It's the victim culture don't you know, so everyone cares. This kid should get what he wants just because he cried "FOUL" at someone. I think the song said "Money for nothing and your chicks for free!" right?
The kid might have been smarter to break^Winvent, a clock and get invited to the White House and Google before the lawsuit... but hey, that ship may have already sailed... to Qatar that is.
We know it encourages trolls, just like media advertising people and their manifestos who commit horrible crimes encourages more crimes. This is such basic psychology that people in junior high get it (and used to be taught it). When you claim that the effect will not be what they intend, make sure you know the real intentions (not always the published one). I see this as a larger push to block free speech. More CISPA/SOPA dialogue will follow, and of course be hammered in to place because *insert appeal to emotion* trumps sanity when it's pushed enough.
I was thinking similarly, but not quite the same. How many terrorist are engineers seems to be a backward question. Would a farmer be a terrorist, or have any value to a movement? Professional welder? Carpenter? So there are certain people that fit and certain people that don't from the perspective of the terrorist organization.
Further still, who is more likely to be dissatisfied with the current state of their Government/World? The farmer? The employed mason? Or the unemployed specialty engineer? Who is more likely to notice corruption, the higher educated engineer or the lower educated restaurant cook?
In other words, I kind of agree with the premise that more engineers would be terrorists. I don't think that it's really surprising just by glancing at the world. I don't intend this as insulting, but the more intelligent people I know tend to be the most dissatisfied with our Government and the direction it's going. They tend to not hope on the band wagons, follow trendy music and fads, etc... The founders of the US were similarly well educated people who were fed up with their current government and figured out a way to revolt.
And a beginning of the Universe from absolutely nothing is not magic how exactly? That is rhetorical, I don't expect a troll to actually understand that either solution is plausible, and in fact something causing the Universe is far more likely. Now go back to your Kool Aide, I'm sure there is Theology you could be focusing on.
I'm not sure if you are in the US, but you may not understand how bad our so called justice system is. An interesting article today shows that in the last couple years, Just the Federal "Civil Forfeiture" has taken over 5 times as much money and property as crime. This is where there is no trial, no charge, not even an allegation. Police just take your stuff by simply claiming that it was connected to a crime or.. get this.. a Potential crime.
If you already knew this you know how bad things are. Since the burden of proof, allegations, and fair trials are gone what would make you believe that a Copyright claim would be different?
But you hint at something, which is a tactic not often considered "fair" but since that's gone anyway... Turn the claim on the plaintiff and start having people flood their ISPs with bogus claims of copyright infringement, trademark abuse, or hell even patent infringement. While you are probably right that it would only work against individuals as a real action, it would still start to cost money. And how about everyone going and filing small claims charges against them for damages related to an increase in their ISP billing due to frivolous lawsuits?
I'm really not sure how to oust an appointed judge either. Impeach them and the guys that appointed them?
The multiverse does not answer the question of causality, but it is often used to obfuscate and avoid the question. The root question of "does something need to cause the Universe?" simply becomes plural "Universes". "How space, matter and energy, and all of the laws of physics (quantum as well as Newtonian) begin?" is the root question, and it remains just as valid today as a few thousand years ago when we first documented the question. Science can refute theological beliefs but it can't answer that question.
Being arrested requires that charges be filed. Ahmed was not arrested and not charged with any crimes, he was detained. Your twenty minutes is plucked out of the air and meaningless. Twenty minutes for a vehicle stop? Okay. Twenty minutes for charges relating to weapons or drugs? No way is that twenty minutes. The legal limit varies, but 24 hours is generally the limit that you can be detained without having charges filed (at which point you are arrested).
Ahmed was hauled off and _DETAINED_ for a reason. YOU may not agree with the reasoning, but that does not mean there was no basis. How people keep modding this lie up when law dictionaries are pretty easy to find is astounding (https://www.law.cornell.edu/). Well, not really.. it suits a narrative.
But the question still remains. If a white kid was fucking around sticking stuff in a power outlet, would the police be called? Again the school district surely has other examples they can point to.
Most likely? Yes, the white kid would be arrested. Columbine was white kids, OK City was white guys, I have read tons of stories where white kids are arrested and expelled for bringing in toys that look like guns (more than other races at least in media).
Now you may say "this kid didn't have a gun and it was small so probably not a bomb" which nobody would argue. The question is whether or not we can prove it's not a bomb and prove that his intent with the device was not related to terrorism. Ever see how phones are used to set off IEDs? Have you ever seen a homemade detonator? I can say yes to both of those things, and yes I would question what the kid had.
Kind of like the toy gun at a distance, once you are close you will notice the fakery. That does not indicate that the kid found with the fake was not behaving in an abnormal/threatening way. Do those kids get sent back to class after their toy guns are found to be toys?
I have no qualms with people saying that there is discrimination all over the place. I think that is an easy to prove theory. Was _this_ a case of discrimination? Only if those toy gun toting kids received similar treatment, and the reality is they are treated much harsher.
Many people believe that something is needed to start the Universe (God). That does not mean that they agree with any particular Theology and in fact may speak against their practices.
When you open with a complete fabrication, your concluding opinion becomes suspect at best. The kid was not arrested, he was detained. He was detained for reasons you can find pretty easily.
I don't see how your fantasy / delusion which counters reality will change the facts of the matter. Instead of using facts, you simply lied in an attempt to manipulate opinion.
You should not be so uninformed/uneducated that you believe 'if then" logic is really programming, let alone an algorithm. "If then" is decision making based on what ever criteria you have at hand at the time you are making the decision. When dealing with simple objects "if A=2" decisions are easy. What happens when this becomes abstracted even a little? What happens when it's a moral decision without clear definition? What happens if someone lies to you and tells you A=2 and it's not? How do you know what A really is?
The programming curriculum pushed is just like common core. Do what you are told, believe what you are told, and if you do those two things you pass. You are not given time to validate what you are told, let alone being taught to question what you are told.
More simply put, teaching the decision making process is a good thing especially when there are consequences to the decisions. Teaching it with a very rigid and extremely limited set of rules is not a good thing, and early on is harmful. One must also be taught morality, which both which to have and how the world really works.
Ha ha, Microsoft is the lesser of the two evils? Try to do at least a cursory check of history before making such asinine statements. Microsoft got started by Bill Gates stealing CP/M (overly simplified but enough for this thread), grew by literally putting competitors applications on a treadmill and randomly crashing them to make MS apps look slightly better than the ones their kernel intentionally crashed and starved, and used strong arm tactics to force leading competitors out of business. That behavior lead to over a well over a dozen anti trust cases in the US and EU, and hundreds successful damages suits by companies that were unfortunately put out of business waiting for their court dates.
Microsoft has broken network protocols, broken open network services, broken ISO standards so badly they had to amend their own to the standard, sold garbage APIs to competitors who made better products than them, lied in court, lied to consumers, and really only cares about executive wealth. Their morality is lower than that of Standard Oil in the good ole days of David D, and that is very goddamn low.
Sony's root kit deal was small potatoes compared to MS who's execs get hard every time they hear the tree magic words "Extend", "Extinguish" and "Exterminate". Before you try it, no they have not changed a bit as Windows 10 proves very well.
I have never owned an XBox, and will never own one. I have owned PS2, PS3, and PS4 and will continue down that path. While some of that is a personal boycott against MS, at least as much relates to the durability of the PlayStation. I know plenty of people that have had XBoxes break from normal to heavy use. I have never seen a PlayStation break down from being used, and ours gets abused regularly. The PS4 is on regularly, but I still have my PS2 and PS3 and both still work like new.
I don't have sympathy for people selling modifications to a game which the maker of the game says are illegal. Hell, if you are found to be using mods many sites ban your account, often permanently and without a refund.
I don't game like I used to, but when I do I refuse to play on-line FPS games. That refusal has at least something to do with the aim bot mods people use to install just to have their name in a high score list somewhere. You could truly be amazingly agile and great at a game, but I have experienced cheats so find it hard to assume the best.
In California we have whole stores dedicated to Organic. That you don't have something like this does not mean it does not exist. Just as important, Organic is not higher priced because of a "label" as much as the way normal markets work. Organic farmers are not the massive conglomerates with huge distribution channels and shared resources, so of course they are going to cost more.
Does the label have some influence in cost, sure it does. Lipton brand tea costs more than no-name generic tea also, so this is not something abnormal in the market. Does it have everything to do with price? Hell no. Do some homework on how massive some of these agriculture companies are, how much money they spend on preservatives to get their products to market before they rot, how much food coloring they use to make their food better looking than nature can make it, etc.. etc...
Hiding something was my argument, and you can not counter the fact that this is occurring on a massive scale (hundreds of millions of dollars in the US alone). Moving the goal post to a different red herring still does not make you correct.
Organic started being labelled because companies performing genetic modification failed to label, and pay tens of millions of dollars every to NOT label. If "GMO" was great they should be able to charge extra for the name. Of course you establish an additional red herring by claiming a label that was never mentioned, never discussed, and has no relation to genetic modification.
I was correct, you can not rationally back your position. I smell a troll, or a person too handicapped to realize their irrationality.
My primary statement was regarding how much money these companies spend to hide what they do, and you disagree with facts. Not only do you disagree with facts, you do so on a red herring argument. Wow!
Lets look at how an average person might look at a GMO label.
When we look at a label like "Organic" the "average" person takes it very well and pays more for those products. If the product is positive the advertising will be perceived that way.
You demonstrate the irrational fallacy pretty well, but I'm not convinced that you can back your position or counter mine in a rational way.
I see where you wanted to go, but I have to nitpick a bit.
The price of a thing is established by a balance between supply and demand.
I'm not sure where you live, but there are absolutely zero free markets on planet Earth. Over the last 40 years prices have moved further toward taking people for everything possible and giving the least possible. That is what monopolization and deregulation (legalizing bribery) has done. If you believe you live in a free market, you have never attempted to own a business. In fact you have no idea about the history of Microsoft, BP, Standard Oil, Chiquita, Dole, Monsanto, etc.. etc...
You're not going to create a "new species" by inserting one gene and a promoter.
I find it really odd that people have such selective memory and comprehension ability. When it suits people to call it a new species they do, but in this case people play dumb. How many birds have such a minor difference from a relative that you can't detect it without DNA but we call them different species? Oh, we have lots of those. Then there is this thing called the "Killer Bee". You may have heard of it, but then again... The original intent was to make farming honey very effective and efficient, safer and more profitable. That was not even genetic modification, but cross breeding which caused that one. Even though the intent was altruistic, look what happened?
You want to tell me that the Frankenfish is safe (sorry, I heard the "News" call it that and got a laugh) I'll agree. For now it's safe. We generally don't find out otherwise until decades later that things we did were harmful. That's the way progression works. You don't have to like it, but to deny reality is idiotic.
Just like differences in farm raised versus wild, frozen versus refrigerated versus fresh etc., none of which are required to be labeled, it's all sold under a name
Reductio ad absurdum, and a flat out lie. If I buy ice cream and it has peanuts in it, the label has to have peanuts included in the ingredient list (and in many cases a big ole warning label). If it does not, the manufacturer will be shut down and sued. If I purchase sausage and it's 20% pork 80% beef, it's labelled that way. See the previous. Nobody has said we need GM fish to label itself for anything other than what it is. It is not a Coho Salmon, it's a genetically modified Salmon. Give it a fancy name, like Bob's Salmon if you want. It should however be distinguished from the natural fish.
It is a fact that bad things happen, even with the best intent. Why the hell would anyone attempt to hide what this is? Why the hell would anyone not demand such labeling. Look, if you want to be the first guy eating that cool looking Mushroom we just found, more power to ya. I'd rather make sure you are not dead after a few meals before I try it.
We can turn that same argument around and claim that the main way GMO manufacturers are swaying people is by concealing facts. Which of course they are, and anyone can verify that fact. Look at the hundred plus million dollars spent to not label products as GMO in just 2012-2013 (about 30 million in CA alone in 2012). Look at what the big players like Monsanto and Bayer pay for lobbying each year.
People want to believe that Genetically modified foods are going to be a savoir. The companies producing them sure don't show concern for anything but profits.
Since we never found anything like this, it must be the same place they hid all the WMDs and those pesky mobile chemical weapons factories. Rumsfeld did say that those "secret" entrances were large enough for big trucks, so it makes perfect sense.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the victim culture don't you know, so everyone cares. This kid should get what he wants just because he cried "FOUL" at someone. I think the song said "Money for nothing and your chicks for free!" right?
The kid might have been smarter to break^Winvent, a clock and get invited to the White House and Google before the lawsuit... but hey, that ship may have already sailed... to Qatar that is.
Is my cynicism showing?
We know it encourages trolls, just like media advertising people and their manifestos who commit horrible crimes encourages more crimes. This is such basic psychology that people in junior high get it (and used to be taught it). When you claim that the effect will not be what they intend, make sure you know the real intentions (not always the published one). I see this as a larger push to block free speech. More CISPA/SOPA dialogue will follow, and of course be hammered in to place because *insert appeal to emotion* trumps sanity when it's pushed enough.
I was thinking similarly, but not quite the same. How many terrorist are engineers seems to be a backward question. Would a farmer be a terrorist, or have any value to a movement? Professional welder? Carpenter? So there are certain people that fit and certain people that don't from the perspective of the terrorist organization.
Further still, who is more likely to be dissatisfied with the current state of their Government/World? The farmer? The employed mason? Or the unemployed specialty engineer? Who is more likely to notice corruption, the higher educated engineer or the lower educated restaurant cook?
In other words, I kind of agree with the premise that more engineers would be terrorists. I don't think that it's really surprising just by glancing at the world. I don't intend this as insulting, but the more intelligent people I know tend to be the most dissatisfied with our Government and the direction it's going. They tend to not hope on the band wagons, follow trendy music and fads, etc... The founders of the US were similarly well educated people who were fed up with their current government and figured out a way to revolt.
Come on now, we can all be living in an Amish Paradise if we wanna.
And a beginning of the Universe from absolutely nothing is not magic how exactly? That is rhetorical, I don't expect a troll to actually understand that either solution is plausible, and in fact something causing the Universe is far more likely. Now go back to your Kool Aide, I'm sure there is Theology you could be focusing on.
I'm not sure if you are in the US, but you may not understand how bad our so called justice system is. An interesting article today shows that in the last couple years, Just the Federal "Civil Forfeiture" has taken over 5 times as much money and property as crime. This is where there is no trial, no charge, not even an allegation. Police just take your stuff by simply claiming that it was connected to a crime or.. get this.. a Potential crime.
If you already knew this you know how bad things are. Since the burden of proof, allegations, and fair trials are gone what would make you believe that a Copyright claim would be different?
But you hint at something, which is a tactic not often considered "fair" but since that's gone anyway... Turn the claim on the plaintiff and start having people flood their ISPs with bogus claims of copyright infringement, trademark abuse, or hell even patent infringement. While you are probably right that it would only work against individuals as a real action, it would still start to cost money. And how about everyone going and filing small claims charges against them for damages related to an increase in their ISP billing due to frivolous lawsuits?
I'm really not sure how to oust an appointed judge either. Impeach them and the guys that appointed them?
The multiverse does not answer the question of causality, but it is often used to obfuscate and avoid the question. The root question of "does something need to cause the Universe?" simply becomes plural "Universes". "How space, matter and energy, and all of the laws of physics (quantum as well as Newtonian) begin?" is the root question, and it remains just as valid today as a few thousand years ago when we first documented the question. Science can refute theological beliefs but it can't answer that question.
Being arrested requires that charges be filed. Ahmed was not arrested and not charged with any crimes, he was detained. Your twenty minutes is plucked out of the air and meaningless. Twenty minutes for a vehicle stop? Okay. Twenty minutes for charges relating to weapons or drugs? No way is that twenty minutes. The legal limit varies, but 24 hours is generally the limit that you can be detained without having charges filed (at which point you are arrested).
Ahmed was hauled off and _DETAINED_ for a reason. YOU may not agree with the reasoning, but that does not mean there was no basis. How people keep modding this lie up when law dictionaries are pretty easy to find is astounding (https://www.law.cornell.edu/). Well, not really.. it suits a narrative.
But the question still remains. If a white kid was fucking around sticking stuff in a power outlet, would the police be called? Again the school district surely has other examples they can point to.
Most likely? Yes, the white kid would be arrested. Columbine was white kids, OK City was white guys, I have read tons of stories where white kids are arrested and expelled for bringing in toys that look like guns (more than other races at least in media).
Now you may say "this kid didn't have a gun and it was small so probably not a bomb" which nobody would argue. The question is whether or not we can prove it's not a bomb and prove that his intent with the device was not related to terrorism. Ever see how phones are used to set off IEDs? Have you ever seen a homemade detonator? I can say yes to both of those things, and yes I would question what the kid had.
Kind of like the toy gun at a distance, once you are close you will notice the fakery. That does not indicate that the kid found with the fake was not behaving in an abnormal/threatening way. Do those kids get sent back to class after their toy guns are found to be toys?
I have no qualms with people saying that there is discrimination all over the place. I think that is an easy to prove theory. Was _this_ a case of discrimination? Only if those toy gun toting kids received similar treatment, and the reality is they are treated much harsher.
Many people believe that something is needed to start the Universe (God). That does not mean that they agree with any particular Theology and in fact may speak against their practices.
When you open with a complete fabrication, your concluding opinion becomes suspect at best. The kid was not arrested, he was detained. He was detained for reasons you can find pretty easily.
I don't see how your fantasy / delusion which counters reality will change the facts of the matter. Instead of using facts, you simply lied in an attempt to manipulate opinion.
But President Obama said "we need more kids like him". Are you telling me that the President is wrong? *gasp* *snark*
According to the censors and sock puppets, the truth is flamebait.
You should not be so uninformed/uneducated that you believe 'if then" logic is really programming, let alone an algorithm. "If then" is decision making based on what ever criteria you have at hand at the time you are making the decision. When dealing with simple objects "if A=2" decisions are easy. What happens when this becomes abstracted even a little? What happens when it's a moral decision without clear definition? What happens if someone lies to you and tells you A=2 and it's not? How do you know what A really is?
The programming curriculum pushed is just like common core. Do what you are told, believe what you are told, and if you do those two things you pass. You are not given time to validate what you are told, let alone being taught to question what you are told.
More simply put, teaching the decision making process is a good thing especially when there are consequences to the decisions. Teaching it with a very rigid and extremely limited set of rules is not a good thing, and early on is harmful. One must also be taught morality, which both which to have and how the world really works.
Does my opinion change due to a false dichotomy? Not in the slightest.
Ha ha, Microsoft is the lesser of the two evils? Try to do at least a cursory check of history before making such asinine statements. Microsoft got started by Bill Gates stealing CP/M (overly simplified but enough for this thread), grew by literally putting competitors applications on a treadmill and randomly crashing them to make MS apps look slightly better than the ones their kernel intentionally crashed and starved, and used strong arm tactics to force leading competitors out of business. That behavior lead to over a well over a dozen anti trust cases in the US and EU, and hundreds successful damages suits by companies that were unfortunately put out of business waiting for their court dates.
Microsoft has broken network protocols, broken open network services, broken ISO standards so badly they had to amend their own to the standard, sold garbage APIs to competitors who made better products than them, lied in court, lied to consumers, and really only cares about executive wealth. Their morality is lower than that of Standard Oil in the good ole days of David D, and that is very goddamn low.
Sony's root kit deal was small potatoes compared to MS who's execs get hard every time they hear the tree magic words "Extend", "Extinguish" and "Exterminate". Before you try it, no they have not changed a bit as Windows 10 proves very well.
I have never owned an XBox, and will never own one. I have owned PS2, PS3, and PS4 and will continue down that path. While some of that is a personal boycott against MS, at least as much relates to the durability of the PlayStation. I know plenty of people that have had XBoxes break from normal to heavy use. I have never seen a PlayStation break down from being used, and ours gets abused regularly. The PS4 is on regularly, but I still have my PS2 and PS3 and both still work like new.
VI or EMACS? Debian or Redhat? AMD or INTEL? Apache or IIS? The list of flammable topics is pretty long.
I don't have sympathy for people selling modifications to a game which the maker of the game says are illegal. Hell, if you are found to be using mods many sites ban your account, often permanently and without a refund.
I don't game like I used to, but when I do I refuse to play on-line FPS games. That refusal has at least something to do with the aim bot mods people use to install just to have their name in a high score list somewhere. You could truly be amazingly agile and great at a game, but I have experienced cheats so find it hard to assume the best.
In California we have whole stores dedicated to Organic. That you don't have something like this does not mean it does not exist. Just as important, Organic is not higher priced because of a "label" as much as the way normal markets work. Organic farmers are not the massive conglomerates with huge distribution channels and shared resources, so of course they are going to cost more.
Does the label have some influence in cost, sure it does. Lipton brand tea costs more than no-name generic tea also, so this is not something abnormal in the market. Does it have everything to do with price? Hell no. Do some homework on how massive some of these agriculture companies are, how much money they spend on preservatives to get their products to market before they rot, how much food coloring they use to make their food better looking than nature can make it, etc.. etc...
Hiding something was my argument, and you can not counter the fact that this is occurring on a massive scale (hundreds of millions of dollars in the US alone). Moving the goal post to a different red herring still does not make you correct.
Organic started being labelled because companies performing genetic modification failed to label, and pay tens of millions of dollars every to NOT label. If "GMO" was great they should be able to charge extra for the name. Of course you establish an additional red herring by claiming a label that was never mentioned, never discussed, and has no relation to genetic modification.
I was correct, you can not rationally back your position. I smell a troll, or a person too handicapped to realize their irrationality.
Sorry but I disagree.
My primary statement was regarding how much money these companies spend to hide what they do, and you disagree with facts. Not only do you disagree with facts, you do so on a red herring argument. Wow!
Lets look at how an average person might look at a GMO label.
When we look at a label like "Organic" the "average" person takes it very well and pays more for those products. If the product is positive the advertising will be perceived that way.
You demonstrate the irrational fallacy pretty well, but I'm not convinced that you can back your position or counter mine in a rational way.
I see where you wanted to go, but I have to nitpick a bit.
The price of a thing is established by a balance between supply and demand.
I'm not sure where you live, but there are absolutely zero free markets on planet Earth. Over the last 40 years prices have moved further toward taking people for everything possible and giving the least possible. That is what monopolization and deregulation (legalizing bribery) has done. If you believe you live in a free market, you have never attempted to own a business. In fact you have no idea about the history of Microsoft, BP, Standard Oil, Chiquita, Dole, Monsanto, etc.. etc...
You're not going to create a "new species" by inserting one gene and a promoter.
I find it really odd that people have such selective memory and comprehension ability. When it suits people to call it a new species they do, but in this case people play dumb. How many birds have such a minor difference from a relative that you can't detect it without DNA but we call them different species? Oh, we have lots of those. Then there is this thing called the "Killer Bee". You may have heard of it, but then again... The original intent was to make farming honey very effective and efficient, safer and more profitable. That was not even genetic modification, but cross breeding which caused that one. Even though the intent was altruistic, look what happened?
You want to tell me that the Frankenfish is safe (sorry, I heard the "News" call it that and got a laugh) I'll agree. For now it's safe. We generally don't find out otherwise until decades later that things we did were harmful. That's the way progression works. You don't have to like it, but to deny reality is idiotic.
Just like differences in farm raised versus wild, frozen versus refrigerated versus fresh etc., none of which are required to be labeled, it's all sold under a name
Reductio ad absurdum, and a flat out lie. If I buy ice cream and it has peanuts in it, the label has to have peanuts included in the ingredient list (and in many cases a big ole warning label). If it does not, the manufacturer will be shut down and sued. If I purchase sausage and it's 20% pork 80% beef, it's labelled that way. See the previous. Nobody has said we need GM fish to label itself for anything other than what it is. It is not a Coho Salmon, it's a genetically modified Salmon. Give it a fancy name, like Bob's Salmon if you want. It should however be distinguished from the natural fish.
It is a fact that bad things happen, even with the best intent. Why the hell would anyone attempt to hide what this is? Why the hell would anyone not demand such labeling. Look, if you want to be the first guy eating that cool looking Mushroom we just found, more power to ya. I'd rather make sure you are not dead after a few meals before I try it.
We can turn that same argument around and claim that the main way GMO manufacturers are swaying people is by concealing facts. Which of course they are, and anyone can verify that fact. Look at the hundred plus million dollars spent to not label products as GMO in just 2012-2013 (about 30 million in CA alone in 2012). Look at what the big players like Monsanto and Bayer pay for lobbying each year.
People want to believe that Genetically modified foods are going to be a savoir. The companies producing them sure don't show concern for anything but profits.
Since we never found anything like this, it must be the same place they hid all the WMDs and those pesky mobile chemical weapons factories. Rumsfeld did say that those "secret" entrances were large enough for big trucks, so it makes perfect sense.
You seem to lack comprehension of past tense. If you had such comprehension you would realize that your argument is fallacious.