What nonsense are you taking about? Either home reading a different thread or you're off your meds.
The OP was mildly incorrect about the proportion of female fighters in the French resistance and you seem to be joining in with the guy shitting himself about SJW and such.
At least you're admitting to fanatical hatred, though the scare quotes seem unnecessary.
The point is BFV is a WWII game. Not a "Fantasy War" game.
It's WWII *themed* game. It vaguely follows some historical plot point but other than that it's SO realistic viz:
* If you die, you can never play any BF game again. * If you get injured you have to wait until BF VI before you can play * Most of the game is actually sitting arround in utter boredom waiting for something to happen * If you don't do what your CO says you might get executed * Sometimes you get a scratch and randomly die from an infection. * You never have to worry about logistics * Your stuff doesn't break especially when it's dirty * No time spent on maintainance * Approximately limitless ammo. * No time spent digging or just slowly moving shit around * Everything is vastly more robust than in real life
The poster for battlefield I (which apparently is fine) is a guy wearing a cape wielding a pistol and a MACE satanding under a flaming Zepplin. So realistic.
It's not realistic, it's an arcade game with Nazis (realistic games are boring), but somehow only the females[*] make it unrealistic. Literally none of those other things yielded complaints, but the cries of OH SO UNREALSSTIC about a woman in it sounds pretty hollow.
Up so you're complaining because there were more women in the French resistance than the GP claimed (15-20% according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ).
Honestly shrill screechings about "LIES" are a bit over the top when there's a 5% difference in the claims and the ranges overlap.
No, I'm saying that he's so deranged and used to rejecting observable reality,
You're delided. He claimed 10-15% of french resistance fighters were women. That is literally true (other estimates are 15-20% which overlaps with his range). It is observed reality which you are denying.
that he literally gave an example that was a lie
You're a fucking moron. A fact you dislike is not a lie.
Which is a major problem with people who hold deeply religious convictions.
Right quoting verifiable facts about French resistance fighters is "religion" because some nutjob is offended by the feeemales. You're off your rocker.
They are so utterly deranged,
Because they quote verifiable facts. Only the deranged do so. Sane people like you just make shit up.
As a result, they'll quote a complete and utter lie as if it supports their views
It's a perverted worldview indeed where you claim a verifiable fact is a lie because you just don't like it.
And the city government is too lazy and incompetent to do their fucking jobs and enforce their own laws, as with most California cities.
The alternative is that they're asshole jobsworth beaurocrats who aggressively enforce out of date laws.
There's really no way of winning if you're a local council.
You're forgetting several things. Firstly the local government isn't hugely flush with resources and is already doing a lot of other stuff. The bird problem cam on fast and they're just not equipped to respond to rapid changes. Unless you want your taxes to go up to allow for slack capacity...?
Second, maybe it's intentional. The e-scooters may be a really really good solution to both traffic and pollution problems. If they go all work-to-rule and enforce the laws to the absolute maximum then they'll effectively squash the whole thing before it starts leaving no one better off for it.
Perhaps they're figuring out how to work this now mode into the existing transport infrastructure without affecting existing usecases too much or preventing it from working.
In California's victim politics, the biggest victim wins.
And this has been a harsh wake up call. They price RTX cards as if they're the hottest cryptomining kit that gamers would have to compete with miners for, as happened with many of the GTX series cards.
Everyone seems to have forgotten about deep learning too. Deep learning is big and getting bigger. The bloody miners nabbed all the best cards and it's been hard to get anything decent. Recently, Dell RAN OUT of 2080 Ti's and literally conldn't supply a machine with one.
Social Justice Warrior in action. You could have quoted Italy, Greece, Yugoslav and Soviet women, who actually were fighting in large numbers. Instead, being properly deranged by social justice ideology and made utterly ignorant of reality by it, you literally quoted the one resistance force that had but a token amount of women combatants.
So what you're saying is the GP's point is absolutely 100% correct it's just that he got the country wrong. Apparently that maked him some sort of deranged SJW?
They have evolved chemical reactions that are linked to vibrations of a certain pattern but they aren't hearing. The difference is that hearing implies cognition which plants lack.
If correct then it's a response in response to a sound based stimulus. That's pretty much like hearing. Why does it have to imply cognition?
This may seem pendant but it's like saying your stairs feel you walking up them because they squeak when you step on them.
How's about just set some standards as to how much effort people have to spend to inform you of terms and conditions? No small print, anything which could be considered weaseling has to be done in large print up front in your advertisement to the point that it's an advertised feature.
That would be a start. Though in the EU we have strong consumer rights so that means you can be pretty sure about a lot of things regardless of what the small print suggests. I think that's a pretty good system.
You can walk into a store, buy something and you know your rights pretty exactly without having to sign or read anything. With online shopping it's more or less the same and it's more or less the same with older mail ordering too.
I'm not that bothered by this particular ruling either way. It seems like it's found an edge case in the law which was written before this kind of thing was a possibility.
Well no of course it doesn't. You asked someone to explain his reasoning, but who is operating with the axiom that the government is evil. The only explanations you will get back are that of course what it's doing is bad because the government is by definition evil.
IOW if you want anything approaching reasoning, you asked the wrong person because there is no reasoning behind his stance.
I'm afraid you are using the wrong system of logic. Remember you need to build a system of logic on axioms. Once the axioms are in place you use them to reach conclusions. So for example in this case we have:
The philosophy is that society doesn't function if you don't maintain it, and society is made up of individuals.
Yes, I agree with that. But that implies more than just protecting individuals, it also implies some sort of need to make society function too, though of course the two are tied together.
Don't however confuse an attempt an imprefect rule to prevent harm with something tht's not designed to do so. Perfect is the enemny of good and if we insist on perfection or nothing will will end up with nothing which is much worse than something pretty good.
People pushing a button for glad bags and getting hefty bags doesn't threaten society, especially if you can return the hefty bags.
Except we've seen that giving retailers a lot of free reign has led to harm. Perhaps in this case, the law was over broad or was written at a time when this kind of use case simply didn't exist. You also have the flip side that there may be something that's got a moderate chance of causing harm but only for some people. What propotion of people does it have to affect before it's worth legislating?
I certainly think it's an especially inane fiction that consumers ae going to read and understnad 100 pages of dense legalese before purchasing a cheap (or in fact any) poduct. I think it's reasonable tht the law recognises that.
Crafting laws that allow every kind of reasonable behaviour while blocking every kind of unreasonable behaviour is incredibly difficult. Writing the laws such that they are future proof to unimagined kinds of behaviour is essentially impossible.
A law that is't imprefect is not necessarily a bad law, merely an imprefect one. How would you modify the law to allow what you consider reasonable but to still disallow the harmful things it prevents?
He said "mathemeticians" not "mathemetacian". "Espilon mathematicians currently evaluating his proof" would qualify according to the GP's criteria. You're requiring infinitely many more.
If maths isn't about extreme pedantry then it's not about anything.
Firstly, you've provided a good justification, but not WHY they're needed in the deeper sense. Like why is it important to prevent harm, fraud and deprivation. what's the underlying philosoph there?
Because those are the only three things that you can do to a person.
Those are already the basis of many rules and regulations already. Even those awful religion inspired controlling ones are supposedly done for the good of the person on the receiving end, in other words to regulate against harm. Take the anti-gay laws that used to be so popular. People used to think (and some still do) that you can basically convert people to be gay, which in their mind is doing a great deal of harm to another person. You can justify almost anything under "harm" good and bad.
And consumer protection laws (of the sort we're discussing) definitely fall into that category. They didn't come out of nowhere with some beaurocrat saying "hey let's randomly regulate business" as the "big gubbmint teh evil" types seem to believe[+]. They came around to prevent the large amounts of fraud and harm that were going on. Then you've got the transitive ones. Like should you have an army? Well it's kind of necessary to have one to prevent harm from outside your nation. Covers that I guess. But running an army is expensive. So now you need a functioning economy[*] to in order to keep up that protection. And without one of those, harm would likely ensue etc...
Fraud is real, but there was no fraud here.
It's long been decided that not ever possible contract is legal, on the basis that many times that's been harmful.
[+] As in I've literally had somone on slashdot try to convince me of that before.
[*] you need one of those for decent healthcare too.
You jumped straight from "this seems fine" to "there's to government power that he won't defend". You clearly don't like gvovernment powers and arenaive about it so you'll have to put up with hyperbole and sarcasm from me.
You're rather the same.
And now, to defend your argument, you start making up demonstrable lies.
the conclusion is always the same with you guys
Again, more lies.
Why do you have to lie about me in order to make an argument? That's a strong indication your arguments hav no merit otherwise you could use actual facts.
Not wanting to be at the whims of offshoring and quarterly results? Desire for a more stable job? Wanting to work in a particular location? Wanting to so interesting work that's hard to find in the private sector? Stability? Lack of inane crunch time?
There's tons of reasons that government jobs can be good. But not being paid is not one of them.
Millennials do have a harder time affording life in general, and I can completely understand why someone who is an entry-level employee making just enough to get by would want to switch to a better paying job with perhaps less bureaucracy.
Well if they just cut out those soy lattes and avocado on toast and saved the money instead, then in 10 or 20 thousand years they'd be able to afford a house. No sympathy.
$76,470 for average federal government wages vs $44,600 for average private sector wages
Those are misleading figures, because you're aggregating over industry sectors and the representation in those sectors is not uniform. Many of what would be low-paid government employees are now subcontracted out. If you go sector-by-sector, the government pays OK, but not stellar.
IOW, It's not like a programmer in the governemnt is earning 35% more than a programmer in industry.
Slashdot Mirror
What nonsense are you taking about? Either home reading a different thread or you're off your meds.
The OP was mildly incorrect about the proportion of female fighters in the French resistance and you seem to be joining in with the guy shitting himself about SJW and such.
At least you're admitting to fanatical hatred, though the scare quotes seem unnecessary.
The point is BFV is a WWII game. Not a "Fantasy War" game.
It's WWII *themed* game. It vaguely follows some historical plot point but other than that it's SO realistic viz:
* If you die, you can never play any BF game again.
* If you get injured you have to wait until BF VI before you can play
* Most of the game is actually sitting arround in utter boredom waiting for something to happen
* If you don't do what your CO says you might get executed
* Sometimes you get a scratch and randomly die from an infection.
* You never have to worry about logistics
* Your stuff doesn't break especially when it's dirty
* No time spent on maintainance
* Approximately limitless ammo.
* No time spent digging or just slowly moving shit around
* Everything is vastly more robust than in real life
The poster for battlefield I (which apparently is fine) is a guy wearing a cape wielding a pistol and a MACE satanding under a flaming Zepplin. So realistic.
It's not realistic, it's an arcade game with Nazis (realistic games are boring), but somehow only the females[*] make it unrealistic. Literally none of those other things yielded complaints, but the cries of OH SO UNREALSSTIC about a woman in it sounds pretty hollow.
Astonishing! When presented with actual facts you dismiss them as insanity! Out of interest do you identify as Republican? Asking for a friend.
You are a liar defending another liar.
Up so you're complaining because there were more women in the French resistance than the GP claimed (15-20% according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ).
Honestly shrill screechings about "LIES" are a bit over the top when there's a 5% difference in the claims and the ranges overlap.
No, I'm saying that he's so deranged and used to rejecting observable reality,
You're delided. He claimed 10-15% of french resistance fighters were women. That is literally true (other estimates are 15-20% which overlaps with his range). It is observed reality which you are denying.
that he literally gave an example that was a lie
You're a fucking moron. A fact you dislike is not a lie.
Which is a major problem with people who hold deeply religious convictions.
Right quoting verifiable facts about French resistance fighters is "religion" because some nutjob is offended by the feeemales. You're off your rocker.
They are so utterly deranged,
Because they quote verifiable facts. Only the deranged do so. Sane people like you just make shit up.
As a result, they'll quote a complete and utter lie as if it supports their views
It's a perverted worldview indeed where you claim a verifiable fact is a lie because you just don't like it.
Here's the wikipedia page: educate yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And the city government is too lazy and incompetent to do their fucking jobs and enforce their own laws, as with most California cities.
The alternative is that they're asshole jobsworth beaurocrats who aggressively enforce out of date laws.
There's really no way of winning if you're a local council.
You're forgetting several things. Firstly the local government isn't hugely flush with resources and is already doing a lot of other stuff. The bird problem cam on fast and they're just not equipped to respond to rapid changes. Unless you want your taxes to go up to allow for slack capacity...?
Second, maybe it's intentional. The e-scooters may be a really really good solution to both traffic and pollution problems. If they go all work-to-rule and enforce the laws to the absolute maximum then they'll effectively squash the whole thing before it starts leaving no one better off for it.
Perhaps they're figuring out how to work this now mode into the existing transport infrastructure without affecting existing usecases too much or preventing it from working.
In California's victim politics, the biggest victim wins.
Christ talk about perpetually offended.
And this has been a harsh wake up call. They price RTX cards as if they're the hottest cryptomining kit that gamers would have to compete with miners for, as happened with many of the GTX series cards.
Everyone seems to have forgotten about deep learning too. Deep learning is big and getting bigger. The bloody miners nabbed all the best cards and it's been hard to get anything decent. Recently, Dell RAN OUT of 2080 Ti's and literally conldn't supply a machine with one.
Social Justice Warrior in action. You could have quoted Italy, Greece, Yugoslav and Soviet women, who actually were fighting in large numbers. Instead, being properly deranged by social justice ideology and made utterly ignorant of reality by it, you literally quoted the one resistance force that had but a token amount of women combatants.
So what you're saying is the GP's point is absolutely 100% correct it's just that he got the country wrong. Apparently that maked him some sort of deranged SJW?
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
They have evolved chemical reactions that are linked to vibrations of a certain pattern but they aren't hearing. The difference is that hearing implies cognition which plants lack.
If correct then it's a response in response to a sound based stimulus. That's pretty much like hearing. Why does it have to imply cognition?
This may seem pendant but it's like saying your stairs feel you walking up them because they squeak when you step on them.
That's not a stimulus.
How's about just set some standards as to how much effort people have to spend to inform you of terms and conditions? No small print, anything which could be considered weaseling has to be done in large print up front in your advertisement to the point that it's an advertised feature.
That would be a start. Though in the EU we have strong consumer rights so that means you can be pretty sure about a lot of things regardless of what the small print suggests. I think that's a pretty good system.
You can walk into a store, buy something and you know your rights pretty exactly without having to sign or read anything. With online shopping it's more or less the same and it's more or less the same with older mail ordering too.
I'm not that bothered by this particular ruling either way. It seems like it's found an edge case in the law which was written before this kind of thing was a possibility.
This doesn't answer my question.
Well no of course it doesn't. You asked someone to explain his reasoning, but who is operating with the axiom that the government is evil. The only explanations you will get back are that of course what it's doing is bad because the government is by definition evil.
IOW if you want anything approaching reasoning, you asked the wrong person because there is no reasoning behind his stance.
The freedom to publish in any way they want.
You do NOT have the freedom to publish your speech with a megaphone outside my house at 3am.
But even a cutting torch or diamond bladed rotary cutter will make reasonably short work of structural steel.
Just about anything will make short work of structural steel. Abrasive disc cutters, cold saws, reciprocating saws with a bimetal blade...
I'm afraid you are using the wrong system of logic. Remember you need to build a system of logic on axioms. Once the axioms are in place you use them to reach conclusions. So for example in this case we have:
Fundamental axioms:
1. gubmint is teh evul
Proposition:
this law is the government doing something bad.
Proof:
Follows directly from axiom 1.
See?
The philosophy is that society doesn't function if you don't maintain it, and society is made up of individuals.
Yes, I agree with that. But that implies more than just protecting individuals, it also implies some sort of need to make society function too, though of course the two are tied together.
Don't however confuse an attempt an imprefect rule to prevent harm with something tht's not designed to do so. Perfect is the enemny of good and if we insist on perfection or nothing will will end up with nothing which is much worse than something pretty good.
People pushing a button for glad bags and getting hefty bags doesn't threaten society, especially if you can return the hefty bags.
Except we've seen that giving retailers a lot of free reign has led to harm. Perhaps in this case, the law was over broad or was written at a time when this kind of use case simply didn't exist. You also have the flip side that there may be something that's got a moderate chance of causing harm but only for some people. What propotion of people does it have to affect before it's worth legislating?
I certainly think it's an especially inane fiction that consumers ae going to read and understnad 100 pages of dense legalese before purchasing a cheap (or in fact any) poduct. I think it's reasonable tht the law recognises that.
Crafting laws that allow every kind of reasonable behaviour while blocking every kind of unreasonable behaviour is incredibly difficult. Writing the laws such that they are future proof to unimagined kinds of behaviour is essentially impossible.
A law that is't imprefect is not necessarily a bad law, merely an imprefect one. How would you modify the law to allow what you consider reasonable but to still disallow the harmful things it prevents?
Name three.
He said "mathemeticians" not "mathemetacian". "Espilon mathematicians currently evaluating his proof" would qualify according to the GP's criteria. You're requiring infinitely many more.
If maths isn't about extreme pedantry then it's not about anything.
And? I've bought new KJV Bible's at dollar stores. So what? King James' translators were unavailable for comment, being long dead.
And I (by contrast) got a more expensive one since I only wanted one copy and I wanted a binding that woldn't fall apart fast.
The whole point of public domain is that you can use it, you can publish it, you can do what you like with it.
And in this case, the great thing about the public domain is that both sorts are available.
Firstly, you've provided a good justification, but not WHY they're needed in the deeper sense. Like why is it important to prevent harm, fraud and deprivation. what's the underlying philosoph there?
Because those are the only three things that you can do to a person.
Those are already the basis of many rules and regulations already. Even those awful religion inspired controlling ones are supposedly done for the good of the person on the receiving end, in other words to regulate against harm. Take the anti-gay laws that used to be so popular. People used to think (and some still do) that you can basically convert people to be gay, which in their mind is doing a great deal of harm to another person. You can justify almost anything under "harm" good and bad.
And consumer protection laws (of the sort we're discussing) definitely fall into that category. They didn't come out of nowhere with some beaurocrat saying "hey let's randomly regulate business" as the "big gubbmint teh evil" types seem to believe[+]. They came around to prevent the large amounts of fraud and harm that were going on. Then you've got the transitive ones. Like should you have an army? Well it's kind of necessary to have one to prevent harm from outside your nation. Covers that I guess. But running an army is expensive. So now you need a functioning economy[*] to in order to keep up that protection. And without one of those, harm would likely ensue etc...
Fraud is real, but there was no fraud here.
It's long been decided that not ever possible contract is legal, on the basis that many times that's been harmful.
[+] As in I've literally had somone on slashdot try to convince me of that before.
[*] you need one of those for decent healthcare too.
False dichotomy.
Hyperbole and sarcasm. I know the attitude of the perosn I'm responding to.
There are only three things we need rules and regulations against: harm, fraud, and deprivation.
Why those three?
But Amazon was very clear on how the devices functioned, and they are also very understanding about returns.
That is not in and of itself sufficient: the terms have to be legal as well.
I'm not saying ... any of those thing.
You jumped straight from "this seems fine" to "there's to government power that he won't defend". You clearly don't like gvovernment powers and arenaive about it so you'll have to put up with hyperbole and sarcasm from me.
You're rather the same.
And now, to defend your argument, you start making up demonstrable lies.
the conclusion is always the same with you guys
Again, more lies.
Why do you have to lie about me in order to make an argument? That's a strong indication your arguments hav no merit otherwise you could use actual facts.
Why didn't they do that in the first place?
Not wanting to be at the whims of offshoring and quarterly results? Desire for a more stable job? Wanting to work in a particular location? Wanting to so interesting work that's hard to find in the private sector? Stability? Lack of inane crunch time?
There's tons of reasons that government jobs can be good. But not being paid is not one of them.
Millennials do have a harder time affording life in general, and I can completely understand why someone who is an entry-level employee making just enough to get by would want to switch to a better paying job with perhaps less bureaucracy.
Well if they just cut out those soy lattes and avocado on toast and saved the money instead, then in 10 or 20 thousand years they'd be able to afford a house. No sympathy.
$76,470 for average federal government wages vs $44,600 for average private sector wages
Those are misleading figures, because you're aggregating over industry sectors and the representation in those sectors is not uniform. Many of what would be low-paid government employees are now subcontracted out. If you go sector-by-sector, the government pays OK, but not stellar.
IOW, It's not like a programmer in the governemnt is earning 35% more than a programmer in industry.
Basically, stop living paycheck to paycheck.
Yeah those fuckers should just be rich and screw them if they're not.
Once again you are yet again proving how apy your username is.
I do like how governments allowing corporations to exist is fine by you, so clearly you're not anti government. You're more corpratist.
Either that or you are stoned as shit and have lost all forms of basic reasoning.