3: The world has been moving away from capital punishment for decades, and some companies don't like being the ones providing drugs to a government to kill its own people against their will.
Naaah. Just blame the spectre of "Millennials" - much easier.
As has been pointed out, you seem to not understand the idea of mental illness. Luckily we don't live in the 1700s any more, so ideas like yours can be discarded without any loss to society. No one is saying send them back out into society - you are assuming that, probably because the false dichotomy is the only way your idea makes any sense.
You might want to base your opinion on capital punishment based on evidence, not gut feeling. The fact you think the USSR's stance on this was a good idea should tell you something about just how lacking your thought processes are on this subject.
There is a large difference between someone choosing to be put out of their misery and the state killing someone for some sense of vengeance. If you can't see that, then I weep for you.
So you admit that you are being irrational, and that it's fine, because you have your right to be irrational. That's all fine, just don't ever pretend this attitude of yours is anything other than reactionary, ignorant, and poorly thought out.
Just look at Karmashock's hategasm towards people who use drugs - or, rather, towards his idea of people who use drugs, which doesn't seem to be reflected in reality.
"From the same people" that you created in your mind. That you need to make some bizarre, unfounded generalisations to bolster your claims doesn't reflect too well on you or your argument.
You are labouring under the assumption that someone under the influence of drugs (illicit or otherwise) is somehow functionally impaired. You are not doing yourself any favours by wading into an argument and dismissing swathes of the population because of something you assume to be true.
And has been pointed out, "effect" and "affect" are not interchangeable.
I feel nothing but pity for the scared life you must lead, missing out on all the wonders of the universe as they pass you by because you, in your great wisdom and infallibility, assume they don't exist. You are constantly confusing your hubris with evidence, and look where it gets you - you think the pinnacle of your contribution to this thread is proudly proclaiming you either don't understand some very basic science, or that you feel adhering to some political identity is more important than actually learning.
Either way you really need to work on yourself, lest you die cold and bitter.
You are assuming your subjective impressions are objective, which is patently not the case... Your A/B/X tests don't mean a lot if you don't provide the methodology behind them.
Yes, but those cars will be driving for less than 1/4th the time it would take you to normally commute, so it evens out, surely. Unless you are saying that each journey would take the same amount of time as all 4 journeys together?
Don't think your personal anecdotes are in any way evidence. You have such a high opinion of yourself it's amazing. The evidence is there, and you just don't want to accept it. Strange.
They can do what they want, as they are not the government. Or are you saying that everyone should be able to be coerced into saying what anyone else wants them to say?
It is not mutually exclusive to be for someone's rights, disagree with how they are using their rights, voice your disagreements, and not be guilty of censorship.
You are terrible at this. Really, really bad. You are getting incredibly confused about some very basic concepts you appear to think you support very strongly.
You appear to not understand how ALPR/ANPR readers work. They can just sit there scanning plates and recording nothing, pinging matches against a database of subjects of interest, and then alert the force to that subject's location, in close to real-time. No need to claim you know that they are gathering travel data for mass surveillance (without any evidence), and claim that they are not doing this for traffic or criminal law enforcement (again without any evidence). Let's stick to the facts, ok?
Do you really need this spelled out to you? If the police masquerade as Google cars, people will perceive Google cars as possibly police cars, something entirely unreasonable without the actions of the police. That means anyone with a grudge against the police, be it premeditated or in the heat of passion, will now have reason to assume any marked Google vehicles are actually cop cars. The comparison with the CIA's operation was to illustrate to you that by masquerading as another entity blurs the lines of perception between the two. If one actor is subsequently discovered to be acting in poor faith, then the other, possibly innocent actor is tainted.
This is not difficult to understand. Sure, it shows you are wrong, but it's not difficult to understand.
If you have actual evidence, and can stop making ridiculous generalisations which tar the vast majority of refugees who are innocent of any "scheming", you can say what you want. If your argument is based on unsubstantiated nonsense, expect your argument to be destroyed, as it wasn't even an argument to begin with.
The fact you made a whole bunch of claims and logical absurdities while summarising your argument doesn't show you're on a particularly sound footing, and you should expect everything you get if you are too lazy to accurately construct a logically coherent argument.
Germany knows what happens when idiots make unchallenged generalisations condemning minorities.
He enabled the "you drive slowly while I watch out for obstacles" mode and then didn't watch out for obstacles. The car did what it was supposed to do, and he didn't, and it's the car's fault?
Slashdot Mirror
You missed one:
3: The world has been moving away from capital punishment for decades, and some companies don't like being the ones providing drugs to a government to kill its own people against their will.
Naaah. Just blame the spectre of "Millennials" - much easier.
As has been pointed out, you seem to not understand the idea of mental illness. Luckily we don't live in the 1700s any more, so ideas like yours can be discarded without any loss to society. No one is saying send them back out into society - you are assuming that, probably because the false dichotomy is the only way your idea makes any sense.
Your logic is infantile to say the least. Executions make the victims pay even more than just imprisonment. You are preaching revenge, not justice.
You might want to base your opinion on capital punishment based on evidence, not gut feeling. The fact you think the USSR's stance on this was a good idea should tell you something about just how lacking your thought processes are on this subject.
There is a large difference between someone choosing to be put out of their misery and the state killing someone for some sense of vengeance. If you can't see that, then I weep for you.
The executioners are killing someone who poses no threat to them. The executioner isn't simply defending themselves. Your logic is infantile.
So you admit that you are being irrational, and that it's fine, because you have your right to be irrational. That's all fine, just don't ever pretend this attitude of yours is anything other than reactionary, ignorant, and poorly thought out.
Just look at Karmashock's hategasm towards people who use drugs - or, rather, towards his idea of people who use drugs, which doesn't seem to be reflected in reality.
Like slavery? Just because something is old does not make it automatically awesome or terrible. Use your logic. It's in there somewhere.
"From the same people" that you created in your mind. That you need to make some bizarre, unfounded generalisations to bolster your claims doesn't reflect too well on you or your argument.
You are labouring under the assumption that someone under the influence of drugs (illicit or otherwise) is somehow functionally impaired. You are not doing yourself any favours by wading into an argument and dismissing swathes of the population because of something you assume to be true.
And has been pointed out, "effect" and "affect" are not interchangeable.
Radio: 1895 (first practical telegraphy transmitters and receivers)
Telephone: 1876
Automobile: 1886
Apart from those, nicely done.
I feel nothing but pity for the scared life you must lead, missing out on all the wonders of the universe as they pass you by because you, in your great wisdom and infallibility, assume they don't exist. You are constantly confusing your hubris with evidence, and look where it gets you - you think the pinnacle of your contribution to this thread is proudly proclaiming you either don't understand some very basic science, or that you feel adhering to some political identity is more important than actually learning.
Either way you really need to work on yourself, lest you die cold and bitter.
I guess you must be right as no technology stopped you making stuff up.
You are assuming your subjective impressions are objective, which is patently not the case... Your A/B/X tests don't mean a lot if you don't provide the methodology behind them.
Btrfs is not on on par with ZFS. Not even close.
Maybe they can take their hobby somewhere else?
Yes, but those cars will be driving for less than 1/4th the time it would take you to normally commute, so it evens out, surely. Unless you are saying that each journey would take the same amount of time as all 4 journeys together?
Don't think your personal anecdotes are in any way evidence. You have such a high opinion of yourself it's amazing. The evidence is there, and you just don't want to accept it. Strange.
They can do what they want, as they are not the government. Or are you saying that everyone should be able to be coerced into saying what anyone else wants them to say?
It is not mutually exclusive to be for someone's rights, disagree with how they are using their rights, voice your disagreements, and not be guilty of censorship.
You are terrible at this. Really, really bad. You are getting incredibly confused about some very basic concepts you appear to think you support very strongly.
Stick to facts, unless you want to look like someone with an agenda other than "learning the truth".
You appear to not understand how ALPR/ANPR readers work. They can just sit there scanning plates and recording nothing, pinging matches against a database of subjects of interest, and then alert the force to that subject's location, in close to real-time. No need to claim you know that they are gathering travel data for mass surveillance (without any evidence), and claim that they are not doing this for traffic or criminal law enforcement (again without any evidence). Let's stick to the facts, ok?
Do you really need this spelled out to you? If the police masquerade as Google cars, people will perceive Google cars as possibly police cars, something entirely unreasonable without the actions of the police. That means anyone with a grudge against the police, be it premeditated or in the heat of passion, will now have reason to assume any marked Google vehicles are actually cop cars. The comparison with the CIA's operation was to illustrate to you that by masquerading as another entity blurs the lines of perception between the two. If one actor is subsequently discovered to be acting in poor faith, then the other, possibly innocent actor is tainted.
This is not difficult to understand. Sure, it shows you are wrong, but it's not difficult to understand.
If you have actual evidence, and can stop making ridiculous generalisations which tar the vast majority of refugees who are innocent of any "scheming", you can say what you want. If your argument is based on unsubstantiated nonsense, expect your argument to be destroyed, as it wasn't even an argument to begin with.
The fact you made a whole bunch of claims and logical absurdities while summarising your argument doesn't show you're on a particularly sound footing, and you should expect everything you get if you are too lazy to accurately construct a logically coherent argument.
Germany knows what happens when idiots make unchallenged generalisations condemning minorities.
He enabled the "you drive slowly while I watch out for obstacles" mode and then didn't watch out for obstacles. The car did what it was supposed to do, and he didn't, and it's the car's fault?