Which explains the bias I detected in the article. I repeatedly found the examples he used to support Apple's hypothetical "case" to be missing key details.
That's not to say Apple doesn't have a case (I have no idea really) but I'm always suspicious of people who intentionally omit important details.
And she thinks I can find it, then who cares what anyone else thinks?
Even if it's bullshit, who is getting hurt here?
Oh right, this is where people chime in with "what about people who are making themselves miserable trying to find it", as if those people actually exist...
"@ifwm Two foaming at the mouth postings right next to each other. Damn dude, take your meds. We're talking about computers, not a sacred religion. If you don't want a Mac then don't buy one. End of story."
Stop lying about apples, Mr. fanboi and you'll get a reasonable discussion.
But you'll never stop lying about apples, so there we are.
And so, my brain spends more time rejecting what I'm seeing than I'm comfortable with and I can't watch it.
And before anyone chimes in with "they didn't look fake to me", lots of people can't taste subtle nuances in flavor or hear specific differences in tone or pitch. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
The people look fake, and I can't watch without cringing. Sorry.
"Wow, slashdot users certainly want to hold this guy to an amazingly high standard"
Of course we are, he is upfor a very important public safety position. It would be colossally moronic to do anything BUT hold him to an amazingly high standard.
"- one that I question whether they could meet themselves. "
We're not up for the job, genius, so that point, and all the vapid follow ons that you thought were so relevant, aren't.
Let the people who have useful opinions talk, while you get us a beer.
"1) Being 'stupid' is subjective."
Unfortunately, your point fails because being incapable of correctly navigating an intersection makes you stupid by any standard even the most subjective.
"3) Labeling this behavior as 'stupid' implies both an acceptance of the inability to change it AND an implicit protection from the consequences of their behaviors"
No, it doesn't. These are assumptions you're making based on your OWN biases, and they have nothing to do with op said.
How did this garbage get modded to +5?
"Remember that you have to buy the more expensive smartphone data plans for this phone - usually $30 per month for just the data portion."
No, you don't, actually.
Even though she should be laughed out of office for scientific ignorance, I'll wager the Maine voters keep this steaming turd in office way longer than she deserves.
Even though she should be laughed out of office for scientific ignorance, I'll wager the Maine voters keep this steaming turd in office way longer than she deserves it.
Feel free to let her know how you feel.
http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/bolaam.htm
Address: 22 Kent Street, Sanford, ME 04073
Home Telephone: (207) 324-4459
Business Telephone: (207) 324-4459
Fax: (207) 324-1627
State House E-Mail: RepAndrea.Boland@legislature.maine.gov
Legislative Web Site: www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/aboland
(Additional information, news, etc., from the House Majority Office)
State House Message Phone: (800) 423-2900
State House TTY Line: (207) 287-4469
The only credibility that matters is their credibility in enforcing judgments. Since you seem not to comprehend this from your numerous obnoxious replies downtopic
Really? I could have SWORN I made that point in this thread already...
"The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand."
No sir, the law is based on treaties, and I strongly suspect the reciprocal application of the treaty is in fact, a requirement of the law, as it is in most such treaties.
So, if China is NOT applying the law adequately in everyday practice, then MS may very well be ableto use that as evidence that China isn't upholding their end of the treaty.
So, you see, it IS relevant, despite your pontification that it isn't.
"As I suspected, you didn't actually have a point. You just took a cheap shot at China."
No, I pointed out they engage in selective prosecution.
"Pointing out that one of the parties is a hypocrite does not impact the validity of their claims."
It does when the treaty requires China to police everyone, as this one does. If they only police one side, the treaty isn't being upheld by China. And MS can say so, and get away with it.
Hmm, did the composition level of those posts exceed your reading ability, or does there existence uncomfortably give lie to your previous assertions, that being the reason you pretend they don't exist?
So, "please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here."
Ok, how about, you're a liar when you say "Since you seem not to comprehend this" as I have irrefutably proven by posting points I made well before you decided to shoot off your d-sucker?
So, again,why should anyone care what you think when you'll openly lie about something everyone else can see in black and white?
I mean, you try to flame someone for not getting the point, when YOU YOURSELF COMPLETELY FAIL TO READ THE POSTS THAT PROVE YOU WRONG IN THE VERY THREAD YOU'RE REPLYING TO despite claiming you had?
I discuss treaty reciprocity and selective prosecution in a thread about treaties and their prosecution, and some fucking imbecile decides it's "offtopic".
So, Mr. "I'm a fucking imbecile who doesn't know what off topic means", why are you wasting time giving input on a website when YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON AROUND YOU?
The only credibility that matters is their credibility in enforcing judgments. Since you seem not to comprehend this from your numerous obnoxious replies downtopic
Really? I could have SWORN I made that point in this thread already...
"The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand."
No sir, the law is based on treaties, and I strongly suspect the reciprocal application of the treaty is in fact, a requirement of the law, as it is in most such treaties.
So, if China is NOT applying the law adequately in everyday practice, then MS may very well be ableto use that as evidence that China isn't upholding their end of the treaty.
So, you see, it IS relevant, despite your pontification that it isn't.
"As I suspected, you didn't actually have a point. You just took a cheap shot at China."
No, I pointed out they engage in selective prosecution.
"Pointing out that one of the parties is a hypocrite does not impact the validity of their claims."
It does when the treaty requires China to police everyone, as this one does. If they only police one side, the treaty isn't being upheld by China. And MS can say so, and get away with it.
Hmm, did the composition level of those posts exceed your reading ability, or does there existence uncomfortably give lie to your previous assertions, that being the reason you pretend they don't exist?
So, "please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here."
Ok, how about, you're a liar when you say "Since you seem not to comprehend this" as I have irrefutably proven by posting points I made well before you decided to shoot off your d-sucker?
"Your argument is invalid because Amazon does use US infrastructure, in the form of roads, and regional shipping centers."
They pay taxes in the locations where they have physicalpresence "shipping centers", and they pay UPS and FED EX, who are the ones ACTUALLY USING THE ROADS. You see, UPS ships for Amazon,and THEY pay taxes for roads. OOPS!
So, you're still wrong, and I'm still not.
YOUR argument is invalid because you're not educated enough to know either of these things.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ben Sheffner is an attorney at NBC Universal"
Which explains the bias I detected in the article. I repeatedly found the examples he used to support Apple's hypothetical "case" to be missing key details.
That's not to say Apple doesn't have a case (I have no idea really) but I'm always suspicious of people who intentionally omit important details.
And she thinks I can find it, then who cares what anyone else thinks?
Even if it's bullshit, who is getting hurt here?
Oh right, this is where people chime in with "what about people who are making themselves miserable trying to find it", as if those people actually exist...
"@ifwm Two foaming at the mouth postings right next to each other. Damn dude, take your meds. We're talking about computers, not a sacred religion. If you don't want a Mac then don't buy one. End of story."
Stop lying about apples, Mr. fanboi and you'll get a reasonable discussion.
But you'll never stop lying about apples, so there we are.
Really really fake.
And so, my brain spends more time rejecting what I'm seeing than I'm comfortable with and I can't watch it.
And before anyone chimes in with "they didn't look fake to me", lots of people can't taste subtle nuances in flavor or hear specific differences in tone or pitch. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
The people look fake, and I can't watch without cringing. Sorry.
"Which we will run out of in 10 years."
You're mistaken.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1495612&cid=30623318
"Way to spread FUD."
You mean like the "The PC prices will be in a close neighborhood." FUD that HybridJeff already proved was total bullshit?
Why do you insist on pretending your lie is anything else, or even worse, accuse others of dishonesty when you've been proven to be a liar?
"The PC prices will be in a close neighborhood."
This hasn't been true for 5 years, and gets less true every day.
It fun to watch you people get modded up for something that is, essentially, an easily disproven lie.
"Wow, slashdot users certainly want to hold this guy to an amazingly high standard"
Of course we are, he is upfor a very important public safety position. It would be colossally moronic to do anything BUT hold him to an amazingly high standard.
"- one that I question whether they could meet themselves. "
We're not up for the job, genius, so that point, and all the vapid follow ons that you thought were so relevant, aren't.
Let the people who have useful opinions talk, while you get us a beer.
"Again, failing to navigate could be 'stupidity' or it could be other things."
No, it couldbe stupidity AND other things, but it's definitely stupidity.
"Labeling it as implicitly 'stupid' harms the author's intent of discouraging the behavior"
NO it doesn't, cognition and behavior are generally independent. Stupid people are just as trainable.
"I still contend that intellect (and its application) have basically zero to do with this behavior."
And you're wrong.
"1) Being 'stupid' is subjective." Unfortunately, your point fails because being incapable of correctly navigating an intersection makes you stupid by any standard even the most subjective. "3) Labeling this behavior as 'stupid' implies both an acceptance of the inability to change it AND an implicit protection from the consequences of their behaviors" No, it doesn't. These are assumptions you're making based on your OWN biases, and they have nothing to do with op said. How did this garbage get modded to +5?
"Remember that you have to buy the more expensive smartphone data plans for this phone - usually $30 per month for just the data portion." No, you don't, actually.
"Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight"
I find that his credibility stems form something other than "volumes in his bibliography".
Is that anything like "Libraries of Congress"?
"That guy is really credible, look at that VIB number!"
Even though she should be laughed out of office for scientific ignorance, I'll wager the Maine voters keep this steaming turd in office way longer than she deserves.
Feel free to let her know how you feel.
http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/bolaam.htm [maine.gov]
Address: 22 Kent Street, Sanford, ME 04073
Home Telephone: (207) 324-4459
Business Telephone: (207) 324-4459
Fax: (207) 324-1627
State House E-Mail: RepAndrea.Boland@legislature.maine.gov
Legislative Web Site: www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/aboland
(Additional information, news, etc., from the House Majority Office)
State House Message Phone: (800) 423-2900
State House TTY Line: (207) 287-4469
Even though she should be laughed out of office for scientific ignorance, I'll wager the Maine voters keep this steaming turd in office way longer than she deserves it. Feel free to let her know how you feel. http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/bolaam.htm Address: 22 Kent Street, Sanford, ME 04073 Home Telephone: (207) 324-4459 Business Telephone: (207) 324-4459 Fax: (207) 324-1627 State House E-Mail: RepAndrea.Boland@legislature.maine.gov Legislative Web Site: www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/aboland (Additional information, news, etc., from the House Majority Office) State House Message Phone: (800) 423-2900 State House TTY Line: (207) 287-4469
"Nonsense."
It was nice of you to give us an abstract of your post.
And you were correct.
"Using a shotgun was a little risky because of the potential of those pellets scattering and bouncing back when hitting metal parts."
You're a fucking idiot. Seriously.
"If you like feel free to look up the numbers to (dis)prove me."
The link I posted disproves your point in totality.
You're a liar.
"So I think the delay in prosecution was likely reasonable."
Who cares what you think, you openly lie all thetime, like here for instance
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1447608&cid=30137984
So, again,why should anyone care what you think when you'll openly lie about something everyone else can see in black and white?
I mean, you try to flame someone for not getting the point, when YOU YOURSELF COMPLETELY FAIL TO READ THE POSTS THAT PROVE YOU WRONG IN THE VERY THREAD YOU'RE REPLYING TO despite claiming you had?
Why would anyone care what you think?
This makes me wonder what an individual who would really like their info to remain private can do to keep it so.
Celebrities, politicians, all their info is potentially for sale, and all it takes is one greedy employee with some debt...
I discuss treaty reciprocity and selective prosecution in a thread about treaties and their prosecution, and some fucking imbecile decides it's "offtopic".
So, Mr. "I'm a fucking imbecile who doesn't know what off topic means", why are you wasting time giving input on a website when YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON AROUND YOU?
"Ever wonder why you don't have any friends? "
No, because I have plenty, what kind of stupidity is that?
"Maybe it's because you pick fights and call people names over idiotic little details"
It's not hard, stop beginning your posts with "Actually" and you won't sound like a fucking asshole,especially when you're not correcting something.
See, THAT is my objection, you don't seem intelligent enough to get it.
Really? I could have SWORN I made that point in this thread already...
Oh, I DID, here
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1447608&cid=30137250
And here
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1447608&cid=30137472
Hmm, did the composition level of those posts exceed your reading ability, or does there existence uncomfortably give lie to your previous assertions, that being the reason you pretend they don't exist?
Ok, how about, you're a liar when you say "Since you seem not to comprehend this" as I have irrefutably proven by posting points I made well before you decided to shoot off your d-sucker?
"Don't be such an asshole when someone's supporting your point."
Let me explain this to you, because you appear to be too stupid to get it.
YOU DON'T BEGIN YOUR POINT WITH "ACTUALLY" WHEN YOU'RE "SUPPORTING IT".
"Actually" begins corrections, you WERE NOT correcting anything, and THAT is my objection, youtotal failure to reply to appropriate post aside.
You start a post with "actually", but you agree with it? Sorry, that's shitty composition, and factually wrong as you're NOT CORRECTING ANYTHING.
Stop being an asshole when it's pointed out you write like an ignorant asshole.
"Your argument is invalid because Amazon does use US infrastructure, in the form of roads, and regional shipping centers."
They pay taxes in the locations where they have physicalpresence "shipping centers", and they pay UPS and FED EX, who are the ones ACTUALLY USING THE ROADS. You see, UPS ships for Amazon,and THEY pay taxes for roads. OOPS!
So, you're still wrong, and I'm still not.
YOUR argument is invalid because you're not educated enough to know either of these things.
"I wasn't wrong on any point."
You were wrong on this one, as I've proven.
"As I suspected, you didn't actually have a point. You just took a cheap shot at China."
"How do you expect to be taken seriously in a debate if you can't even be bothered to look who you are replying to."
Says the person to afraid to attach a name to their opinions...