If you have not yet figured it out, there is no line between Democrat and Republican any longer. They are all on the same team, and hint: it is not your team. Keep thinking they differ and the same will continue. They want us bickering over rep. Vs dem. and black vs white, and atheist vs religious , or anything else that keeps you from watching what they are doing.
No, he did not give a hypothetical. You gave a hypothetical to counter his statements. I'm guessing that you are grasping at some definition somewhere instead of seeing a fallacy for what it is. You presented a hypothetical argument to claim he was wrong because of a criteria that in this case simply does not exist. You can read the definition of a straw man here.
Pay special attention to: To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. in which you created a fantasy situation to claim he was wrong. (You quoted the paragraph where they discussed self regulation, and that is what you refuted with fallacy).
Injecting facts into a debate is not a straw man. You can freely read the history of gold prices and see what I stated is factual. Short term increase in gold quantity does not crash the market, and never has crashed the market. I believe your "tank overnight" comment speaks for itself. Perhaps you meant something different than you said? If so, feel free to correct instead of demanding that your fallacy is correct and anyone refuting it is wrong.
My facts may not back your position based in fantasy land, but that does not turn a fact into fallacy. It means that your argument was poorly grounded.
Come now, so by your reasoning it should be perfectly logical to debate our economy based on an killing Smog and imports from Narnia.
The whole golden asteroid argument is a complete fantasy! Not only are we decades away from being able to mine an asteroid, we have no evidence that there are asteroids filled with gold! Good grief people make my head hurt sometimes.
Microsoft is constantly hopping on bandwagons. It gets them free advertising. They don't care that a good chunk of the population points out that they do things poorly, mislabel things, intentionally name things wrong, break standards, break other products, etc... They care that you are talking about them.
Every other week we read about MS hyping some other bullshit they think they invented. Most laugh at them, a few fanbois run out and buy what ever they are hawking, but most importantly we all see their name enough where it's impossible to ignore it.
The straw man you gave is the hypothetical situation where we find a shitload of gold on an asteroid.
My argument was very valid, please look at the history of gold prices. If prices went down after finding a large deposit, the effect was temporary and gold prices went up shortly after. In some cases, there were no dips in prices after a find. There is no straw man at all in my statements, they are historically accurate.
One disadvantage of gold is that it depends on the scarcity of the metal.... if Asteroid Mining ever becomes a reality and someone happens to snag an asteroid with thousands of tons of easily extracted gold, the gold market will tank overnight. (and it can happen before the first ounce of gold is mined if there's verified proof of the deposit).
Not a good straw man argument. That effect of the influx would be temporary. Gold would still be scarce.
That's only the tip of the iceberg.
When gold becomes the standard, powerful people and governments become interested in controlling the price of gold.
You end up with things like laws that prevent people from owning gold bullion in large amounts, for fear that they use it to manipulate currency. (This used to be a real law in the US - Why to do people forget about it?)
AFAIK that law is still in place. The US Government can still come confiscate your gold or jail you if you fail to turn it in on request. I could of course be wrong, going off of an article I read last year.
I agree with everything else you stated, but I'd be curious of the article was correct.
Me thinks you should go read the definition of Operating System and compare that to what Windows 3.x was. Windows required a Disk Operating system in order to run because it lacked very important aspects of an Operating system. Low level drivers could not be loaded in Windows, like Disk I/O and Network devices (hell even Keyboard and Mouse was loaded by DOS). Windows was an easier way to launch applications, sure, but a launcher is not an operating system.
DOS 6 was much later than Windows 3.1. If you search for specs, you will find that Windows 3.1 required DOS 3.1 or higher. Windows stated "MS-DOS" but it would run on other DOS OSes like DR. DOS and IBM PC DOS.
Modern "news" channels are basically just a loop of the five worst things that happened in the world today, presented from the perspective the Government want's you to have.
Value in your first paragraph is very misleading. Value to whom? Does main stream media provide more value than a tech site? Perhaps to the Government or other agency trying to spread propaganda. Do they generate value to people searching for facts? Not in the last 10 years they have not.
Let me further state that the reason so many other news sources are popping up, is because the main stream media has become almost pure propaganda. As more and more people catch on to that fact, the demand will increase. In other words, expect many more sites offering political News. As someone who wants the propaganda war against the US people to end and the Republic to be restored, I welcome more news.
Because I misinterpreted the context of a word I have no education? Sorry, very untrue. As stated previously, college was long ago and yes I was required 2 semesters of Chemistry in College. Does that imply I remember or use chemists context for everything? Not at all.
No, I won't provide transcripts but rather point out that you are a) wrong b) arguing from ignorance.
Sounds like we may have different sets of information. From what I read, Schwartz only had access to the library because his father was on staff. ID was required which is how they found him the copying data, the first time. I doubt this changed the second time he was caught.
Opening an unlocked door is not a felony, sorry. Unless you are using something illogical like breaking through a first door and opening a second door is a felony. This was a main sticking point with the defense. The closet was unlocked and in a building the person had access to. It is legally impossible to have a felony B&E charge or unlawful entry charge stick. The prosecutor kept it there because it added time, not because it was legit. Look at it this way. It's not illegal for you to walk into the rest room of the opposite sex unless there is intent to commit another illegal act. Otherwise, a whole lot of drunk people would be doing hard time for a mistake. This is where Mens Rea becomes very important.
Even the prosecutor admitted that they were stacking charges to force a plea bargain. The prosecutors office admitted it was a common tactic to get pleas. You are not even trying to justify what they were doing at this point, you are claiming that something admitted is now false.
I get that he was guilty of something, and 6 months would have been fair for it. The point was, and is, that the prosecutor stacked charges to try and get a plea which was at least a contributor to the person committing suicide. Stacking up charges is not what the prosecutor is supposed to do! The prosecutor is supposed to work for the best interests of the Citizens, and this definitely goes outside of those bounds.
Nope, sorry but big nope. If it was serialized it would perform horribly. The disk does not care where your data lives, nor should it. It's job is to read and write data as requested. A file can live in block 800, 100, 700, and 2 and in that order.
If you are unclear, look at the FAT/* file system and it should be very obvious. Data does not need to be stored serialized, it can live all over the place and generally will gain performance when it does (unless it's very large files).
One does not have to be an expert in chemistry to understand pollution. That is an absolute fallacy. Your statement is rubbish (intentionally punned) and I'm pretty sure you know that it's rubbish.
Having knowledge and having it in the forefront are two distinctly different things. Would I be able to recall linear algebra if I needed to? Sure, with some work. It's not something I have used for 2 decades, but I could refresh myself. Perhaps you completely fail to understand how the brain works? I doubt it, I think you are just being an asshole.
Pollutants are called pollutants, go read some of the white papers and research provided to the Government, FDA, EPA, etc... You will find references to numerous carbon compounds in them, called pollutants. It's very misleading to call them "organic", even if it's technically correct to a chemist.
Kind of amazing considering that I never used the term "organic" in that post isn't it. It's also pretty amazing that many studies on pollutants use a non-chemical definition of "Organic". Also pretty crazy that nothing I said above is wrong. I have read hundreds of documents on the process of powdering coal and the impact on the people living near them. Not a single one defined pollutants as "organic", but by "pollutant" or by the chemical compound names.
Maybe you are claiming that I'm wrong in the post you pulled up from history? I really don't know what your point is. I stated that my interpretation of their use of "organic" was incorrect didn't I? I still find it odd that they would call pollutants from burning fossil fuels, and of course remnant pesticides "Organic". It's a very poor word to use even it's correct from a specific context.
It's kind of like saying "the reactor is warm". Yup, it sure is "warm" isn't it?
The issue is not necessarily price,but value. For instance the current generation of kids to have different experiences, and what needs to be tested is different, but the test can be changed for that.
What? Do you think that in the 1940s all these kids came in with experience? Perhaps you are claiming that our education system today somehow gives them experiences and they need to show them off? We are talking about the education system aren't we? More specifically, gaining enough knowledge to be as educated as a High School student! The experience of a high school graduate today would be the same as in the 30s. "I was in band" or "I was on the debate team" or "I played basketball". One does not write a dissertation to graduate high school. Alternatively a GED holder today is going to have the same experiences a GED holder had in the 40s. "Mom was ill so I worked to keep the family afloat" or something similar.
What can't be accommodated for is that in many surveys, what todays firm wants in an entry level employee is the ability to get to work on time, every day, the ability to do some basic reading, and the ability to be trained. These are skills that can be demonstrated through a high school diploma and not a test.
"todays" firm is not any different than yesterday's firm. I beg to differ, but a test can show how trainable a person is. Consider the various reasons one gets the GED as opposed to grunting it out through high school, which are no different than back in the 40s when the tests were first used. These are everything from "Dead/ill parents" to "high school was too easy and they would not let me advance". In both cases, people have learned on their own so show motivation, adaptability, and ability to learn. It may not account for showing up for school, but I know lots of people that showed up that flunked out.
Really these changes have been going on for a while, particularly since high schools have implemented somewhat rigorous testing as a barrier to graduation. Really, 20 years ago a GED was almost superior to a high school diploma. It demonstrated actual knowledge. Not that high schools are testiing, the high school diploma is preferred in many cases. For the past ten years I have not seen many use it for jobs. In fact even 20 years ago the only time I saw it used was to gain entrance to a community college or to qualify for a promotion at an existing job.
Wrong on all accounts! A GED was always considered sub-par to a High School Diploma. There are no exceptions at any point in history, at least when we are talking about "Education" and continuing education (maybe if we were talking NBA your point would have some merit). 20 years ago was no different than today!
Next, high schools don't exclude people by testing. In fact they use the Government criteria and tests to enter and graduate people with a horrible education. A Catholic school may test you to see if your Catholic before entering, but that is a private school! Public schools follow Federal regulations. As much as I dislike much of what the US Government does with education, and has done to education, discrimination is not on my list of things I want changed.
As for use to get a job, I guess you work in Fast Food or something? We don't bother interviewing people without at least an Associates degree. 25 years ago, it was the same exact criteria that was on the job posting for my first job in IT. "At least an Associates degree." If anything, people want more education today on average because it's more common for people to have a 2 year degree. In order to get a 2 year degree, you either have a GED or High School Diploma.
In any case, the trend now seems to be extend high school for those who need it, try to get them into the workforce, and by hook or crook get a high school diploma. For heavily supervised work, that is enough. Anyone hired people for lightly su
That does not change the points the person made. A massive thing of some type being patented means that nobody else could build a competitive massive thing. We don't allow it, and it's nonsense to suggest that because of the effort require to make something it is "patentable".
The other point made is that discovering something in nature, or figuring out how something in nature works is also not patentable. Even if it takes many years worth of math to figure it out. Many scientists discourage patenting discoveries because it stifles future discoveries as well as prevents people from improving discoveries.
While I don't disagree with your point, it is a secondary issue. Correctable when people stop voting for career politicians and start voting in functional members of society. As Socrates stated, "the only people that should be representing people in the Republic are those that don't wish to be in politics.
Yeah yeah, not likely any time soon but if enough people spread the message it can and will happen.
RAM: Random Access Memory - A hard drive does fall into that definition. I'm speculating that the author was simplifying all of the main reasons for cloud use into as small of a statement as possible.
You touch on the point, and the article does too.. but just a touch so I'll extrapolate a bit.
Not very long ago many people purchased a PC just to get "on-line". This is where lots of companies made quick money, churning out cheap desktop PCs. People didn't play games on them, and most didn't even use an Office application. They used Web Browsers and Email. If you wanted to be "on-line", a PC was really the only option.
Fast forward a couple years to today, and people have "on-line" options. Their smart phone can get them to the web and read email. To top that off, they can make phone calls. (I'm not saying you could not do that on a PC, but rather it required more work and knowledge to do than the "average" computer owner had. There is simply no need for people to purchase a PC today just to browse the web, or send and receive emails.
So does the guy making minimum wage spend 400 bucks on a PC and 100 on a phone, or 200 on a smart phone and have both? IMHO, we are seeing the answer currently.
I think that other aspects (like what you mention, and the authors mention of Windows 8) have merit. I'm just not sure that those are as big of a factor as the smart phone when it comes to PC sales declining.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have not yet figured it out, there is no line between Democrat and Republican any longer. They are all on the same team, and hint: it is not your team. Keep thinking they differ and the same will continue. They want us bickering over rep. Vs dem. and black vs white, and atheist vs religious , or anything else that keeps you from watching what they are doing.
And actually I was defending your post. I'm not sure why you are arguing their claim that you were wrong.
No, he did not give a hypothetical. You gave a hypothetical to counter his statements. I'm guessing that you are grasping at some definition somewhere instead of seeing a fallacy for what it is. You presented a hypothetical argument to claim he was wrong because of a criteria that in this case simply does not exist. You can read the definition of a straw man here.
Pay special attention to: To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. in which you created a fantasy situation to claim he was wrong. (You quoted the paragraph where they discussed self regulation, and that is what you refuted with fallacy).
Injecting facts into a debate is not a straw man. You can freely read the history of gold prices and see what I stated is factual. Short term increase in gold quantity does not crash the market, and never has crashed the market. I believe your "tank overnight" comment speaks for itself. Perhaps you meant something different than you said? If so, feel free to correct instead of demanding that your fallacy is correct and anyone refuting it is wrong.
My facts may not back your position based in fantasy land, but that does not turn a fact into fallacy. It means that your argument was poorly grounded.
Come now, so by your reasoning it should be perfectly logical to debate our economy based on an killing Smog and imports from Narnia.
The whole golden asteroid argument is a complete fantasy! Not only are we decades away from being able to mine an asteroid, we have no evidence that there are asteroids filled with gold! Good grief people make my head hurt sometimes.
Microsoft is constantly hopping on bandwagons. It gets them free advertising. They don't care that a good chunk of the population points out that they do things poorly, mislabel things, intentionally name things wrong, break standards, break other products, etc... They care that you are talking about them.
Every other week we read about MS hyping some other bullshit they think they invented. Most laugh at them, a few fanbois run out and buy what ever they are hawking, but most importantly we all see their name enough where it's impossible to ignore it.
The straw man you gave is the hypothetical situation where we find a shitload of gold on an asteroid.
My argument was very valid, please look at the history of gold prices. If prices went down after finding a large deposit, the effect was temporary and gold prices went up shortly after. In some cases, there were no dips in prices after a find. There is no straw man at all in my statements, they are historically accurate.
One disadvantage of gold is that it depends on the scarcity of the metal.... if Asteroid Mining ever becomes a reality and someone happens to snag an asteroid with thousands of tons of easily extracted gold, the gold market will tank overnight. (and it can happen before the first ounce of gold is mined if there's verified proof of the deposit).
Not a good straw man argument. That effect of the influx would be temporary. Gold would still be scarce.
Maybe you should think about that word when reaching for a dictionary?
That's only the tip of the iceberg. When gold becomes the standard, powerful people and governments become interested in controlling the price of gold.
You end up with things like laws that prevent people from owning gold bullion in large amounts, for fear that they use it to manipulate currency. (This used to be a real law in the US - Why to do people forget about it?)
AFAIK that law is still in place. The US Government can still come confiscate your gold or jail you if you fail to turn it in on request. I could of course be wrong, going off of an article I read last year.
I agree with everything else you stated, but I'd be curious of the article was correct.
Steve Forbes is scared because Bitcoin takes the control away from existing institutions of wealth.
Or at least you think so...
Me thinks you should go read the definition of Operating System and compare that to what Windows 3.x was. Windows required a Disk Operating system in order to run because it lacked very important aspects of an Operating system. Low level drivers could not be loaded in Windows, like Disk I/O and Network devices (hell even Keyboard and Mouse was loaded by DOS). Windows was an easier way to launch applications, sure, but a launcher is not an operating system.
DOS 6 was much later than Windows 3.1. If you search for specs, you will find that Windows 3.1 required DOS 3.1 or higher. Windows stated "MS-DOS" but it would run on other DOS OSes like DR. DOS and IBM PC DOS.
So Faux news telling me over and over again how Windows 8 can improve my life is not okay either? Me thinks you are nitpicking a bit...
Modern "news" channels are basically just a loop of the five worst things that happened in the world today, presented from the perspective the Government want's you to have.
Film at 11.
FTFY!
Value in your first paragraph is very misleading. Value to whom? Does main stream media provide more value than a tech site? Perhaps to the Government or other agency trying to spread propaganda. Do they generate value to people searching for facts? Not in the last 10 years they have not.
Let me further state that the reason so many other news sources are popping up, is because the main stream media has become almost pure propaganda. As more and more people catch on to that fact, the demand will increase. In other words, expect many more sites offering political News. As someone who wants the propaganda war against the US people to end and the Republic to be restored, I welcome more news.
Because I misinterpreted the context of a word I have no education? Sorry, very untrue. As stated previously, college was long ago and yes I was required 2 semesters of Chemistry in College. Does that imply I remember or use chemists context for everything? Not at all.
No, I won't provide transcripts but rather point out that you are a) wrong b) arguing from ignorance.
Sounds like we may have different sets of information. From what I read, Schwartz only had access to the library because his father was on staff. ID was required which is how they found him the copying data, the first time. I doubt this changed the second time he was caught.
Opening an unlocked door is not a felony, sorry. Unless you are using something illogical like breaking through a first door and opening a second door is a felony. This was a main sticking point with the defense. The closet was unlocked and in a building the person had access to. It is legally impossible to have a felony B&E charge or unlawful entry charge stick. The prosecutor kept it there because it added time, not because it was legit. Look at it this way. It's not illegal for you to walk into the rest room of the opposite sex unless there is intent to commit another illegal act. Otherwise, a whole lot of drunk people would be doing hard time for a mistake. This is where Mens Rea becomes very important.
Even the prosecutor admitted that they were stacking charges to force a plea bargain. The prosecutors office admitted it was a common tactic to get pleas. You are not even trying to justify what they were doing at this point, you are claiming that something admitted is now false.
I get that he was guilty of something, and 6 months would have been fair for it. The point was, and is, that the prosecutor stacked charges to try and get a plea which was at least a contributor to the person committing suicide. Stacking up charges is not what the prosecutor is supposed to do! The prosecutor is supposed to work for the best interests of the Citizens, and this definitely goes outside of those bounds.
Nope, sorry but big nope. If it was serialized it would perform horribly. The disk does not care where your data lives, nor should it. It's job is to read and write data as requested. A file can live in block 800, 100, 700, and 2 and in that order.
If you are unclear, look at the FAT/* file system and it should be very obvious. Data does not need to be stored serialized, it can live all over the place and generally will gain performance when it does (unless it's very large files).
One does not have to be an expert in chemistry to understand pollution. That is an absolute fallacy. Your statement is rubbish (intentionally punned) and I'm pretty sure you know that it's rubbish.
Having knowledge and having it in the forefront are two distinctly different things. Would I be able to recall linear algebra if I needed to? Sure, with some work. It's not something I have used for 2 decades, but I could refresh myself. Perhaps you completely fail to understand how the brain works? I doubt it, I think you are just being an asshole.
Pollutants are called pollutants, go read some of the white papers and research provided to the Government, FDA, EPA, etc... You will find references to numerous carbon compounds in them, called pollutants. It's very misleading to call them "organic", even if it's technically correct to a chemist.
Kind of amazing considering that I never used the term "organic" in that post isn't it. It's also pretty amazing that many studies on pollutants use a non-chemical definition of "Organic". Also pretty crazy that nothing I said above is wrong. I have read hundreds of documents on the process of powdering coal and the impact on the people living near them. Not a single one defined pollutants as "organic", but by "pollutant" or by the chemical compound names.
Maybe you are claiming that I'm wrong in the post you pulled up from history? I really don't know what your point is. I stated that my interpretation of their use of "organic" was incorrect didn't I? I still find it odd that they would call pollutants from burning fossil fuels, and of course remnant pesticides "Organic". It's a very poor word to use even it's correct from a specific context.
It's kind of like saying "the reactor is warm". Yup, it sure is "warm" isn't it?
The issue is not necessarily price,but value. For instance the current generation of kids to have different experiences, and what needs to be tested is different, but the test can be changed for that.
What? Do you think that in the 1940s all these kids came in with experience? Perhaps you are claiming that our education system today somehow gives them experiences and they need to show them off? We are talking about the education system aren't we? More specifically, gaining enough knowledge to be as educated as a High School student! The experience of a high school graduate today would be the same as in the 30s. "I was in band" or "I was on the debate team" or "I played basketball". One does not write a dissertation to graduate high school. Alternatively a GED holder today is going to have the same experiences a GED holder had in the 40s. "Mom was ill so I worked to keep the family afloat" or something similar.
What can't be accommodated for is that in many surveys, what todays firm wants in an entry level employee is the ability to get to work on time, every day, the ability to do some basic reading, and the ability to be trained. These are skills that can be demonstrated through a high school diploma and not a test.
"todays" firm is not any different than yesterday's firm. I beg to differ, but a test can show how trainable a person is. Consider the various reasons one gets the GED as opposed to grunting it out through high school, which are no different than back in the 40s when the tests were first used. These are everything from "Dead/ill parents" to "high school was too easy and they would not let me advance". In both cases, people have learned on their own so show motivation, adaptability, and ability to learn. It may not account for showing up for school, but I know lots of people that showed up that flunked out.
Really these changes have been going on for a while, particularly since high schools have implemented somewhat rigorous testing as a barrier to graduation. Really, 20 years ago a GED was almost superior to a high school diploma. It demonstrated actual knowledge. Not that high schools are testiing, the high school diploma is preferred in many cases. For the past ten years I have not seen many use it for jobs. In fact even 20 years ago the only time I saw it used was to gain entrance to a community college or to qualify for a promotion at an existing job.
Wrong on all accounts! A GED was always considered sub-par to a High School Diploma. There are no exceptions at any point in history, at least when we are talking about "Education" and continuing education (maybe if we were talking NBA your point would have some merit). 20 years ago was no different than today!
Next, high schools don't exclude people by testing. In fact they use the Government criteria and tests to enter and graduate people with a horrible education. A Catholic school may test you to see if your Catholic before entering, but that is a private school! Public schools follow Federal regulations. As much as I dislike much of what the US Government does with education, and has done to education, discrimination is not on my list of things I want changed.
As for use to get a job, I guess you work in Fast Food or something? We don't bother interviewing people without at least an Associates degree. 25 years ago, it was the same exact criteria that was on the job posting for my first job in IT. "At least an Associates degree." If anything, people want more education today on average because it's more common for people to have a 2 year degree. In order to get a 2 year degree, you either have a GED or High School Diploma.
In any case, the trend now seems to be extend high school for those who need it, try to get them into the workforce, and by hook or crook get a high school diploma. For heavily supervised work, that is enough. Anyone hired people for lightly su
That does not change the points the person made. A massive thing of some type being patented means that nobody else could build a competitive massive thing. We don't allow it, and it's nonsense to suggest that because of the effort require to make something it is "patentable".
The other point made is that discovering something in nature, or figuring out how something in nature works is also not patentable. Even if it takes many years worth of math to figure it out. Many scientists discourage patenting discoveries because it stifles future discoveries as well as prevents people from improving discoveries.
While I don't disagree with your point, it is a secondary issue. Correctable when people stop voting for career politicians and start voting in functional members of society. As Socrates stated, "the only people that should be representing people in the Republic are those that don't wish to be in politics.
Yeah yeah, not likely any time soon but if enough people spread the message it can and will happen.
RAM: Random Access Memory - A hard drive does fall into that definition. I'm speculating that the author was simplifying all of the main reasons for cloud use into as small of a statement as possible.
You touch on the point, and the article does too.. but just a touch so I'll extrapolate a bit.
Not very long ago many people purchased a PC just to get "on-line". This is where lots of companies made quick money, churning out cheap desktop PCs. People didn't play games on them, and most didn't even use an Office application. They used Web Browsers and Email. If you wanted to be "on-line", a PC was really the only option.
Fast forward a couple years to today, and people have "on-line" options. Their smart phone can get them to the web and read email. To top that off, they can make phone calls. (I'm not saying you could not do that on a PC, but rather it required more work and knowledge to do than the "average" computer owner had. There is simply no need for people to purchase a PC today just to browse the web, or send and receive emails.
So does the guy making minimum wage spend 400 bucks on a PC and 100 on a phone, or 200 on a smart phone and have both? IMHO, we are seeing the answer currently.
I think that other aspects (like what you mention, and the authors mention of Windows 8) have merit. I'm just not sure that those are as big of a factor as the smart phone when it comes to PC sales declining.