I'm sure you have a superb grasp of "Conspiracy Theory" from Fox News. I'm so glad that all of the revelations about the NSA are just plain wrong and we can completely drop the matter because it's "Conspiracy Theory". I guess we must have finally found WMDs in Iraq because that is just another "Conspiracy Theory". Tonkin Bay, COINTELPRO, Mocking Bird, Gladios, Franklin Cover Up, Fast and Furious are all just "Conspiracy Theory" too so we have no grounds to ever question what certain politicians tell us! This is just a very short list of conspiracies that have been proven to be correct, but I'm sure that you believe differently because someone told you not to seek the truth or you would be a "Conspiracy Theorist".
Questioning what you are told is very normal and healthy, believing what someone tells you when it counters evidence is called delusion.
Pardon the ad hominem, but you are an idiot. Please go bury your head back in the sand and leave discussion to people competent enough to question what someone tells us.
There is rarely a single motive for obviously bogus claims like this. It also distracts from current criminal actions by the Government, distracts from police illegally arresting people for protesting, distracts from banking criminals, etc... In addition, it plays on the typical gamer stereo type adding suspicion to those "gamers" that must all be like the obese griefer with no life in South Park and generates some FUD regarding a certain type of person.
In order for a person's point to be stupid the person must also be stupid or behave stupidly. In order for a person's point to be retarded, the person must be retarded, or behave retarded. This is taught in a 200 level Philosophy course, not even a 3rd or 4th year class.
As your last statement implies, I am not immune to the use of ad hominem. I try to never use it offensively, and try to use it cleverly when used in defense. I will state that I try to avoid it, but I am human and like all humans can have emotion in debate.
I was merely pointing out that impeding traffic does not require a car, and is perfectly legal without a car in CA. Since I see the Google cars and drive by their offices every day, I am not surprised that they are working on a solution.
Thank you for proving my point regarding your ignorance, and gleeful use of "Google" knowledge. In order for someone point to be a "troll", the person must be "trolling". In order for a person's point to be "ridiculous" the person must be ridiculous, or act in a ridiculous way. This is ad hominem, and if you had any training in rhetoric you would know this to be true. In your zest for Google knowledge you should have perhaps questioned why smearing someones point has no named fallacy of it's own.
FUD may be an exception, however claiming FUD was 1/3rd of your statement and not backed up any anything that would make it an appeal to emotion or red herring.
Huh? You have not debunked the genetic marker argument. You made an assumption that it's safe, I make no assumption. I also consider your point about them only looking for a certain gene sequence wrong. In order for someone find a specific gene sequence, they have to have the whole sample. In order for them to detect the gene(s) responsible, they have to have and use whole samples.
You have given lots of excuses and assumptions claiming this is safe claim it's expensive. All of those assumptions are wrong based on history. Now if I was unwise to the corruption we have in the Government, I would probably have the same opinion as you. I had my tenure being the uber patriot believing that our politicians were 'good' honest people looking out for citizens best interests. I ignored people telling me how it was bad and what was coming. I happily served in the US Army believing I was working for some greater good. It was then that my eyes started to open, and slowly I realized what an ignorant fool I had been. That was decades ago now, and I have learned a lot since then.
If you give people shitty people power, shitty things will happen. We have proven this over and over and over again.
The deregulation you are referring to was a combination of regulations, that when cancelled allowed monopolization and derivative investments. Further deregulation that harmed citizens allowed interstate banking (which if it remained would have locked the housing crash to a single state as no other banks would have been impacted), and allowed investment banks to merge with savings and loan banks.
If you wish to further look at deregulation which harmed the market, we could look at the deregulation of media which has allowed the monopolization of all forms of media ensuring the public has no clue what is happening unless big brother decides to tell them something (or twist the truth and lie when caught with their hand in the cookie jar).
Is that what you were implying by using "free market capitalism"? Prior to the deregulation, Capitalism worked pretty well. Not perfect, but a regulated free market is the best form of economics. Adam Smith stated that regulation was required, or we end up back a mercantilism's failures.
You may not work with very large applications either? One of he reasons we run many many Sun/Oracle systems is SMP applications that require massive CPU count. I have yet to see a PC that supports 128 physical processors. DMP does not work for everything, and SMP is still vastly superior in performance.
(P.S. I don't think you actually know what an ad hominem attack is. Google it.)
Calling someone's point "trolling", "FUD", and "ridiculous" matches the definition of ad hominem perfectly. Maybe stop Google'ing things and learn something instead?
You are tossing around fantasy land scenarios to scare people about cars. Tracking and spying on people is one thing, but locking them in a box and whisking them away to somewhere they don't want to be preys on several common phobias.
In response to a post fantasizing about being drunk in their self driving car, I see no issue with having a fantasy response. Both the self driving car and the abuse of technology are feasible given current political trends and current technology. I guess you missed that both were fantasies in your zeal to defend the great leader, government and it's abuses, or what ever else you decide you were defending.
Until your car reports to the police that you are sleeping, distracted, or inebriated while inside the vehicle. Your car then nicely pulls over and won't let you out until they police arrive.
That's pretty much exactly the opposite of what he was saying -- that if the car itself can count as the driver, then there's nothing to report, because the person isn't driving at all. It isn't illegal to be any of those three things as a passenger right now.
I have yet to see a law that excludes people from liability in a self driving car. There are still manual controls. I never claimed that the driver was a passenger, I claimed that even if the car was self driving they are currently still a legal driver.
Now if you want to start citing laws that have been passed that absolve a driver of responsibility when the auto-pilot turns... Oh wait, you probably can cite no law on the books so I won't wait.
Even better (and more likely) as you head to that rally supporting the first amendment, your car simply refuses to go and takes you to the local strip mall.
This is just ridiculous FUD / trolling at this point. No one would buy a car that would do this. There's no market for it.
Yeah, there is absolutely no precedent set for this is there? Wholly fuck go read a Newspaper or something, then cram your ad hominem right on up your asshole.
Implying that "they are going to do it anyway" should not imply that we have to just lay down and get mowed over (not that you did that, I'm circumventing a possible statement).
To imply that money is an object to a Government that works on fiat and can print as much as they want is very out of touch with reality. You don't know what they spend your money on now, so have no idea if this is already being funded by your tax dollars.
Additionally, check history on the resources provided to Germany's eugenics science in the 30s and 40s by some extremely wealth US families (and one in the UK). Those families are still around with too much money and could easily be funding this whole project.
The hard part is not the sampling, it's figuring out the information that a person wants to use to discriminate. What happens if you are denied a right to protest because you are potentially depressed? Look at how profiling is currently used! There is no benefit to this technology that outweighs the risks in my opinion.
Until your car reports to the police that you are sleeping, distracted, or inebriated while inside the vehicle. Your car then nicely pulls over and won't let you out until they police arrive. Even better (and more likely) as you head to that rally supporting the first amendment, your car simply refuses to go and takes you to the local strip mall.
Are you so ignorant that you believe that if someone says "go read an encyclopedia" you instantly have knowledge of Roman History (for example) by simply reading the title "Britannica Encyclopedia Volume 24"? No, you can't really be that fucking stupid, but you sure as hell are painting yourself to look like it.
Personally I'm a skeptic. If they draw blood to test, what prevents them from saving the full structure? Nothing, except for someone's claim that it won't be saved. Considering how our government has demanded that hosting companies hand over data under threat, do you honestly believe that the potential does not exist for similar treatment?
Assuming intentions are always good is not necessarily a bad thing mind you. At the same time, I believe that being skeptic is an exceptional trait.
Wow, I never claimed to link an article. Is reading and comprehension really _that_ difficult for you? I responded to your claim that a title article said something other than one it said. Since you made a false claim, I actually skimmed the article to see what the hell you were talking about. I noticed while skimming that the article has links to research and professional opinions.
I'm guessing since it's a repeated trait, reading and comprehension really is that difficult for you.
If you read the article you questioned, you would see numerous links to scientific studies. The same would be true for the sugars topic. I do realize that it's easier for you to avoid cognitive dissonance by avoiding facts, so have no expectation that you actually investigate. That said, please don't pretend you are intelligent when you ignore words to maintain bias and ignore facts to maintain a belief.
If a database contains genetic markers, it can be easily used for bad (eugenics) purposes just as easily as it can be used for "good" purposes. Claiming "it can't happen" contradicts history.
Let's sum up the conversation and see how we moved back to your first argument.
I stated that reports show that the body can not process HFCS very well, but can process natural sugars such as cane, beet, or honey.
You stated, "I call BS" and that HFCS is chemically identical to other sugars.
I stated "part != whole" and gave examples of how your "identical" statement is false.
You stated that part == whole _and_ processing makes no difference.
I showed that you were wrong and that you have a logical contradiction when making such claims.
Now you claim that fructose is processed the same (I assume you are referring to how the body processes it, not manufacturing type processing) and have moved back to your first point of being chemically identical.
Instead of continuing the debate, go back through my arguments. Remember that repeating untrue statements will never make them true, and that logical contradictions mean that both A and B can not be true. Also go read about how much processing is required to extract HFCS from corn, and compare to how much processing you have to do for Cane or Beat sugars, or Honey (the sugars I called out at first that you claimed "BS" about).
If you are now trying to claim that you were only referring to "Agave", I call BS. That was not in any of your previous claims, which attempted to state that my starting claims were wrong.
Now if you wish to concede that you were wrong in your initial arguments and that I have a logically correct point, I will accept a topic change to "What about other heavily processed sugars?".
It absolutely has bearing on what you said. "The fructose and glucose found in hfcs are chemically identical to those found in other natural sources." The point of the components being identical is absolutely wrong. Not just a little bit, but a very wrong (see my differential equation example). The pink goo was a further example, but not the same example
In a post below you respond that cooking changes the nutritional values of foods. Would you also say that cooking is a type of "processing"? I'm guessing you will say "yeah", but entertain me if not.
Does changing the foods by processing change the bodies ability to digest the food? Again, I'm guessing that you will say "yes", but a "no" answer would still be entertaining. (I will warn you that there is a mountain of scientific data on this, so you would be best to do some research before making a "no" claim. No, I won't Google that for you.)
We can finally claim that processed foods are different nutritionally, and further claim that processing changes our ability to digest said foods. To claim that HFCS is the same as Cane sugar or Honey, is an absolutely logical contradiction to the first two claims.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure you have a superb grasp of "Conspiracy Theory" from Fox News. I'm so glad that all of the revelations about the NSA are just plain wrong and we can completely drop the matter because it's "Conspiracy Theory". I guess we must have finally found WMDs in Iraq because that is just another "Conspiracy Theory". Tonkin Bay, COINTELPRO, Mocking Bird, Gladios, Franklin Cover Up, Fast and Furious are all just "Conspiracy Theory" too so we have no grounds to ever question what certain politicians tell us! This is just a very short list of conspiracies that have been proven to be correct, but I'm sure that you believe differently because someone told you not to seek the truth or you would be a "Conspiracy Theorist".
Questioning what you are told is very normal and healthy, believing what someone tells you when it counters evidence is called delusion.
Pardon the ad hominem, but you are an idiot. Please go bury your head back in the sand and leave discussion to people competent enough to question what someone tells us.
There is rarely a single motive for obviously bogus claims like this. It also distracts from current criminal actions by the Government, distracts from police illegally arresting people for protesting, distracts from banking criminals, etc... In addition, it plays on the typical gamer stereo type adding suspicion to those "gamers" that must all be like the obese griefer with no life in South Park and generates some FUD regarding a certain type of person.
In order for a person's point to be stupid the person must also be stupid or behave stupidly. In order for a person's point to be retarded, the person must be retarded, or behave retarded. This is taught in a 200 level Philosophy course, not even a 3rd or 4th year class.
As your last statement implies, I am not immune to the use of ad hominem. I try to never use it offensively, and try to use it cleverly when used in defense. I will state that I try to avoid it, but I am human and like all humans can have emotion in debate.
I was merely pointing out that impeding traffic does not require a car, and is perfectly legal without a car in CA. Since I see the Google cars and drive by their offices every day, I am not surprised that they are working on a solution.
I have only been here a couple years, not a lifer.
Thank you for proving my point regarding your ignorance, and gleeful use of "Google" knowledge. In order for someone point to be a "troll", the person must be "trolling". In order for a person's point to be "ridiculous" the person must be ridiculous, or act in a ridiculous way. This is ad hominem, and if you had any training in rhetoric you would know this to be true. In your zest for Google knowledge you should have perhaps questioned why smearing someones point has no named fallacy of it's own.
FUD may be an exception, however claiming FUD was 1/3rd of your statement and not backed up any anything that would make it an appeal to emotion or red herring.
Huh? You have not debunked the genetic marker argument. You made an assumption that it's safe, I make no assumption. I also consider your point about them only looking for a certain gene sequence wrong. In order for someone find a specific gene sequence, they have to have the whole sample. In order for them to detect the gene(s) responsible, they have to have and use whole samples.
You have given lots of excuses and assumptions claiming this is safe claim it's expensive. All of those assumptions are wrong based on history. Now if I was unwise to the corruption we have in the Government, I would probably have the same opinion as you. I had my tenure being the uber patriot believing that our politicians were 'good' honest people looking out for citizens best interests. I ignored people telling me how it was bad and what was coming. I happily served in the US Army believing I was working for some greater good. It was then that my eyes started to open, and slowly I realized what an ignorant fool I had been. That was decades ago now, and I have learned a lot since then.
If you give people shitty people power, shitty things will happen. We have proven this over and over and over again.
The deregulation you are referring to was a combination of regulations, that when cancelled allowed monopolization and derivative investments. Further deregulation that harmed citizens allowed interstate banking (which if it remained would have locked the housing crash to a single state as no other banks would have been impacted), and allowed investment banks to merge with savings and loan banks.
If you wish to further look at deregulation which harmed the market, we could look at the deregulation of media which has allowed the monopolization of all forms of media ensuring the public has no clue what is happening unless big brother decides to tell them something (or twist the truth and lie when caught with their hand in the cookie jar).
Is that what you were implying by using "free market capitalism"? Prior to the deregulation, Capitalism worked pretty well. Not perfect, but a regulated free market is the best form of economics. Adam Smith stated that regulation was required, or we end up back a mercantilism's failures.
You may not work with very large applications either? One of he reasons we run many many Sun/Oracle systems is SMP applications that require massive CPU count. I have yet to see a PC that supports 128 physical processors. DMP does not work for everything, and SMP is still vastly superior in performance.
"if the car counts as the driver" is a null condition. I showed where it was a null and what condition would be required for the process to work.
I may be a poor CPU, but your error correction is much worse.
Hahaha, took me a sec to find it!
I really don't consider a simple hypothetical scenario that closely matches very recent events "hysterical".
(P.S. I don't think you actually know what an ad hominem attack is. Google it.)
Calling someone's point "trolling", "FUD", and "ridiculous" matches the definition of ad hominem perfectly. Maybe stop Google'ing things and learn something instead?
You are tossing around fantasy land scenarios to scare people about cars. Tracking and spying on people is one thing, but locking them in a box and whisking them away to somewhere they don't want to be preys on several common phobias.
In response to a post fantasizing about being drunk in their self driving car, I see no issue with having a fantasy response. Both the self driving car and the abuse of technology are feasible given current political trends and current technology. I guess you missed that both were fantasies in your zeal to defend the great leader, government and it's abuses, or what ever else you decide you were defending.
Until your car reports to the police that you are sleeping, distracted, or inebriated while inside the vehicle. Your car then nicely pulls over and won't let you out until they police arrive.
That's pretty much exactly the opposite of what he was saying -- that if the car itself can count as the driver, then there's nothing to report, because the person isn't driving at all. It isn't illegal to be any of those three things as a passenger right now.
I have yet to see a law that excludes people from liability in a self driving car. There are still manual controls. I never claimed that the driver was a passenger, I claimed that even if the car was self driving they are currently still a legal driver.
Now if you want to start citing laws that have been passed that absolve a driver of responsibility when the auto-pilot turns... Oh wait, you probably can cite no law on the books so I won't wait.
Even better (and more likely) as you head to that rally supporting the first amendment, your car simply refuses to go and takes you to the local strip mall.
This is just ridiculous FUD / trolling at this point. No one would buy a car that would do this. There's no market for it.
Yeah, there is absolutely no precedent set for this is there? Wholly fuck go read a Newspaper or something, then cram your ad hominem right on up your asshole.
Implying that "they are going to do it anyway" should not imply that we have to just lay down and get mowed over (not that you did that, I'm circumventing a possible statement).
To imply that money is an object to a Government that works on fiat and can print as much as they want is very out of touch with reality. You don't know what they spend your money on now, so have no idea if this is already being funded by your tax dollars.
Additionally, check history on the resources provided to Germany's eugenics science in the 30s and 40s by some extremely wealth US families (and one in the UK). Those families are still around with too much money and could easily be funding this whole project.
The hard part is not the sampling, it's figuring out the information that a person wants to use to discriminate. What happens if you are denied a right to protest because you are potentially depressed? Look at how profiling is currently used! There is no benefit to this technology that outweighs the risks in my opinion.
Until your car reports to the police that you are sleeping, distracted, or inebriated while inside the vehicle. Your car then nicely pulls over and won't let you out until they police arrive. Even better (and more likely) as you head to that rally supporting the first amendment, your car simply refuses to go and takes you to the local strip mall.
I live in California where it is perfectly legal for motorcycles to do this, and a motorcycle would have the exact same effect on traffic.
Are you so ignorant that you believe that if someone says "go read an encyclopedia" you instantly have knowledge of Roman History (for example) by simply reading the title "Britannica Encyclopedia Volume 24"? No, you can't really be that fucking stupid, but you sure as hell are painting yourself to look like it.
Personally I'm a skeptic. If they draw blood to test, what prevents them from saving the full structure? Nothing, except for someone's claim that it won't be saved. Considering how our government has demanded that hosting companies hand over data under threat, do you honestly believe that the potential does not exist for similar treatment?
Assuming intentions are always good is not necessarily a bad thing mind you. At the same time, I believe that being skeptic is an exceptional trait.
Wow, I never claimed to link an article. Is reading and comprehension really _that_ difficult for you? I responded to your claim that a title article said something other than one it said. Since you made a false claim, I actually skimmed the article to see what the hell you were talking about. I noticed while skimming that the article has links to research and professional opinions.
I'm guessing since it's a repeated trait, reading and comprehension really is that difficult for you.
If you read the article you questioned, you would see numerous links to scientific studies. The same would be true for the sugars topic. I do realize that it's easier for you to avoid cognitive dissonance by avoiding facts, so have no expectation that you actually investigate. That said, please don't pretend you are intelligent when you ignore words to maintain bias and ignore facts to maintain a belief.
If a database contains genetic markers, it can be easily used for bad (eugenics) purposes just as easily as it can be used for "good" purposes. Claiming "it can't happen" contradicts history.
Let's sum up the conversation and see how we moved back to your first argument.
I stated that reports show that the body can not process HFCS very well, but can process natural sugars such as cane, beet, or honey.
You stated, "I call BS" and that HFCS is chemically identical to other sugars.
I stated "part != whole" and gave examples of how your "identical" statement is false.
You stated that part == whole _and_ processing makes no difference.
I showed that you were wrong and that you have a logical contradiction when making such claims.
Now you claim that fructose is processed the same (I assume you are referring to how the body processes it, not manufacturing type processing) and have moved back to your first point of being chemically identical.
Instead of continuing the debate, go back through my arguments. Remember that repeating untrue statements will never make them true, and that logical contradictions mean that both A and B can not be true. Also go read about how much processing is required to extract HFCS from corn, and compare to how much processing you have to do for Cane or Beat sugars, or Honey (the sugars I called out at first that you claimed "BS" about).
If you are now trying to claim that you were only referring to "Agave", I call BS. That was not in any of your previous claims, which attempted to state that my starting claims were wrong.
Now if you wish to concede that you were wrong in your initial arguments and that I have a logically correct point, I will accept a topic change to "What about other heavily processed sugars?".
It absolutely has bearing on what you said. "The fructose and glucose found in hfcs are chemically identical to those found in other natural sources." The point of the components being identical is absolutely wrong. Not just a little bit, but a very wrong (see my differential equation example). The pink goo was a further example, but not the same example
In a post below you respond that cooking changes the nutritional values of foods. Would you also say that cooking is a type of "processing"? I'm guessing you will say "yeah", but entertain me if not.
Does changing the foods by processing change the bodies ability to digest the food? Again, I'm guessing that you will say "yes", but a "no" answer would still be entertaining. (I will warn you that there is a mountain of scientific data on this, so you would be best to do some research before making a "no" claim. No, I won't Google that for you.)
We can finally claim that processed foods are different nutritionally, and further claim that processing changes our ability to digest said foods. To claim that HFCS is the same as Cane sugar or Honey, is an absolutely logical contradiction to the first two claims.
And how exactly to they inject fungus genetic material into corn? Massage and soft music?