't do it in school [when discussed in factual context] or government.. please), and even to be 'insensitive' to my atheist/ignostic views. That's the beauty of it, and I really wouldn't have it any other way. Also, I don't feel it's necessary to add legislation for 'hate crime laws,' because we already have generic laws covering things that are crimes. The only thing this legislation serves to achieve is demoralization and control of the populace, and it's incredibly hypocritical, at best. But that's another point.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let me say that I don't hate anything. I don't hate the person or hate the speech, but I think the speech is stupid. I didn't say that I the person, either. This seems to be a common error of people who like to appeal to emotion and commit similarl logical fallacies. I'm all about good argument, and not appeals to ignorance. You can't just go around conflating what someone says with that person themselves. Yeah, I did call him a retard or an idiot, but that's a rhetorical device to convey my point. Granted, I do really think he is an idiot, or atleast probably so, but the overall idea behind what I was saying is to just gawk in amazement at the amount of illogic present in his writing. I don't generally go around hating or even disliking people when I read their forum posts. In fact, I take each post on its own merits. If you manage to write something stupid, you could even be someone I truly admire or respect, and I will call you out for it -- quite possibly call you an idiot, as well. I like to call people idiots when I think they're being that thing. The fact that you think I should stop doing this just shows to me what an idiot you are, and how much you really dislike having to deal with freedom of speech. Personally, I love the stuff, and I don't think religion or anything else should be shielded from my vitriolic rants or any other form of polemic. That's how I react no matter the subject, if someone says something completely absurd, and I'll continue to do that, unless you can bring up good evidence that being free and expressing myself is a bad thing. Sure, you can argue that being 'uncivil' (laugh), again, isn't favoring myself in the 'community,' but why should I care, again, when I only care for what is true, and I really quite enjoy not having to respect people's idiotic beliefs, and I'd prefer to live in a society of people with some form of common sense?
I don't claim anything. You do claim, however, that I make assumptions about the way this guy thinks, which I just said I really don't. And why would I? You're making assumptions about the way I'm thinking. I take each comment on its own merits, and I apply logic to it. To his comment, there was none. I don't have to personally object or find it 'offensive' what he said to be critical of it, unlike some people whose only standards for ever doing anything are 'insensitivity.' I think we need more insensitivity, really. It's tiring when people like you (did I just make an assumption about you?!?!?) go around pandering to emotional appeals to propagate whatever so-called progressive agenda you migh
Except I didn't say that they are rare, but just that they're rare enough that the designers wouldn't even think about it.
I specifically qualified "rare" that way for this very reason. It seems we disagree, though, on the perception of people who aren't color blind, in terms of their familiarity with it or its prevalence. Note, also, though, that this was not just about color blindedness, but also blindedness itself.
ZING!
I think it's odd how economically conservative* our society is. We seem to be generally libertarian (not just liberal!) when it comes to social issues, but we (mostly the left, I guess, but that's representative of a large subset of us as a whole, and our government at the moment) are mostly for regulation of business. Why is that?
I honestly don't claim to know much about the principles of this country or its constitution, but I think it is founded on somewhat libertarian ideals. Maybe that's just at the federal level, though. We don't regulate things (well, we aren't supposed to) at that level, but we let the states decide. Effectively, though, the ideology is that government shouldn't be meddling in our affairs, at some level atleast. California seems to be a pretty progressive state, too, so far as I know. Why is it that 'progression' seems to be intermixed with economic regulation, anyway?
* I am not sure this is what I really mean. Conservatism seems like a really difficult term to pin down. Many of the modern, so-called "conservatives" (including the neo-cons) are for free-market principles, a liberal/libertarian sort of idea. But I guess I'm trying to extrapolate conservatism in the social sense (restriction) to the economic side of things.
I know that generally one shouldn't dignify the opinion of anyone who ever uses the word "hate speech." My speech is free speech, and I live in a country that has it.
The only thing you shouldn't be doing is being so fucking remarkably stupid. There's nothing "objectionable" about what he said. He's just fucking hysterically stupid.
Not only does he actually BELIEVE THAT A PERSONAL GOD EXISTS ANSWERING ALL OF HIS PRAYERS AND OVERSEEING THE ACTIONS OF THE WORLD WHO SENT HIS SON TO THE WORLD TO BE NAILED TO A CROSS SO YOU CAN EAT HIS FLESH (or likely something along these lines), but he thinks he talks to him! What a fucking RETARD!
People like him really should be looked at with fucking puzzlement. And that's what I'm doing. What the hell is wrong with these people?
The main similarity being, of course, that both color blindedness and .. blindedness .. are rare enough that the designers of the image hadn't even thought of it.
Actually, I think that's one of the few times I've seen that written in any related Slashdot thread, and I've read quite a few of said threads. It was quite refreshing to read.
No, you're not the only one (someone else in this story's comments had the same problem), but you're in a minority. Try the raw FLV: http://cache.gawker.com/assets/video/xwing_launch_gawker.flv
I don't know, but why are you asking Dr. Evil?
..or even MIT.edu! That'd be crazy.
Absolutely, it implies that this is a web server (not exactly a "web site"), but why would FTP.SITENAME.COM or SMTP.SITENAME.COM or DNS1.SITENAME.COM be a web server? Oh. They wouldn't (most likely). Right.