You'll have to define "common sense" for me. My understanding of it is incompatible with your description of it. Common sense is a groupthink. It's a moron-level competent man standard. Everyone knows how to [whatever] it's common sense. It's not something You or I have, it's a form of the "reasonable man" standard used in court. Should you have known that running over your foot with a lawn mower was harmful? Yes? Then that's "common sense". Do "you" know that running over your foot with a lawnmower was harmful? That's personal knowledge, and unrelated to "common sense".
But for the expert, you don't just reboot before asking for help (the "common sense" answer), because you want to see the error messages and research them later if the reboot doesn't permanently fix the problem. So common sense is wrong, and actually harmful.
That *I* know to look at errors and investigate before rebooting doesn't mean that's part of my "common sense" part of being "common" is being shared by many people. When my sense doesn't agree with everyone else's, it's no longer "common".
Old Wives Tale means "common sense we now think is false". Common sense does work for being risk-averse without understanding. That's what's behind Leviticus. Homosexual sex (anal sex of any gender) is more likely to cause certain diseases, make it "illegal". Pigs are dirty animals full of disease, ban eating them. Though I have no idea why blended fibers was banned by the Bible.
All those Old Testament things were "common sense" coded into law. They were guesses and suggestions that weren't understood. Eat pigs, get sick was known, but germ theory was thousands of years away.
Common sense is fearing something without understanding. After all, run away to fight another day is common sense.
No. When they all make more with all the new jobs, then the economy will pick up and they'll buy more and eventually get paid what we do in the US. Economy isn't a zero sum game.
The idea is that most work visas are immigration visas. Paths to citizenship. The H1-B was conceived as a non-citizenship visa. You live. You work. You go home.
Converting all those spots to immigration-path visas would be *better* for the country, other than letting in brown people.
Amnesty is a red herring anyway. In one generation they'll all be citizens anyway. So long as Jus Soli exists (it's in the Constitution), you'll always have the problem of people coming to give birth, then forever having that child be an anchor.
If you get what you pay for is "common sense" then "the more you pay the more you get" should be true as well, so if you pay $500 for a widget, and someone else pays $100 for the same widget, yours is provably better, since it cost more.
Common sense is wrong more than it's right. It's only good for making guesses about things you don't understand, and is worthless for evaluating things you understand.
SJW is a perjorative term invented as a response to feminists whining "but that's not TRUE feminism!" every time a feminist did something blatantly bigoted and anti-equality. It's a term used for people who use the language and appearance of Social Justice as a smokescreen for actually being toxic abusive bigots.
Then why do I see it used here for everyone that seems the least bit feminist, even when being completely rational and reasonable?
all the modern crypto-currencies are anti-environment. The more you damage the environment, the more you can make. It won't be until the "crypto" part is deliberately dumbed down and a central authority placed over creation (but not transaction) that they will be anything but "fuck the environment" toys for the nutjob fringe.
It was made environmentally damaging to limit participation. But putting creation to a central authority, and they can keep the creation calculations simpler and easier, but be the only authority allowed to create them. That will harm the environment less, and allow for wide adoption by people other than psychopaths.
I've been told that SJW's are against personal liberty. SJW means oppression by the minority, but requires oppression. So, unless the people here defining SJW for me are wrong (or lying), then it would require Libertarians to be anti-liberty for there to be overlap.
No, that's like saying the Democratic People's Republic of [country] as an insult. The thing you are calling them is purely positive, and used in a purely negative manner, unrelated (and contrary to) the definitions of each individual word, of any combination thereof.
You don't get it, you must be from the DPR US. Your example was calling someone a pejorative as a pejorative. Completely unrelated to anything I've ever said.
So they are social justice warriors, but because they are anit-feminist, they get a different label? Wouldn't that lead credence to my earlier theory that SJW is used as a pejorative for feminist, now that feminazi isn't used as much anymore?
XP was good enough. It's problem was that there wasn't a good 64 bit version. But that was timing. I'm still running XP on my old 4GB-limited desktop (for the kids).Windows 2000 was "good enough" for a basic workstation. It wasn't good enough to be the first unified OS (that was XP), but good enough that most companies stopped runing Win95 alongside NT 4.0 so that you could use "user" applications along side "business" applications. NT 4.0 SP3, SP4, and SP6a were *almost* good enough, but still had poor support for unusual things. If you had a user that needed a digitizer, or "odd" scanner, you'd have quite a few issues. 2000 was initially slated to be the first combined OS. 2000 fell short, so MS threw together ME for the home to do something for the interim. XP was the first unified OS, and all others since then have been.
DOS 3.3, and 6.2 were "good enough" (for their time, they wouldn't be "good enough" today). Win 98 SE was "good enough" as was NT 4.0 SP3/4/6a, and 2000. XP was "good enough". 8.1 seems "good enough" to me so far.
Nah, you'll see me do like I did with Office 2013. Screw 360. I own my Office for life. I don't pay subscription fees for software. It's mine, or I don't run it.
How something is defined in a book is not always how it's used in practice.
And when the use contradicts the previous use and the books, people generally complain about it. For some reason, my complaint pissed off a bunch of anti-SJW zealots. "social justice" was originally coined in relation to the abolition movement. That's what social justice is. Calling someone a social justice advocate as a pejorative is insulting to that movement, and all the actual social justice movements (sufferage and such).
I don't care if you assert the meaning is different. You insisting that it doesn't mean that any more won't change that I find the use as a pejorative offensive.
But apparently I'm not allowed to be offended by people who are deliberately using a pejorative with the intention of offending others.
The information shared is "personal information" not "medical information", though status as a smoker or pregnant could fall under both. HIPAA doesn't apply to the government anyway. And, unless it's changed since the last time I looked, the "p" had been enforced, but never the "a". People have been fined for not releasing information, but never fined for releasing too much to the wrong people. The real point of the law was that doctors would hold prescriptions and diagnoses hostage, demanding extortion fees to release them, of failing to release them to demand followups go through the same doctor. Yes, when fixing that, they added in a little bit on privacy, but the portability was the main point, and the *only* portion that's ever been enforced. The "accountability" portion has never been enforced.
Again, last I looked. They may have finally fined someone for a privacy breach, but I doubt it.
HIPAA was created to empower the patient in choice of doctor and treatment, not increase privacy (privacy is bad, as it leads to abortions). And that's exactly how it's been enforced.
Thankfully, the public is dumb as rocks, and I got paid big bucks to tell doctors "that's not required by HIPAA, but if you don't trust my legal opinion, but trust my technical skills, I'll be happy to do the superfluous work for $250/hr." They were lining up, for a few years. Scared of a law they didn't understand, even when it explicitly says "this should not be construed to mean that encryption is required", which I had highlighted in all my printouts of the law I carried with me. Funny how even the wording of the law can't change a closed mind.
If you have to resort to claiming "everyone else" believes what you believe, despite evidence to the contrary, it probably means your wrong and/or bullshitting it.
What evidence? I've posted links to evidence supporting my assertions. I've seen none "against" me. Evidence vs insults. Apparently insults without evidence wins you over. Must be why you like SJW as a pejorative.
So, are you saying that Wikipedia is wrong, or just saying that because it doesn't agree with you, that you want to dismiss it? It's a central source for information. I'm not claiming it's biased. But from what I've seen from GG and other places, the anti-SJW group is much more activist then the SJWs they are counter-culture against.
In particular, third-wave feminism seems closely intertwined with the social justice movement.
The SJWs didn't name themselves that. From what I can tell, the name was assigned recently as a pejorative by their hates. Those haters are evil racists and misogynists. The first SJWs in the USA were the abolitionists That's the first time "social justice" appeared in print. If SJW is a pejorative, then the abolitionists were bad.
But, as you note, it's generally an anti-feminist term today. But anyone familiar with the roots of the word would find it racist. So anyone using "SJW" as a pejorative is either a racist or a moron. And from reading the arguments put forward by such people, my linguistic analysis seems consistent with the current usage.
So "reflex" means "mirror"? Every dictionary I consulted, even some printed long ago, all refer to a reflex being a response to a stimulus. Such as a mirror moving by a shutter press or lever pull. It's not the mirror that's the reflex, it's the movement of it (or the shutter, or whatever else is moving in response to the stimulus). When the conclusion you give is 100% contradicted by the words you use, it's impossible to believe.
Unless you can find a definition (in a reputable dictionary) that equates "reflex" to "mirror" then I'll go right on believing that "reflex" means "response to a stimulus", and that negates your entire argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure it's not because God foresaw fat people in spandex, so made spandex illegal in 3000 b.c.?
That's the specious logic
All "common sense" is specious logic. But yes, you noted that my example was deliberately specious.
your common sense
You'll have to define "common sense" for me. My understanding of it is incompatible with your description of it. Common sense is a groupthink. It's a moron-level competent man standard. Everyone knows how to [whatever] it's common sense. It's not something You or I have, it's a form of the "reasonable man" standard used in court. Should you have known that running over your foot with a lawn mower was harmful? Yes? Then that's "common sense". Do "you" know that running over your foot with a lawnmower was harmful? That's personal knowledge, and unrelated to "common sense".
But for the expert, you don't just reboot before asking for help (the "common sense" answer), because you want to see the error messages and research them later if the reboot doesn't permanently fix the problem. So common sense is wrong, and actually harmful.
That *I* know to look at errors and investigate before rebooting doesn't mean that's part of my "common sense" part of being "common" is being shared by many people. When my sense doesn't agree with everyone else's, it's no longer "common".
Old Wives Tale means "common sense we now think is false". Common sense does work for being risk-averse without understanding. That's what's behind Leviticus. Homosexual sex (anal sex of any gender) is more likely to cause certain diseases, make it "illegal". Pigs are dirty animals full of disease, ban eating them. Though I have no idea why blended fibers was banned by the Bible.
All those Old Testament things were "common sense" coded into law. They were guesses and suggestions that weren't understood. Eat pigs, get sick was known, but germ theory was thousands of years away.
Common sense is fearing something without understanding. After all, run away to fight another day is common sense.
No. When they all make more with all the new jobs, then the economy will pick up and they'll buy more and eventually get paid what we do in the US. Economy isn't a zero sum game.
The idea is that most work visas are immigration visas. Paths to citizenship. The H1-B was conceived as a non-citizenship visa. You live. You work. You go home.
Converting all those spots to immigration-path visas would be *better* for the country, other than letting in brown people.
Amnesty is a red herring anyway. In one generation they'll all be citizens anyway. So long as Jus Soli exists (it's in the Constitution), you'll always have the problem of people coming to give birth, then forever having that child be an anchor.
If you get what you pay for is "common sense" then "the more you pay the more you get" should be true as well, so if you pay $500 for a widget, and someone else pays $100 for the same widget, yours is provably better, since it cost more.
Common sense is wrong more than it's right. It's only good for making guesses about things you don't understand, and is worthless for evaluating things you understand.
So a 3D monitor will let a tutor remotely draw on the pipes you are looking at, or the electrical junction you are looking at?
No. It will *never* interact with reality. You are hung up on the motorcycle example, and not looking at the others.
SJW is a perjorative term invented as a response to feminists whining "but that's not TRUE feminism!" every time a feminist did something blatantly bigoted and anti-equality. It's a term used for people who use the language and appearance of Social Justice as a smokescreen for actually being toxic abusive bigots.
Then why do I see it used here for everyone that seems the least bit feminist, even when being completely rational and reasonable?
all the modern crypto-currencies are anti-environment. The more you damage the environment, the more you can make. It won't be until the "crypto" part is deliberately dumbed down and a central authority placed over creation (but not transaction) that they will be anything but "fuck the environment" toys for the nutjob fringe.
It was made environmentally damaging to limit participation. But putting creation to a central authority, and they can keep the creation calculations simpler and easier, but be the only authority allowed to create them. That will harm the environment less, and allow for wide adoption by people other than psychopaths.
I've been told that SJW's are against personal liberty. SJW means oppression by the minority, but requires oppression. So, unless the people here defining SJW for me are wrong (or lying), then it would require Libertarians to be anti-liberty for there to be overlap.
No, that's like saying the Democratic People's Republic of [country] as an insult. The thing you are calling them is purely positive, and used in a purely negative manner, unrelated (and contrary to) the definitions of each individual word, of any combination thereof.
You don't get it, you must be from the DPR US. Your example was calling someone a pejorative as a pejorative. Completely unrelated to anything I've ever said.
So they are social justice warriors, but because they are anit-feminist, they get a different label? Wouldn't that lead credence to my earlier theory that SJW is used as a pejorative for feminist, now that feminazi isn't used as much anymore?
Does it call home once activated for re-authorization?
I think that you think there is overlap between SJW and Libertarians would offend both groups.
Nearly everything you've stated is false and contradicts the plain wording of the statute.
How many fines have been given out for not releasing information
How many have been given out for releasing too much information to the wrong people?
Those two questions answer the question of what it was for and how it was used.
XP was good enough. It's problem was that there wasn't a good 64 bit version. But that was timing. I'm still running XP on my old 4GB-limited desktop (for the kids).Windows 2000 was "good enough" for a basic workstation. It wasn't good enough to be the first unified OS (that was XP), but good enough that most companies stopped runing Win95 alongside NT 4.0 so that you could use "user" applications along side "business" applications. NT 4.0 SP3, SP4, and SP6a were *almost* good enough, but still had poor support for unusual things. If you had a user that needed a digitizer, or "odd" scanner, you'd have quite a few issues. 2000 was initially slated to be the first combined OS. 2000 fell short, so MS threw together ME for the home to do something for the interim. XP was the first unified OS, and all others since then have been.
DOS 3.3, and 6.2 were "good enough" (for their time, they wouldn't be "good enough" today). Win 98 SE was "good enough" as was NT 4.0 SP3/4/6a, and 2000. XP was "good enough". 8.1 seems "good enough" to me so far.
Nah, you'll see me do like I did with Office 2013. Screw 360. I own my Office for life. I don't pay subscription fees for software. It's mine, or I don't run it.
How something is defined in a book is not always how it's used in practice.
And when the use contradicts the previous use and the books, people generally complain about it. For some reason, my complaint pissed off a bunch of anti-SJW zealots. "social justice" was originally coined in relation to the abolition movement. That's what social justice is. Calling someone a social justice advocate as a pejorative is insulting to that movement, and all the actual social justice movements (sufferage and such).
I don't care if you assert the meaning is different. You insisting that it doesn't mean that any more won't change that I find the use as a pejorative offensive.
But apparently I'm not allowed to be offended by people who are deliberately using a pejorative with the intention of offending others.
The information shared is "personal information" not "medical information", though status as a smoker or pregnant could fall under both. HIPAA doesn't apply to the government anyway. And, unless it's changed since the last time I looked, the "p" had been enforced, but never the "a". People have been fined for not releasing information, but never fined for releasing too much to the wrong people. The real point of the law was that doctors would hold prescriptions and diagnoses hostage, demanding extortion fees to release them, of failing to release them to demand followups go through the same doctor. Yes, when fixing that, they added in a little bit on privacy, but the portability was the main point, and the *only* portion that's ever been enforced. The "accountability" portion has never been enforced.
Again, last I looked. They may have finally fined someone for a privacy breach, but I doubt it.
HIPAA was created to empower the patient in choice of doctor and treatment, not increase privacy (privacy is bad, as it leads to abortions). And that's exactly how it's been enforced.
Thankfully, the public is dumb as rocks, and I got paid big bucks to tell doctors "that's not required by HIPAA, but if you don't trust my legal opinion, but trust my technical skills, I'll be happy to do the superfluous work for $250/hr." They were lining up, for a few years. Scared of a law they didn't understand, even when it explicitly says "this should not be construed to mean that encryption is required", which I had highlighted in all my printouts of the law I carried with me. Funny how even the wording of the law can't change a closed mind.
They learned it from the Republicans.
Reagan's 3 treasons. Or the fact that the US people voted in a senile president suffering from dementia.
If you have to resort to claiming "everyone else" believes what you believe, despite evidence to the contrary, it probably means your wrong and/or bullshitting it.
What evidence? I've posted links to evidence supporting my assertions. I've seen none "against" me. Evidence vs insults. Apparently insults without evidence wins you over. Must be why you like SJW as a pejorative.
In particular, third-wave feminism seems closely intertwined with the social justice movement.
The SJWs didn't name themselves that. From what I can tell, the name was assigned recently as a pejorative by their hates. Those haters are evil racists and misogynists. The first SJWs in the USA were the abolitionists That's the first time "social justice" appeared in print. If SJW is a pejorative, then the abolitionists were bad.
But, as you note, it's generally an anti-feminist term today. But anyone familiar with the roots of the word would find it racist. So anyone using "SJW" as a pejorative is either a racist or a moron. And from reading the arguments put forward by such people, my linguistic analysis seems consistent with the current usage.
So "reflex" means "mirror"? Every dictionary I consulted, even some printed long ago, all refer to a reflex being a response to a stimulus. Such as a mirror moving by a shutter press or lever pull. It's not the mirror that's the reflex, it's the movement of it (or the shutter, or whatever else is moving in response to the stimulus). When the conclusion you give is 100% contradicted by the words you use, it's impossible to believe.
Unless you can find a definition (in a reputable dictionary) that equates "reflex" to "mirror" then I'll go right on believing that "reflex" means "response to a stimulus", and that negates your entire argument.