People used to live in houses made of wood lit entirely by candles. Sconces and gas lighting are kind of new. Oil lanterns were a big thing for a really long time, and if you knock one of those over you have a problem; candles at least go out or not, oil spills and causes a huge blaze.
Somebody wrote a TV show about how it's dangerous to light candles in the dark. I think we've obviated how stupid people are. Really... a TV show about how dangerous candles are?
How do you explain the thermonuclear-scale explosion of Krakatoa? I mean ridiculous, sea water running into hot lava causing a steam release that detonated the island? Everyone knows steam is harmless. It's not like nuclear piles are hot and could have caused a pressurized steam build-up in a reactor.
And of course, you're right. The government can create earthquakes with their magic space beams that they got from unicorn aliens.
I'm sure you can find better examples than this. India is currently using non-GMO, manure-fertilized crop and sustainable growing practices to break world records for crop yield (overall and per land area) in rice, wheat, and potato. That means, yes, they're beating all of our advanced, scientific magic where we use chemical pesticides and herbicides followed by GMO crops and chemical fertilizers... just by shoveling horse shit into the land.
Usually arguments about how farmers are doing it wrong end out with people telling me--with no farming experience of their own--that they don't know what the hell they're talking about BUT since the high-dollar farmers in America are so smart they must know what they're doing and it's probably impossible to grow an appreciable amount of food without using chemical pesticides and fertilizers. The last guy cited the Green Revolution (scientific advancements in crop growth that basically saved the world from starvation by inventing new growing techniques centered around chemical fertilizers and modernized industrial practices), but I'm fairly certain that "X happened and Y fixed it, therefor only Y works" is a logical fallacy.
Usually omnipotent implies both, yes, since all-powerful means you can force knowledge into your head and have the power to understand it without breaking under the stress.
I don't buy into the philosophy that $DEITY says i.e. sex with your sister is wrong, so it's wrong. It's wrong because A) society says it's wrong; B) your religion says it's wrong and *you* accept that; C) broken babies (if this is your only argument, there's condoms and birth control and abortions--if you want to have an actual philosophical debate, this is your starting point; expect lots of squick); D) mom caught you; E) it just feels wrong to *you*; etc. $DEITY appears and declares this is wrong, everyone says "Wait we all use birth control for that, what's so wrong about it?", you should invoke Klingon beliefs and kill $DEITY.
Oddly enough, all-powerful doesn't let you actually make things wrong. You can adhere consequences--like going to hell or getting hit by lightning--but that just makes you an authoritarian dictator. This is why I'm bad at religion--believing in the existence of a god doesn't really do much for me. Abrahamic Jehovah is actually real?... your point? No, fuck that guy, he says a lot of stupid shit I don't like.
I'm saying that the argument is taken to the extreme. It doesn't just go "Don't refuse to hire fat people and throw rocks at them!" It goes "Big is beautiful!" "This titty bar should be REQUIRED to not exclude hiring fat ugly heifers that nobody wants to see squeezing their lard-ass into those tiny little hotpants!" "You shouldn't say that being fat is bad! Being fat is not bad! Fat people are people too and just as valid as you and there's NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM!" and it's like... there's something wrong with you, you're fat, you're unhealthy, people do not want to see you dancing on the table in the Tilted Kilt, your heart is working triple overtime trying to pump your bacon-grease blood, you can't jog half a block, you smell like shit, and you're eating enough food to feed a small army. Yes we can still hire you to perform jobs that aren't centric to us wanting to stare at sexy chicks, that's a given; no we shouldn't just throw you out a window somewhere; but don't tell me we should all fluff your self-esteem and tell you big girls are beautiful when you weigh 800 pounds and have flab hanging off your flab. You're fat, you eat too god damn much, and you're a fucking slob and your apartment smells like a rotting landfill. Don't like it? Fix yourself, don't bitch at me for not liking you. That or find a feeder boyfriend and be happy with that and ignore everyone else.
The human brain is not capable of understanding it. It's all fuzzy and a lot of shit breaks, hence why social groups and subgroups and subcultures form and people participate in all of them at different levels. Some guys will screw every fucking girl they meet; some will never get a date; some will be the center of attention; some will just float around and have a few quiet friends. A lot of these people will be where they are mainly by ability, with some desire to be at a different level that they have no clue how to achieve.
Omniscient you cock swallowing dickgobbler god damn. Omniscient is all-knowing; omnipotent is all-powerful. Did you not fucking finish third grade when they were explaining how story writing works? You know, the whole story writing perspective thing? First person, second person, third person? Third person limited, third person omniscient? (Second person writing is really fucking creepy...)
There is patently something wrong with fat people, though. I mean curvy, somewhat overweight girls are not terribly unhealthy or anything, they may be better off to an extent at some point and then slowly worsening, etc. But that fat bitch at Burger King that started whining about not having her fries because she ordered herself 4 whoppers and a ton of fries, and they had to cook fresh baskets of fries to feed her? Just her? 4 whoppers? "You don't know my needs!" you're right, lardass; I studied computers, not walrus. Go drag your ass back into the nearest lake before your blubber dries out.
She took offense to the walrus comment. She seemed to feel totally justified in demanding her basket of fries be cooked faster and that all other customers be made to wait so her meal-for-eight-or-ten-starving-african-kids could be rushed to her before fulfilling all the orders that got there before she did.
In a twist of irony, the massive... massive... I mean this boy wasn't just fat, he was like 6'8 and built like a concrete-and-steel shithouse... huge fucking guy behind the counter gave me a free apple pie after that little outburst. He was none too amused with her bullshit either.
It's not like it isn't your right to be tubby. You pay for the food, you eat it, you get fat, you're unhealthy. All this "stop making fun of fat people" stuff doesn't just cut down to being malicious, though; it cuts down to "there's nothing wrong with them! They're okay! Stop telling them this isn't good! Make them feel good about themselves!" Should we make people with HIV feel good about themselves too? There are people who intentionally get HIV because then they don't have to worry about catching it and can have sex more freely (which is fucking terrifying), because it's just a "manageable condition". People want to deny it, but we're fostering the idea that it's okay to be fat and diminishing the value of good health... is that what we want to be doing?
Depends where the fine print is. Fine print often occurs on the cover of things, on the face. I've seen things starred and crossed and otherwise marked where you had to get *inside* to see the fine print, or where I've searched everything and not found the fine print anywhere but it was buried somewhere inconvenient and unnecessarily difficult to find. Fine print that's in legal documents that you have to read in full can be considered misleading.
In my example, if the TOS says somewhere buried deep in an FAQ that you can't normally get to unless you've spent an hour or so boredly browsing and reading all the terms and conditions and additional documentation on the site (i.e. it's not conveniently linked from the content you're purchasing), it's reasonable to assume that nobody has actually seen this and nobody has any warning about wtf is going on here. If it is also reasonable to assume that the meaning would be interpreted wholly different than the actual terms dictate, then it is *unreasonable* to assume that any person using the service would actually know the terms of their purchase. Because of this, you now have a case that a reasonable person would have had expectations that the provider has fostered contrary to what is actually being provided. You can argue that the provider did not provide any reasonable means for any customer to discover the nature of the service, and so is now culpable.
Think about the "Users never read the EULA" argument, except the user probably doesn't even realize the EULA exists and wouldn't have been directed to click through that part unless they went intentionally searching--and yet the user has somehow agreed to things they never saw nor were asked to read or sign. If that's a likely scenario, it's a hell of a lot stronger than "Yeah, I know I should have read the fine print, but I didn't... nobody reads that stuff."
It's not a matter of not being able to read; it's a matter of reading clownshoes logic with no basis in reality and barely a fixed basis in any coherent form of bullshit. It's like the words have meaning, but the meaning is disconnected from anything sane and sensible.
No, from a legal standpoint it will come down to if it was reasonable to assume the customer knew what this shit meant. If there's a highly buried definition somewhere in doublefine print, folks start looking guilty. Misleading advertisement is a crime, and writing somewhere deep in the manual "You only get 20% of what you pay for, but we call it Full Package and show a picture of the other 80%, just you have to spend 5x more to get the rest really" will not be looked upon favorably by the courts. Putting in "Full Package!*" with "*Complete accessory set shown, sold separately; Full Package references the full standard set, not to include the full accessory set" directly below in half-size print will not get you boned in court, as the judge will look at the plaintiff like he's stupid for not reading the text shoved right in front of his face.
Fine print won't help if you can call this "Misleading Advertisement". False and misleading advertisement are both illegal; if you put something reasonable as a title on your shit and people are reasonably mislead, you're misleading. "Entire CD for $5!" *"We only carry 2 tracks of this CD as a bundle, you get the entire 2 tracks we carry as the digital version of the CD, you have to buy the rest" fineprint bullshit will quickly get you boned unless it is slapped right across the front somewhere most complete retards will spot it. The harder you bury that fine print, the guiltier you look and the less amused the courts will be.
This was a single teenager, large, lean, muscular, with fighting experience. It's a tough fight, but it's one you can at least bring below the level of "life or death" for a little bit. Zimmerman was taking it in the ass the whole way; he had absolutely no chance other than shooting this kid fatally. As a boxer you'd get taken down easy by a minimally trained fighter; but take that experience to Muay Thai (more hard art, but damn) or Silat and you're going to quickly find yourself unphased by 2 or 3 "street hardened' kids who have no real formal training and no training to function in a group. 6 or 7 maybe. Firearms and other weapons are going to make this shitty real quick and you're going to find yourself in a place you don't want to be. Not the point; point is you can be better than "I'm just gonna get my ass beat."
You're the one making the "I didn't see it so it didn't happen 'cause I dun didn't been there" argument. Have you scientifically confirmed that other people cease to exist when they move out of your field of view, too?
Which is fair conjecture; but in context, it's just flame bait. When you step back and look at the whole case, you're grasping for straws; these arguments only become relevant when we're able to say with high confidence whose voice it is, otherwise they're just inflammatory and irrelevant.
It's similar to the argument: What if Zimmerman had been stalking Martin for weeks, subtly threatening him, and he was scared for his life; and then Zimmerman called the police to create a good cover story before finally murdering the kid? Evidence: Zimmerman sounded none too happy about "fucking punks" on the police call. Actually it was kind of muffled, are we sure now he said "punks" and not "coons"? Sounds racist to me. Maybe this was all planned out by mastermind murderer George Zimmerman from the get-go.
What you want is Cool Chips at 55% carnot efficiency.
I've already figured out how to use these to make 1000+mpg cars. They don't even have viable production yield yet. This is a keystone technology that I can personally put to a hell of a lot of use making a ton of shit that doesn't exist now (some could but would be expensive and impractical; some is physically impossible to substitute a compressor for).
Slashdot Mirror
Tougher than a burning building?
People used to live in houses made of wood lit entirely by candles. Sconces and gas lighting are kind of new. Oil lanterns were a big thing for a really long time, and if you knock one of those over you have a problem; candles at least go out or not, oil spills and causes a huge blaze.
Somebody wrote a TV show about how it's dangerous to light candles in the dark. I think we've obviated how stupid people are. Really... a TV show about how dangerous candles are?
How do you explain the thermonuclear-scale explosion of Krakatoa? I mean ridiculous, sea water running into hot lava causing a steam release that detonated the island? Everyone knows steam is harmless. It's not like nuclear piles are hot and could have caused a pressurized steam build-up in a reactor.
And of course, you're right. The government can create earthquakes with their magic space beams that they got from unicorn aliens.
I'm sure you can find better examples than this. India is currently using non-GMO, manure-fertilized crop and sustainable growing practices to break world records for crop yield (overall and per land area) in rice, wheat, and potato. That means, yes, they're beating all of our advanced, scientific magic where we use chemical pesticides and herbicides followed by GMO crops and chemical fertilizers... just by shoveling horse shit into the land.
Usually arguments about how farmers are doing it wrong end out with people telling me--with no farming experience of their own--that they don't know what the hell they're talking about BUT since the high-dollar farmers in America are so smart they must know what they're doing and it's probably impossible to grow an appreciable amount of food without using chemical pesticides and fertilizers. The last guy cited the Green Revolution (scientific advancements in crop growth that basically saved the world from starvation by inventing new growing techniques centered around chemical fertilizers and modernized industrial practices), but I'm fairly certain that "X happened and Y fixed it, therefor only Y works" is a logical fallacy.
Problem: Vitamin A is poisonous.
No civilization has ever survived primarily on potato.
My smartphone has several gigabytes of storage used on it at the moment. Just text messages will fill up half a gig.
These? http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rob_withey/images/large/cf_drive.jpg
Usually omnipotent implies both, yes, since all-powerful means you can force knowledge into your head and have the power to understand it without breaking under the stress.
I don't buy into the philosophy that $DEITY says i.e. sex with your sister is wrong, so it's wrong. It's wrong because A) society says it's wrong; B) your religion says it's wrong and *you* accept that; C) broken babies (if this is your only argument, there's condoms and birth control and abortions--if you want to have an actual philosophical debate, this is your starting point; expect lots of squick); D) mom caught you; E) it just feels wrong to *you*; etc. $DEITY appears and declares this is wrong, everyone says "Wait we all use birth control for that, what's so wrong about it?", you should invoke Klingon beliefs and kill $DEITY.
Oddly enough, all-powerful doesn't let you actually make things wrong. You can adhere consequences--like going to hell or getting hit by lightning--but that just makes you an authoritarian dictator. This is why I'm bad at religion--believing in the existence of a god doesn't really do much for me. Abrahamic Jehovah is actually real? ... your point? No, fuck that guy, he says a lot of stupid shit I don't like.
I'm saying that the argument is taken to the extreme. It doesn't just go "Don't refuse to hire fat people and throw rocks at them!" It goes "Big is beautiful!" "This titty bar should be REQUIRED to not exclude hiring fat ugly heifers that nobody wants to see squeezing their lard-ass into those tiny little hotpants!" "You shouldn't say that being fat is bad! Being fat is not bad! Fat people are people too and just as valid as you and there's NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM!" and it's like... there's something wrong with you, you're fat, you're unhealthy, people do not want to see you dancing on the table in the Tilted Kilt, your heart is working triple overtime trying to pump your bacon-grease blood, you can't jog half a block, you smell like shit, and you're eating enough food to feed a small army. Yes we can still hire you to perform jobs that aren't centric to us wanting to stare at sexy chicks, that's a given; no we shouldn't just throw you out a window somewhere; but don't tell me we should all fluff your self-esteem and tell you big girls are beautiful when you weigh 800 pounds and have flab hanging off your flab. You're fat, you eat too god damn much, and you're a fucking slob and your apartment smells like a rotting landfill. Don't like it? Fix yourself, don't bitch at me for not liking you. That or find a feeder boyfriend and be happy with that and ignore everyone else.
The human brain is not capable of understanding it. It's all fuzzy and a lot of shit breaks, hence why social groups and subgroups and subcultures form and people participate in all of them at different levels. Some guys will screw every fucking girl they meet; some will never get a date; some will be the center of attention; some will just float around and have a few quiet friends. A lot of these people will be where they are mainly by ability, with some desire to be at a different level that they have no clue how to achieve.
Why was a nine year old girl there? Why didn't the parents quickly remove her from the environment?
Omniscient you cock swallowing dickgobbler god damn. Omniscient is all-knowing; omnipotent is all-powerful. Did you not fucking finish third grade when they were explaining how story writing works? You know, the whole story writing perspective thing? First person, second person, third person? Third person limited, third person omniscient? (Second person writing is really fucking creepy...)
There is patently something wrong with fat people, though. I mean curvy, somewhat overweight girls are not terribly unhealthy or anything, they may be better off to an extent at some point and then slowly worsening, etc. But that fat bitch at Burger King that started whining about not having her fries because she ordered herself 4 whoppers and a ton of fries, and they had to cook fresh baskets of fries to feed her? Just her? 4 whoppers? "You don't know my needs!" you're right, lardass; I studied computers, not walrus. Go drag your ass back into the nearest lake before your blubber dries out.
She took offense to the walrus comment. She seemed to feel totally justified in demanding her basket of fries be cooked faster and that all other customers be made to wait so her meal-for-eight-or-ten-starving-african-kids could be rushed to her before fulfilling all the orders that got there before she did.
In a twist of irony, the massive... massive... I mean this boy wasn't just fat, he was like 6'8 and built like a concrete-and-steel shithouse ... huge fucking guy behind the counter gave me a free apple pie after that little outburst. He was none too amused with her bullshit either.
It's not like it isn't your right to be tubby. You pay for the food, you eat it, you get fat, you're unhealthy. All this "stop making fun of fat people" stuff doesn't just cut down to being malicious, though; it cuts down to "there's nothing wrong with them! They're okay! Stop telling them this isn't good! Make them feel good about themselves!" Should we make people with HIV feel good about themselves too? There are people who intentionally get HIV because then they don't have to worry about catching it and can have sex more freely (which is fucking terrifying), because it's just a "manageable condition". People want to deny it, but we're fostering the idea that it's okay to be fat and diminishing the value of good health... is that what we want to be doing?
Depends where the fine print is. Fine print often occurs on the cover of things, on the face. I've seen things starred and crossed and otherwise marked where you had to get *inside* to see the fine print, or where I've searched everything and not found the fine print anywhere but it was buried somewhere inconvenient and unnecessarily difficult to find. Fine print that's in legal documents that you have to read in full can be considered misleading.
In my example, if the TOS says somewhere buried deep in an FAQ that you can't normally get to unless you've spent an hour or so boredly browsing and reading all the terms and conditions and additional documentation on the site (i.e. it's not conveniently linked from the content you're purchasing), it's reasonable to assume that nobody has actually seen this and nobody has any warning about wtf is going on here. If it is also reasonable to assume that the meaning would be interpreted wholly different than the actual terms dictate, then it is *unreasonable* to assume that any person using the service would actually know the terms of their purchase. Because of this, you now have a case that a reasonable person would have had expectations that the provider has fostered contrary to what is actually being provided. You can argue that the provider did not provide any reasonable means for any customer to discover the nature of the service, and so is now culpable.
Think about the "Users never read the EULA" argument, except the user probably doesn't even realize the EULA exists and wouldn't have been directed to click through that part unless they went intentionally searching--and yet the user has somehow agreed to things they never saw nor were asked to read or sign. If that's a likely scenario, it's a hell of a lot stronger than "Yeah, I know I should have read the fine print, but I didn't ... nobody reads that stuff."
It's not a matter of not being able to read; it's a matter of reading clownshoes logic with no basis in reality and barely a fixed basis in any coherent form of bullshit. It's like the words have meaning, but the meaning is disconnected from anything sane and sensible.
Amazon's ass is well-covered and they are lawsuit-proof.
No, from a legal standpoint it will come down to if it was reasonable to assume the customer knew what this shit meant. If there's a highly buried definition somewhere in doublefine print, folks start looking guilty. Misleading advertisement is a crime, and writing somewhere deep in the manual "You only get 20% of what you pay for, but we call it Full Package and show a picture of the other 80%, just you have to spend 5x more to get the rest really" will not be looked upon favorably by the courts. Putting in "Full Package!*" with "*Complete accessory set shown, sold separately; Full Package references the full standard set, not to include the full accessory set" directly below in half-size print will not get you boned in court, as the judge will look at the plaintiff like he's stupid for not reading the text shoved right in front of his face.
Fine print won't help if you can call this "Misleading Advertisement". False and misleading advertisement are both illegal; if you put something reasonable as a title on your shit and people are reasonably mislead, you're misleading. "Entire CD for $5!" *"We only carry 2 tracks of this CD as a bundle, you get the entire 2 tracks we carry as the digital version of the CD, you have to buy the rest" fineprint bullshit will quickly get you boned unless it is slapped right across the front somewhere most complete retards will spot it. The harder you bury that fine print, the guiltier you look and the less amused the courts will be.
This was a single teenager, large, lean, muscular, with fighting experience. It's a tough fight, but it's one you can at least bring below the level of "life or death" for a little bit. Zimmerman was taking it in the ass the whole way; he had absolutely no chance other than shooting this kid fatally. As a boxer you'd get taken down easy by a minimally trained fighter; but take that experience to Muay Thai (more hard art, but damn) or Silat and you're going to quickly find yourself unphased by 2 or 3 "street hardened' kids who have no real formal training and no training to function in a group. 6 or 7 maybe. Firearms and other weapons are going to make this shitty real quick and you're going to find yourself in a place you don't want to be. Not the point; point is you can be better than "I'm just gonna get my ass beat."
You're the one making the "I didn't see it so it didn't happen 'cause I dun didn't been there" argument. Have you scientifically confirmed that other people cease to exist when they move out of your field of view, too?
But everyone wants those fine slim asians.
Which is fair conjecture; but in context, it's just flame bait. When you step back and look at the whole case, you're grasping for straws; these arguments only become relevant when we're able to say with high confidence whose voice it is, otherwise they're just inflammatory and irrelevant.
It's similar to the argument: What if Zimmerman had been stalking Martin for weeks, subtly threatening him, and he was scared for his life; and then Zimmerman called the police to create a good cover story before finally murdering the kid? Evidence: Zimmerman sounded none too happy about "fucking punks" on the police call. Actually it was kind of muffled, are we sure now he said "punks" and not "coons"? Sounds racist to me. Maybe this was all planned out by mastermind murderer George Zimmerman from the get-go.
What you want is Cool Chips at 55% carnot efficiency.
I've already figured out how to use these to make 1000+mpg cars. They don't even have viable production yield yet. This is a keystone technology that I can personally put to a hell of a lot of use making a ton of shit that doesn't exist now (some could but would be expensive and impractical; some is physically impossible to substitute a compressor for).