Intent is hard to prove before committing a crime, you can't read peoples' minds which is why you can't reliably determine who will only use a firearm responsibly in the future, even if you could circumstances change. You regulate the means to cause harm, because you can't regulate the desire to.
Do you really need to ask why someone has a problem with strangers carrying automatic weapons? There are very few situations where one would need such a weapon in self defense. The question shouldn't be what's wrong with carrying an automatic weapon, the answers to that are obvious and plentiful. The question should always be, why does he need it?
And before you say I didn't answer you, here you go: he's only human. Even well trained soldiers who use their firearms on a regular basis make mistakes, it's documented, even if you rule out times where someone "snaps" and uses the weapon nobody saw a problem with them having with unjustifiable malicious intent, accidents happen that get innocent people killed. Putting those weapons in the hands of people that aren't well trained (the safety courses here in Mass where I live only serve to familiarize owners with firearms and are not adequate training for anyone who might actually need to use a one, for that you need to look further than what's required, a feeling that's quite common among local gun owners I speak with) will lead to more accidents. Beyond just accidents, every offender had a first arrest, and until then they may pass the background check just the same. Who's to say Average Joe doesn't intend to use that firearm to hold up a liquor store? You can't say it wouldn't happen because people have used guns they legally purchased in crimes, generally speaking criminals are not the brightest of folks. People are not all necessarily good, I'm not saying we're all bad or even the majority but there's no mechanism for determining if someone will do something terrible in the future, the best way to mitigate potential damage it is to regulate the tools that can be used to cause such damage. Average Joe might never use his automatic weapon, or he might use it to injure a criminal who would've harmed him, or he might use it in self defense but accidentally shoot three kids that were playing outside behind the guy trying to steal his VCR, the fact is we don't know what'll happen, some of us would rather play it safe. I don't expect everyone to agree, it really comes down to what you feel safest with. I wouldn't feel any safer with an assault rifle than I do with my dinky little.22, there aren't many people that are going to shake off a shot even from something so small.
In other words, the second amendment was always intended to be limited, regulated by other laws? What shocking news...
As for nitpicking about using the nuke as an example, it really doesn't matter what the example is, there's plenty of options, We regulate arms, that's just how it is, and as you pointed out, how it's been since before the constitution.
I've never seen anyone agree that the two mean different things, I'm searching now and can only find people saying there's a difference in relation to gun control, no actual definition I can find suggests there's any difference in meaning, although the view isn't uncommon. The problem is, it's still just an interpretation, and as I've said before, once you choose to interpret it with anything but the definition you're narrowing the scope based on your own assumptions. If there were some universal agreement on this, it would be different, but there isn't.
Stating over and over that words can motivate people to bear arms does nothing to suggest arms should not be regulated, please understand that. If anything, it shows that we should regulate arms, because in any case where you're motivated by words to use a gun and not by the need to defend yourself, you should be looking at an alternative first. Hell, even in many defense cases, a gun is not necessary and you'd be fine with something far less likely to be lethal.
Not at all, given nuclear weapons were one of the examples given in the post he's replying to. It's just following the same logic, if you say they didn't intend to limit what guns we should have you should understand how far that logic goes. Nobody really believes that, so it's important for people to realize it's not a question of whether or not we have gun control laws, it's what we want to accomplish with them. Now, if you're really hung up about the nuke, swap it with a hand grenade. If you're going to say, "That's not a gun!" then go ahead a re-read the second amendment, it's the right to bear arms, a category both the nuke and hand grenade definitely fall under. Once you debate the intent of that statement, you're not interpreting it literally, instead you're narrowing the definition and throwing the main argument against gun control out the window. Nobody really believes in a literal interpretation of the second amendment, they just say they do when it suits them.
Are you even trying to make a serious argument? I think it's you that should find something better to do with your time, whenever people present arguments like yours (you know, the complete lack of any argument because there's no argument to make, just saying "You can't take our guns!") you do nothing but destroy the credibility of others doing a better job of making your case. Child-like stubbornness only makes me believe that much more that you should not be allowed to own a firearm.
As for disarming the United States, you obviously didn't even read the whole post if you think I feel we should all be disarmed, like I said I'm a gun owner myself, I'm just one of the responsible ones that ashamed to be grouped with you action-star wanna-be fools that think you need a machine gun to keep someone from stealing your TV.
You are reaching pretty far, and not making much sense. Zyklon B was a chemical weapon and a fine example of something that should be controlled but wouldn't if you had no limits on the right to bear arms, I think you're making my point. And even in a riot, is it not easier to kill with a gun than with your hands?
You are failing miserably at either comprehending what I said or making your own case. Nothing you've said suggests the Nazis would've been able to do as much damage without guns and (as you pointed out) chemical weapons. Nobody is saying "Nazi propaganda is A-OK," or that it's safe to incite a riot or anything else you seem to be implying. The point, which you've failed to do anything to refute, is that guns make it all that much more dangerous.
This is why the gun debate will never go anywhere, people get too emotional and illogical with it all. I pointed this out in another post but I'll say it again here:
I am a gun owner. I do not support the government taking all guns from all people, but I do support gun control, we need to stop acting like there is no middle ground.
A crazed man with a gun can kill tens of people. Crazed men with a books and many followers with many weapons have killed millions.
FTFY
Find some example of mass murder without weapons, or any pattern showing the massive numbers achieved with firearms would be attainable without, then you'll have a relevant point. I find the notion that words are as dangerous as weapons quite silly, any fanatic, driven by another mans words or not, could do far more damage with a gun than without.
So you're saying we should be allowed to own nuclear weapons? If not, you're saying we should limit the scope of the second amendment. You can't have it both ways. The fact is, you can't compare tools designed solely for killing to anything but tools designed solely for killing, and you shouldn't be trying to. Guns are an issue all their own, like nothing else, and comparing the right to own a tool with a sole purpose of killing to the right to spread news is absurd and only serves to confuse. Nobody argues it should be legal to scream "Fire!" in a crowded building to cause alarm, I don't understand why they argue any average joe should be able to carry an automatic rifle.
Disclaimer: I am a gun owner, I am aware my guns are tools for killing even though I haven't used them for anything more than target practice, and I don't mean to discourage anyone from owning a firearm. But we should all keep a clear head when considering things like this, and stop looking at is as an all-or-nothing situation. Our choices are not limited to "The guvmint's takin all our guns!" and "Whooey Billybob got a new RPG!"
And while I'm sure plenty of you are foaming at the mouth to claim guns are not solely tools for killing, you are only fooling yourselves. For anything short of killing, get yourselves a BB or paintball gun for sport and a taser and some pepper spray for self defense.
Right? People should learn they're better off having their hardware choices severely limited by their OS... Honestly, comments like this highlight why most users will never switch to Linux: the things you consider basic knowledge are things the average user never wants to even consider learning about. People who are primarily concerned with the color of their laptop do not know or care to know about the difference between AMD and nVidia, they want whichever comes in the white laptop and they just want it to work when they turn it on. You say they need to look at more, the thing is they really don't and there's no good reason they should have to.
Sorry. I kind of wish it was just a trend too, but the fact is, the Wii is still very popular with a lot of people. It seems like a joke to a lot of more "hardcore" gamers, but it's still dominant in a market that was largely ignored before: casuals. I don't play Wii much anymore, especially since I picked up a PS4, but when I do it's because my girlfriend still enjoys it more than any other platform we've tried, and we try every game we can to see if she's interested.
Is it the future of console gaming? No. But for a lot of people it's all they'll ever need for a price they can easily afford.
No, feedback is not obligatory, it's not even immediately apparent you can do it without looking for it. It'd be nice if you knew anything about the way Live works before commenting like that, Google can help. As for actually receiving 80% negative feedback, while I can't positively say so without polling everyone I'd ever played with, it doesn't seem reasonable to think that roughly twelve of the fifteen other players in every single game I'd ever played took the time to single out an average player who doesn't go out of his way to harass others and submit negative feedback. If so many thousands of players (we're talking a decade of using a single Live account, including heavy use for several years) actually did submit negative feedback for no reason I can figure, that in and of itself would be evidence that the system does not work, as just playing the game does not warrant negative feedback.
As a former Live subscriber, I don't believe Microsoft has taken such care with their system. The reputation system already existed before, it wasn't as obvious and didn't penalize you as much, but it existed. I was a big fan of the Halo series, I played them online until maybe a year ago. I wasn't always the best player but I wasn't the worst either. I played to enjoy it, I wasn't running around trolling and talking smack (save a couple excited moments) and I didn't leave games if I could avoid it. When I first saw my reputation score, I had 80% negative feedback. 80%. According to the description, the remaining 20% was either good feedback or no feedback at all. Meaning that according to Microsoft, 80% of the players I'd played with in the years from Halo 2 to Halo 4 had not only submitted feedback about me, a player who doesn't really stand out as good or bad, but they'd submitted negative feedback. I'm to believe that only 20% of the many thousands (at least, I played a lot for a while) of people I played with didn't submit negative feedback about me? I find it hard to believe that even the most annoying trolls manage to provoke 80% of other players into taking the time to submit negative feedback, let alone someone just trying to play the game.
Is the current reputation system just as bad? I don't know, I hope not. But I'm not willing to risk losing access to things I pay for based on a system like this. I'm certainly never going to agree to any terms of service that suggest my ability to fully use the service depends on what other users think of me. It reminds me a bit of DRM, the trolls are going to have no trouble getting around this by changing accounts when their rep gets bad or just using trial accounts, the people who suffer will be regular players like us who aren't gaming the system.
I am not sure we read the same article. Not to invoke an argument, but the TFA talks about listening to sermons and reading the bible. It even ends with '“My personal belief is that having a strong belief is key to getting the benefits,” Fotuhi said.'
Right or wrong, the article says what it says.. The fact that you missed this would suggest you may need to check your confirmation bias filters a bit.
In response to:
The Discovery article makes it pretty clear towards the end that it is not religious belief, but religious activities, that are likely responsible for the cognitive benefits.
And now, you again:
as I noted elsewhere, I see his (and probably yours) point
But I thought the article says what it says? Was it in fact you who missed something due to your confirmation bias filters?
As you can see, you've now said yourself that you were wrong earlier. I hope you can begin to understand where you went wrong, and why it was not the best move to insist that your opinion, as you must clearly see it is, doesn't make anyone else wrong at all. Also, it's funny that after several posts of not making a single point in support of your argument, you've come around and now agree with me while still acting like I'm wrong, and you are attacking my "debating style." Very amusing! You've done a great job of helping me kill time in the slow parts of my Saturday. Good day to you as well, my very confused friend!
It isn't that the article is A-OK, it'd be nice to have bias removed from every report that isn't labelled as an editorial (maybe in bold letters) but even if that were to happen it's important for people to be able to distinguish between facts and opinions in anything. The bulk of the information anyone receives during the day comes from other people, anything you didn't witness yourself is passing through someone else and is likely to be presented differently based on their opinion. The internet had put a lot of information at our fingertips, but it's all coming from other people, we need to first understand that everyone has an opinion and second learn how to separate their opinions from the facts they've presented. Honestly it's easy in this article, they even call out the opinions as such, it'd take a simpleton not to be able to see through them. Sometimes simpletons sign up on Slashdot though.
Oh don't do that, saying you'll leave it as this is like admitting you just can't prove your point. The problem is, you can't distinguish between where the article is giving an opinion and where it's stating fact. Now, I read it again, for the third time, and while it's clear the author of the article has an opinion, there's no actual evidence in the article to support that opinion, only quotes from others giving their opinion. Let's be clear here, there are no statements of fact in the article that suggest religion is any necessary part of it, and there are opinions quoted going both ways. So, while you can interpret the opinion of the author of the article from how much they've chosen to quote opinions in one direction, the overall article makes it very clear that there are no facts to suggest it's one way or the other.
Ok. I am not one of those people who needs to be right all the time, nor am I someone who needs to prove it. It is my considered opinion that both the OP's interpretation and yours ignore the bias completely for most likely the reason given, but that is neither here nor there. I am going to leave it as this.
If that isn't an attempt to walk away while doing your damndest to sound like you must be right, I don't know what is. Look, if you think I'm the one biased here, you aren't paying attention. I'm saying the article doesn't say one way or the other, it only gives opinions. I'm not even saying religion is definitely not a necessary part of it, all I'm saying is you're wrong to call his interpretation wrong. Nothing you've said at any point has helped your argument, all you've done is insist that because the author has an opinion that walking away from the article interpreting it any other way is wrong. You're quite simply the only one here who is wrong, you can shout "I'm right!" all you want, but you can't actually support your argument because you're wrong. You've gone ahead and quoted me instead of the article, and with quotes that do nothing to suggest you're right, only that you still can't see the difference between opinions and facts in an article. That, honestly, is the only way to interpret your way, if you can't separate opinions from fact. If you look at the facts presented in the article, none of them say religion or belief is actually a necessary part of it.
It's good you don't need to be right all the time and prove it, because you are wrong and have failed on every level to prove otherwise at all.
Having read it, I can safely say the Discovery article makes it clear the author quotes an opinion at the end, but that does nothing to the results they discuss. Statements given in the article such as, "It’s hard to know whether it's through religion or a gathering of friends, but it improves brain health in the long term," as well as "Listening to sermons and reading religious works like the Bible may also invoke a cognitive benefit," present the possibility that believing has nothing to do with it. And let's not miss this gem, “Actually, I would suspect that people doing the types of things like religious people do -- socializing, doing similarly complex cognitive tasks, would have similar benefits."
I'm not sure what article you read, but while the author ends on a quote suggesting belief does have something to do with it, the overall article make it pretty clear that nothing outside of an opinion suggests that. You are certainly free to question this interpretation, but a few posts back you told OP "I am not sure we read the same article" and went on to say "Right or wrong, the article says what it says" and you were clearly wrong on both counts. As I said before, the article is a bit silly and only really says is that people need a release, and for some it's related to religion. The article does not make it pretty clear, as you said. In fact, I'm starting to think you barely read the article, your opinion seems to be entirely your own, and accusing someone else of having "confirmation bias filters" affecting their interpretation is pretty outlandish. You are the one showing a great deal of bias about this. The OP was entirely correct, and you are simply wrong.
Actually, you're commenting on the OP's interpretation of the article author's interpretation. The study says exactly what OP says it does, that religious activity reduces stress filters, the author's personal opinion is given to create bias and it appears to have worked on you.
It's my personal belief that it has nothing to do with how strongly you believe in any particular religion, and you'd likely see the same benefits from taking time to reflect on your own or discussing matters with supportive friends and family. You can feel free to try to correct my interpretation, as long as you understand it's only your own opinion and possible that of the author against mine, this study does nothing to prove either of us wrong.
Any time I read something saying religion is good or bad in any way, I take it with a grain of salt. There doesn't seem to be anyone studying religion who doesn't have a desired outcome going into it.
That said, this article seems a bit silly, all they're really saying is that people need a release, something anyone alive today can tell you. For some, that release is religion, for others it could be anything. This is not news.
You've shown a thorough misunderstanding of what I was saying, and really just sound like an arrogant dick. I said most people will never need to look at any amount of code, and you said they'd benefit from being able to automate tasks with minimal programming abilities, the two are not exclusive. I'm assuming your twenty years of experience is in some field where you assist people in using their computers, otherwise it might be irrelevant, so you clearly know how many people know what you're talking about when you reference the command prompt? I've only half that time under my belt, but in my experience, not many. You even state yourself most will never touch it. Despite your assumptions otherwise, I've had to get quite creative in the past, you simply can't prepare a small business for ISO certification with no budget unless you use your imagination. I understand the importance of programming as well as you, I simply feel other skills need to come first.
You lose me a bit the second time you quote me. I'm not sure if you mean to say that students come out of school trained on a wide variety of software or that there's no hope of them learning what they need to because it will be outdated. Maybe if you focused less on attacking me and more on making a point, I would understand more clearly. In my experience, which again is only half of yours, the fresh-out-of-college hires know a specific set of software, namely the MS Office suite or as much of it as they expect to need, and whatever specialty software (most often I deal with accounting) their school chose to teach. In larger companies I've worked for, they hired in batches and opened with paid training so they could teach the software they use to the new hires all at once, a process that typically weeds out upwards of 60% of candidates who are unable to adapt.
As to understanding the importance of updating software and drivers, you do fully understand you're just being a dick. If you don't, you're not too bright. Software updates often improve stability and performance, can fix potential exploits, at the very least they typically fix some bugs, and sometimes include new features. Driver updates, aside from replacing faulty drivers, can actually improve some hardware capabilities, depending on what you're working with. Combining the two, some software may have special features usable with some hardware, often not usable until hardware or software is up to date. If you're wondering about specifics, look at the graphics design world, I remember one instance where new software was purchased for use with existing drawing tablets looking for extra features, features they searched for but couldn't find until the drivers for their tablets were updated. Graphics cards may see improved rendering times with updates. The list goes on, with your imagination it should be easy to see the importance of updates. Obviously it isn't the end of the world if everything you have isn't 100% up to date, but understanding the importance means just that, understanding how important it is and isn't.
I'm not sure why you're so hell-bent on attacking me in your post, but it really takes away from your point, and I think even you lost sight of it. I don't believe programming is a useless skill, if everyone could learn to code it would benefit them all, but I don't believe that's what needs to come first. I'd love it if everyone in the accounting department could write their own scripts for running their end of day procedure, but the fact is, they still need me to show them how to run the one I wrote for them.
Most people will never need to look at any amount of code in their lives, even people who spend every day working on a computer don't need to understand the code behind the software they're using. What needs to be taught are much broader computing skills. During my time in IT, not once did I wish anyone knew how to code, but every day I wished they'd take courses on general usage. What I mean by that is they come out of school knowing how to access the software they expect to need for their profession and an understanding of how they should be able to use it, but no idea what to do when that software fails or falls short of their needs. I watched a company spend two years trying to make their accounting software run their entire business, hiring one expert after another, being told the entire time by said experts the software simply isn't ideal for their needs but refusing to look at anything else because it was what they knew. Switching wouldn't have been difficult, certainly easier than spending years trying to jury-rig software into another purpose, but they knew so little of anything else they refused to consider it.
This was a small business with less than half a dozen people needing access to this software, not some giant corporation where a switch would cost millions, and they continued to spend more on updating their software than many alternatives would have cost. Their stated reason for not switching was that they didn't want to learn different software. Most of us understand it doesn't take very long to adapt to new software if you put the effort in, the only people I've ever been unable to teach are those that refuse to try to learn. But people come out of school thinking they just spent all that time learning how to use a few things and it'll take just as long to learn anything new, it's a problem that might not sound so bad but it truly handicaps the workforce.
Don't teach kids how to code, teach them how to use different types of software, teach them how different things on a computer interact, explain the importance of updating software and drivers. Keep the option to learn to code available, but don't make people think it's some necessary skill to use a computer, that's going to make anyone who doesn't take to it feel even less secure in their computer skills.
I'm not so sure about how you put it, but I understand what you mean. I'm currently reading A Mote in God's Eye which mentions how anyone accustomed to zero-gravity wouldn't feel the need to orient themselves in any upright position, whereas the natural tendency for a person accustomed to gravity would be to orient themselves all in the same direction.
I suppose different people judge what's reasonable in a different way. I'm in the USA and I wish our laws were more about protecting consumers then corporations, but the warranty issue does feel like there's some trade-off. I'm a little unclear on the specifics of what the law requires them to provide, but in any case the same principle applies. If they're expecting to spend more fixing devices than they would be without it, it's reasonable to expect them to charge more for the devices in the first place. iPhones and $6000 TVs aren't necessities, after all, they're luxury items.
As much as I'd love for the result of things like this to be higher quality products for consumers that won't fail so quickly, I think it's more likely they'll just factor in the cost of replacing their current products when setting a price. While I don't think that's the reasoning behind jacking up the prices for everything in Australia to the degree that they do, I could see it being reason for a smaller price hike. I'd still take the trade, as it'd probably be less of a difference than the optional extended warranties from stores, but being good to the customer is still an expense even if it's one they should be obligated to undertake.
Tldr? Danny can expect to pay $6250 now that the TV will definitely last longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Intent is hard to prove before committing a crime, you can't read peoples' minds which is why you can't reliably determine who will only use a firearm responsibly in the future, even if you could circumstances change. You regulate the means to cause harm, because you can't regulate the desire to.
Do you really need to ask why someone has a problem with strangers carrying automatic weapons? There are very few situations where one would need such a weapon in self defense. The question shouldn't be what's wrong with carrying an automatic weapon, the answers to that are obvious and plentiful. The question should always be, why does he need it?
.22, there aren't many people that are going to shake off a shot even from something so small.
And before you say I didn't answer you, here you go: he's only human. Even well trained soldiers who use their firearms on a regular basis make mistakes, it's documented, even if you rule out times where someone "snaps" and uses the weapon nobody saw a problem with them having with unjustifiable malicious intent, accidents happen that get innocent people killed. Putting those weapons in the hands of people that aren't well trained (the safety courses here in Mass where I live only serve to familiarize owners with firearms and are not adequate training for anyone who might actually need to use a one, for that you need to look further than what's required, a feeling that's quite common among local gun owners I speak with) will lead to more accidents. Beyond just accidents, every offender had a first arrest, and until then they may pass the background check just the same. Who's to say Average Joe doesn't intend to use that firearm to hold up a liquor store? You can't say it wouldn't happen because people have used guns they legally purchased in crimes, generally speaking criminals are not the brightest of folks. People are not all necessarily good, I'm not saying we're all bad or even the majority but there's no mechanism for determining if someone will do something terrible in the future, the best way to mitigate potential damage it is to regulate the tools that can be used to cause such damage. Average Joe might never use his automatic weapon, or he might use it to injure a criminal who would've harmed him, or he might use it in self defense but accidentally shoot three kids that were playing outside behind the guy trying to steal his VCR, the fact is we don't know what'll happen, some of us would rather play it safe. I don't expect everyone to agree, it really comes down to what you feel safest with. I wouldn't feel any safer with an assault rifle than I do with my dinky little
In other words, the second amendment was always intended to be limited, regulated by other laws? What shocking news...
As for nitpicking about using the nuke as an example, it really doesn't matter what the example is, there's plenty of options, We regulate arms, that's just how it is, and as you pointed out, how it's been since before the constitution.
I've never seen anyone agree that the two mean different things, I'm searching now and can only find people saying there's a difference in relation to gun control, no actual definition I can find suggests there's any difference in meaning, although the view isn't uncommon. The problem is, it's still just an interpretation, and as I've said before, once you choose to interpret it with anything but the definition you're narrowing the scope based on your own assumptions. If there were some universal agreement on this, it would be different, but there isn't.
Stating over and over that words can motivate people to bear arms does nothing to suggest arms should not be regulated, please understand that. If anything, it shows that we should regulate arms, because in any case where you're motivated by words to use a gun and not by the need to defend yourself, you should be looking at an alternative first. Hell, even in many defense cases, a gun is not necessary and you'd be fine with something far less likely to be lethal.
Not at all, given nuclear weapons were one of the examples given in the post he's replying to. It's just following the same logic, if you say they didn't intend to limit what guns we should have you should understand how far that logic goes. Nobody really believes that, so it's important for people to realize it's not a question of whether or not we have gun control laws, it's what we want to accomplish with them. Now, if you're really hung up about the nuke, swap it with a hand grenade. If you're going to say, "That's not a gun!" then go ahead a re-read the second amendment, it's the right to bear arms, a category both the nuke and hand grenade definitely fall under. Once you debate the intent of that statement, you're not interpreting it literally, instead you're narrowing the definition and throwing the main argument against gun control out the window. Nobody really believes in a literal interpretation of the second amendment, they just say they do when it suits them.
Are you even trying to make a serious argument? I think it's you that should find something better to do with your time, whenever people present arguments like yours (you know, the complete lack of any argument because there's no argument to make, just saying "You can't take our guns!") you do nothing but destroy the credibility of others doing a better job of making your case. Child-like stubbornness only makes me believe that much more that you should not be allowed to own a firearm.
As for disarming the United States, you obviously didn't even read the whole post if you think I feel we should all be disarmed, like I said I'm a gun owner myself, I'm just one of the responsible ones that ashamed to be grouped with you action-star wanna-be fools that think you need a machine gun to keep someone from stealing your TV.
Please do, it continues the same old logic-fail that says words are as dangerous as guns because they can be used to convince people to use guns...
You are reaching pretty far, and not making much sense. Zyklon B was a chemical weapon and a fine example of something that should be controlled but wouldn't if you had no limits on the right to bear arms, I think you're making my point. And even in a riot, is it not easier to kill with a gun than with your hands?
You are failing miserably at either comprehending what I said or making your own case. Nothing you've said suggests the Nazis would've been able to do as much damage without guns and (as you pointed out) chemical weapons. Nobody is saying "Nazi propaganda is A-OK," or that it's safe to incite a riot or anything else you seem to be implying. The point, which you've failed to do anything to refute, is that guns make it all that much more dangerous.
This is why the gun debate will never go anywhere, people get too emotional and illogical with it all. I pointed this out in another post but I'll say it again here:
I am a gun owner. I do not support the government taking all guns from all people, but I do support gun control, we need to stop acting like there is no middle ground.
A crazed man with a gun can kill tens of people. Crazed men with a books and many followers with many weapons have killed millions.
FTFY
Find some example of mass murder without weapons, or any pattern showing the massive numbers achieved with firearms would be attainable without, then you'll have a relevant point. I find the notion that words are as dangerous as weapons quite silly, any fanatic, driven by another mans words or not, could do far more damage with a gun than without.
So you're saying we should be allowed to own nuclear weapons? If not, you're saying we should limit the scope of the second amendment. You can't have it both ways. The fact is, you can't compare tools designed solely for killing to anything but tools designed solely for killing, and you shouldn't be trying to. Guns are an issue all their own, like nothing else, and comparing the right to own a tool with a sole purpose of killing to the right to spread news is absurd and only serves to confuse. Nobody argues it should be legal to scream "Fire!" in a crowded building to cause alarm, I don't understand why they argue any average joe should be able to carry an automatic rifle.
Disclaimer: I am a gun owner, I am aware my guns are tools for killing even though I haven't used them for anything more than target practice, and I don't mean to discourage anyone from owning a firearm. But we should all keep a clear head when considering things like this, and stop looking at is as an all-or-nothing situation. Our choices are not limited to "The guvmint's takin all our guns!" and "Whooey Billybob got a new RPG!"
And while I'm sure plenty of you are foaming at the mouth to claim guns are not solely tools for killing, you are only fooling yourselves. For anything short of killing, get yourselves a BB or paintball gun for sport and a taser and some pepper spray for self defense.
Right? People should learn they're better off having their hardware choices severely limited by their OS... Honestly, comments like this highlight why most users will never switch to Linux: the things you consider basic knowledge are things the average user never wants to even consider learning about. People who are primarily concerned with the color of their laptop do not know or care to know about the difference between AMD and nVidia, they want whichever comes in the white laptop and they just want it to work when they turn it on. You say they need to look at more, the thing is they really don't and there's no good reason they should have to.
After years of reports that PC gaming is dead while it was clearly booming, should we take this as a sign that it's finally on the decline?
...Maybe not.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/er...
Sorry. I kind of wish it was just a trend too, but the fact is, the Wii is still very popular with a lot of people. It seems like a joke to a lot of more "hardcore" gamers, but it's still dominant in a market that was largely ignored before: casuals. I don't play Wii much anymore, especially since I picked up a PS4, but when I do it's because my girlfriend still enjoys it more than any other platform we've tried, and we try every game we can to see if she's interested.
Is it the future of console gaming? No. But for a lot of people it's all they'll ever need for a price they can easily afford.
No, feedback is not obligatory, it's not even immediately apparent you can do it without looking for it. It'd be nice if you knew anything about the way Live works before commenting like that, Google can help. As for actually receiving 80% negative feedback, while I can't positively say so without polling everyone I'd ever played with, it doesn't seem reasonable to think that roughly twelve of the fifteen other players in every single game I'd ever played took the time to single out an average player who doesn't go out of his way to harass others and submit negative feedback. If so many thousands of players (we're talking a decade of using a single Live account, including heavy use for several years) actually did submit negative feedback for no reason I can figure, that in and of itself would be evidence that the system does not work, as just playing the game does not warrant negative feedback.
As a former Live subscriber, I don't believe Microsoft has taken such care with their system. The reputation system already existed before, it wasn't as obvious and didn't penalize you as much, but it existed. I was a big fan of the Halo series, I played them online until maybe a year ago. I wasn't always the best player but I wasn't the worst either. I played to enjoy it, I wasn't running around trolling and talking smack (save a couple excited moments) and I didn't leave games if I could avoid it. When I first saw my reputation score, I had 80% negative feedback. 80%. According to the description, the remaining 20% was either good feedback or no feedback at all. Meaning that according to Microsoft, 80% of the players I'd played with in the years from Halo 2 to Halo 4 had not only submitted feedback about me, a player who doesn't really stand out as good or bad, but they'd submitted negative feedback. I'm to believe that only 20% of the many thousands (at least, I played a lot for a while) of people I played with didn't submit negative feedback about me? I find it hard to believe that even the most annoying trolls manage to provoke 80% of other players into taking the time to submit negative feedback, let alone someone just trying to play the game.
Is the current reputation system just as bad? I don't know, I hope not. But I'm not willing to risk losing access to things I pay for based on a system like this. I'm certainly never going to agree to any terms of service that suggest my ability to fully use the service depends on what other users think of me. It reminds me a bit of DRM, the trolls are going to have no trouble getting around this by changing accounts when their rep gets bad or just using trial accounts, the people who suffer will be regular players like us who aren't gaming the system.
I am not sure we read the same article. Not to invoke an argument, but the TFA talks about listening to sermons and reading the bible. It even ends with '“My personal belief is that having a strong belief is key to getting the benefits,” Fotuhi said.'
Right or wrong, the article says what it says.. The fact that you missed this would suggest you may need to check your confirmation bias filters a bit.
In response to:
The Discovery article makes it pretty clear towards the end that it is not religious belief, but religious activities, that are likely responsible for the cognitive benefits.
And now, you again:
as I noted elsewhere, I see his (and probably yours) point
But I thought the article says what it says? Was it in fact you who missed something due to your confirmation bias filters?
As you can see, you've now said yourself that you were wrong earlier. I hope you can begin to understand where you went wrong, and why it was not the best move to insist that your opinion, as you must clearly see it is, doesn't make anyone else wrong at all. Also, it's funny that after several posts of not making a single point in support of your argument, you've come around and now agree with me while still acting like I'm wrong, and you are attacking my "debating style." Very amusing! You've done a great job of helping me kill time in the slow parts of my Saturday. Good day to you as well, my very confused friend!
It isn't that the article is A-OK, it'd be nice to have bias removed from every report that isn't labelled as an editorial (maybe in bold letters) but even if that were to happen it's important for people to be able to distinguish between facts and opinions in anything. The bulk of the information anyone receives during the day comes from other people, anything you didn't witness yourself is passing through someone else and is likely to be presented differently based on their opinion. The internet had put a lot of information at our fingertips, but it's all coming from other people, we need to first understand that everyone has an opinion and second learn how to separate their opinions from the facts they've presented. Honestly it's easy in this article, they even call out the opinions as such, it'd take a simpleton not to be able to see through them. Sometimes simpletons sign up on Slashdot though.
Ok. I am not one of those people who needs to be right all the time, nor am I someone who needs to prove it. It is my considered opinion that both the OP's interpretation and yours ignore the bias completely for most likely the reason given, but that is neither here nor there. I am going to leave it as this.
If that isn't an attempt to walk away while doing your damndest to sound like you must be right, I don't know what is. Look, if you think I'm the one biased here, you aren't paying attention. I'm saying the article doesn't say one way or the other, it only gives opinions. I'm not even saying religion is definitely not a necessary part of it, all I'm saying is you're wrong to call his interpretation wrong. Nothing you've said at any point has helped your argument, all you've done is insist that because the author has an opinion that walking away from the article interpreting it any other way is wrong. You're quite simply the only one here who is wrong, you can shout "I'm right!" all you want, but you can't actually support your argument because you're wrong. You've gone ahead and quoted me instead of the article, and with quotes that do nothing to suggest you're right, only that you still can't see the difference between opinions and facts in an article. That, honestly, is the only way to interpret your way, if you can't separate opinions from fact. If you look at the facts presented in the article, none of them say religion or belief is actually a necessary part of it.
It's good you don't need to be right all the time and prove it, because you are wrong and have failed on every level to prove otherwise at all.
Having read it, I can safely say the Discovery article makes it clear the author quotes an opinion at the end, but that does nothing to the results they discuss. Statements given in the article such as, "It’s hard to know whether it's through religion or a gathering of friends, but it improves brain health in the long term," as well as "Listening to sermons and reading religious works like the Bible may also invoke a cognitive benefit," present the possibility that believing has nothing to do with it. And let's not miss this gem, “Actually, I would suspect that people doing the types of things like religious people do -- socializing, doing similarly complex cognitive tasks, would have similar benefits."
I'm not sure what article you read, but while the author ends on a quote suggesting belief does have something to do with it, the overall article make it pretty clear that nothing outside of an opinion suggests that. You are certainly free to question this interpretation, but a few posts back you told OP "I am not sure we read the same article" and went on to say "Right or wrong, the article says what it says" and you were clearly wrong on both counts. As I said before, the article is a bit silly and only really says is that people need a release, and for some it's related to religion. The article does not make it pretty clear, as you said. In fact, I'm starting to think you barely read the article, your opinion seems to be entirely your own, and accusing someone else of having "confirmation bias filters" affecting their interpretation is pretty outlandish. You are the one showing a great deal of bias about this. The OP was entirely correct, and you are simply wrong.
Actually, you're commenting on the OP's interpretation of the article author's interpretation. The study says exactly what OP says it does, that religious activity reduces stress filters, the author's personal opinion is given to create bias and it appears to have worked on you.
It's my personal belief that it has nothing to do with how strongly you believe in any particular religion, and you'd likely see the same benefits from taking time to reflect on your own or discussing matters with supportive friends and family. You can feel free to try to correct my interpretation, as long as you understand it's only your own opinion and possible that of the author against mine, this study does nothing to prove either of us wrong.
Any time I read something saying religion is good or bad in any way, I take it with a grain of salt. There doesn't seem to be anyone studying religion who doesn't have a desired outcome going into it.
That said, this article seems a bit silly, all they're really saying is that people need a release, something anyone alive today can tell you. For some, that release is religion, for others it could be anything. This is not news.
You've shown a thorough misunderstanding of what I was saying, and really just sound like an arrogant dick. I said most people will never need to look at any amount of code, and you said they'd benefit from being able to automate tasks with minimal programming abilities, the two are not exclusive. I'm assuming your twenty years of experience is in some field where you assist people in using their computers, otherwise it might be irrelevant, so you clearly know how many people know what you're talking about when you reference the command prompt? I've only half that time under my belt, but in my experience, not many. You even state yourself most will never touch it. Despite your assumptions otherwise, I've had to get quite creative in the past, you simply can't prepare a small business for ISO certification with no budget unless you use your imagination. I understand the importance of programming as well as you, I simply feel other skills need to come first.
You lose me a bit the second time you quote me. I'm not sure if you mean to say that students come out of school trained on a wide variety of software or that there's no hope of them learning what they need to because it will be outdated. Maybe if you focused less on attacking me and more on making a point, I would understand more clearly. In my experience, which again is only half of yours, the fresh-out-of-college hires know a specific set of software, namely the MS Office suite or as much of it as they expect to need, and whatever specialty software (most often I deal with accounting) their school chose to teach. In larger companies I've worked for, they hired in batches and opened with paid training so they could teach the software they use to the new hires all at once, a process that typically weeds out upwards of 60% of candidates who are unable to adapt.
As to understanding the importance of updating software and drivers, you do fully understand you're just being a dick. If you don't, you're not too bright. Software updates often improve stability and performance, can fix potential exploits, at the very least they typically fix some bugs, and sometimes include new features. Driver updates, aside from replacing faulty drivers, can actually improve some hardware capabilities, depending on what you're working with. Combining the two, some software may have special features usable with some hardware, often not usable until hardware or software is up to date. If you're wondering about specifics, look at the graphics design world, I remember one instance where new software was purchased for use with existing drawing tablets looking for extra features, features they searched for but couldn't find until the drivers for their tablets were updated. Graphics cards may see improved rendering times with updates. The list goes on, with your imagination it should be easy to see the importance of updates. Obviously it isn't the end of the world if everything you have isn't 100% up to date, but understanding the importance means just that, understanding how important it is and isn't.
I'm not sure why you're so hell-bent on attacking me in your post, but it really takes away from your point, and I think even you lost sight of it. I don't believe programming is a useless skill, if everyone could learn to code it would benefit them all, but I don't believe that's what needs to come first. I'd love it if everyone in the accounting department could write their own scripts for running their end of day procedure, but the fact is, they still need me to show them how to run the one I wrote for them.
Most people will never need to look at any amount of code in their lives, even people who spend every day working on a computer don't need to understand the code behind the software they're using. What needs to be taught are much broader computing skills. During my time in IT, not once did I wish anyone knew how to code, but every day I wished they'd take courses on general usage. What I mean by that is they come out of school knowing how to access the software they expect to need for their profession and an understanding of how they should be able to use it, but no idea what to do when that software fails or falls short of their needs. I watched a company spend two years trying to make their accounting software run their entire business, hiring one expert after another, being told the entire time by said experts the software simply isn't ideal for their needs but refusing to look at anything else because it was what they knew. Switching wouldn't have been difficult, certainly easier than spending years trying to jury-rig software into another purpose, but they knew so little of anything else they refused to consider it.
This was a small business with less than half a dozen people needing access to this software, not some giant corporation where a switch would cost millions, and they continued to spend more on updating their software than many alternatives would have cost. Their stated reason for not switching was that they didn't want to learn different software. Most of us understand it doesn't take very long to adapt to new software if you put the effort in, the only people I've ever been unable to teach are those that refuse to try to learn. But people come out of school thinking they just spent all that time learning how to use a few things and it'll take just as long to learn anything new, it's a problem that might not sound so bad but it truly handicaps the workforce.
Don't teach kids how to code, teach them how to use different types of software, teach them how different things on a computer interact, explain the importance of updating software and drivers. Keep the option to learn to code available, but don't make people think it's some necessary skill to use a computer, that's going to make anyone who doesn't take to it feel even less secure in their computer skills.
I'm not so sure about how you put it, but I understand what you mean. I'm currently reading A Mote in God's Eye which mentions how anyone accustomed to zero-gravity wouldn't feel the need to orient themselves in any upright position, whereas the natural tendency for a person accustomed to gravity would be to orient themselves all in the same direction.
I suppose different people judge what's reasonable in a different way. I'm in the USA and I wish our laws were more about protecting consumers then corporations, but the warranty issue does feel like there's some trade-off. I'm a little unclear on the specifics of what the law requires them to provide, but in any case the same principle applies. If they're expecting to spend more fixing devices than they would be without it, it's reasonable to expect them to charge more for the devices in the first place. iPhones and $6000 TVs aren't necessities, after all, they're luxury items.
As much as I'd love for the result of things like this to be higher quality products for consumers that won't fail so quickly, I think it's more likely they'll just factor in the cost of replacing their current products when setting a price. While I don't think that's the reasoning behind jacking up the prices for everything in Australia to the degree that they do, I could see it being reason for a smaller price hike. I'd still take the trade, as it'd probably be less of a difference than the optional extended warranties from stores, but being good to the customer is still an expense even if it's one they should be obligated to undertake.
Tldr? Danny can expect to pay $6250 now that the TV will definitely last longer.