Exactly. The summary poses a problem that this new program is supposed to fix, then says the new program works just as well as the old one. If it isn't better than what I have installed already, what is the point? I suppose if you couple "Their experiments show that automatic recommendations work at least as well as Genius for recommending undiscovered music" with "As more people play the game, the machines get smarter." then this program might be worth something someday. But that day isn't today.
I dunno about that . ..there's been more than a few times where a new song came on the radio and I didn't like it, but then after hearing that song a few more times over a few days, I start thinking I like it...
It isn't a false trichotomy if the antecedent remains true. You falsify the antecedent by changing the rate of population growth by making everyone use birth control. GP would have been a lot closer to correct if he said "IF our population rises exponentially, then . . " Of course that's all just semantics about logic statements, and people could argue both points . . i.e. is it likely that we as a population will ever be able to change our growth rates, using birth control or otherwise? Maybe, maybe not. People who argue no have that previous trichotomy to work with. People who say yes have a whole lot more options. Some other options would be to wipe out large populations through, plague, war or genocide. Or sexual segregation. All women are physically separated from men. But then you run into another problem. A lot of people would consider any method of population management as being inhumane. Not because you are trying to manage the population, but because inhibiting a person's reproductive rights or starving them or killing them are all bad things to do. If this logic holds, then you cannot control the population growth, which means the original antecedent remains true, which means GP was correct. Now wasn't that fun?
GP proved nothing except that he is a grammar Nazi. He didn't prove, one way or the other, whether he had the intelligence to contribute to the fuel tax conversation. The only way that would have been proven is if your sig were already known to be a true statement, which it isn't. This is in contrast to your posts, which actually do prove some things:
1) You cannot spell.
2) You refuse to acknowledge a spelling mistake, and humbly correct it.
3) You do not understand basic logic.
In fact, I would pose another argument to challenge yours. Refusing to learn from your grammatical and spelling mistakes, and instead unleashing your "grammar Nazi rhetoric" on those who try to correct you, is a sign you do not possess the intelligence to contribute to the conversation. That being said, have a great day!
The FCC would probably give the carriers provisions that allow them to check the legality of the data on their networks. Try to sue your carrier for breaking a state law and the carrier will just have the "federal law trumps state law" defense.
I checked the website given, specifically so I could do a cursory search and come back and say how difficult it was to find anything about the health care bills. Alas, it seems at least two of the bills are linked to from the front page.
Having less lawyers around won't make the law more understandable. That's a different argument entirely. Having less lawyers around will do one thing: make the lawyers who are left think they can charge more for their services.
And some people would call you an idiot for spending $20-$50 on a video game, because there are better options out there. Quite simply, there will ALWAYS be a better option, depending on who you are, how you were raised, etc. So everyone can go around calling each other idiots because of their favorite pastime. Seems kinda pointless doesn't it? Just because video games are your form of poison doesn't mean they are for everybody and it certainly doesn't make them a better choice for everyone else.
What's wrong with emails saying "Hey asshole, you have important information in the Message Center." As long as there isn't a link to the bank within the email, so I have to open a new window, and actually type the bank's address into the address bar, I don't see a problem with it. And that method has worked fine for me for the last few years.
My bank sends email confirmations to me all the time. If I add someone to the account, change the contact info, transfer money, etc, I will get an email. The emails say something like "This is to confirm that you changed your mailing address with us. Please do not reply to this email." The emails my bank sends never have links in them or ask me to input any information. The solution isn't necessarily to block or delete all email from all banks. You can simply choose not to input your bank account information.
This happens all the time on a smaller scale as well. In college towns, if a popular bar loses its liquor license, the owners start a new company and gets a license for that company. Change the bar's name over the door and voila, you're good to go. Lose the license again? Just rinse and repeat!
If a company had done enough 'bad deeds' to warrant 'death', then I wouldn't be particularly sad to see it's employees out of work.
Yes, I'm sure they were tangently innocent,
Not to nitpick, just trying to be helpful . . the word you are looking for is "tangentially."
"but at the base of it all, when it comes down to it, a company that is full of people who understand their job is on the line when it comes to 'ethical' business decisions is one where fewer unethical decisions can be made.
I disagree. I believe that if what you say is true, then the crime rates in America would be drastically lower. If bad person wants to do a bad thing because it will get them a quick fix somehow, then the CHANCE of being caught and fired or sent to jail will not deter them. The deterrence is even lower if personal punishment is replaced by mass punishment (i.e. everyone loses their job) because psychologically, the punishment is less . . well . . personal.
As people with more wealth have tried to accrue more wealth, which is fine there is nothing wrong with wanting more money, it has to be taken from elsewhere.
That's not quite true, at least not since we left the gold standard. Nowadays, money is generated out of the public trust. If it is perceived that a company's stock is valuable, then it is in higher demand, and the stock price will go up. This basically generates free money for the current stockholders. That money does not have to be taken from elsewhere. Of course, the opposite can happen as well. If the public believes a stock is worthless, it soon will be, because there will be no demand for the stock, and the price will plummet. A stock's value is only as high, or low, as the public perceives it to be. The tech bubble of the 90's is a good example of this.
Go back and look at these shady business practices you mention. You will see that in most cases, those "shady business practices" are a means of tricking the board and/or the public into believing that the company, and thus it's stock, is more valuable than it actually is. Refer to the Enron scandal for a good example of this.
You seem to have missed a subtle but quite important work in GP's post. "...nobody is TRULY locked into Comcast .." So yeah, you can argue about how they have a monopoly in certain areas and some people can't get a satellite connection, but at the end of the day, no one has to sit there watching cable television. If Comcast is the big evil monopoly in your area, and you are anti-Comcast, then just don't watch cable*. So, no. . . nobody is truly locked in.
*Most OTA stations let you stream the newest episodes from their site the day after it airs on TV. Those shows, and most of the ones not available for streaming, including cable shows, can usually be found on torrent within 12 hours of airtime anyway.
How is this modded funny? That post implies that GP has multiple misspelled words, which isn't the case at all. The only word I can't find in dictionary.com is "skiving," and that is because it's British slang.
There's a reality TV show I saw the other day where the main character balances Karma by getting rid of bad people after the court system fails to do so. The show is called Dester or something like that.
How is this a troll? The Japanese are notorious for their SMS and MMS use; even more so than Americans. Releasing a phone in Japan without these capabilities would not garner huge sales. Or is it a troll because previous IPhones DID have these features?
And after actually checking the links, that debate only seems to apply to the summary. The links don't even seem to suggest in any way that local workers should be looked over in favor of international ones. They just point out the tax numbers that congress put into law and has been in effect for years.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. The summary poses a problem that this new program is supposed to fix, then says the new program works just as well as the old one. If it isn't better than what I have installed already, what is the point? I suppose if you couple "Their experiments show that automatic recommendations work at least as well as Genius for recommending undiscovered music" with "As more people play the game, the machines get smarter." then this program might be worth something someday. But that day isn't today.
I dunno about that . . .there's been more than a few times where a new song came on the radio and I didn't like it, but then after hearing that song a few more times over a few days, I start thinking I like it...
It isn't a false trichotomy if the antecedent remains true. You falsify the antecedent by changing the rate of population growth by making everyone use birth control. GP would have been a lot closer to correct if he said "IF our population rises exponentially, then . . " Of course that's all just semantics about logic statements, and people could argue both points . . i.e. is it likely that we as a population will ever be able to change our growth rates, using birth control or otherwise? Maybe, maybe not. People who argue no have that previous trichotomy to work with. People who say yes have a whole lot more options. Some other options would be to wipe out large populations through, plague, war or genocide. Or sexual segregation. All women are physically separated from men. But then you run into another problem. A lot of people would consider any method of population management as being inhumane. Not because you are trying to manage the population, but because inhibiting a person's reproductive rights or starving them or killing them are all bad things to do. If this logic holds, then you cannot control the population growth, which means the original antecedent remains true, which means GP was correct. Now wasn't that fun?
GP proved nothing except that he is a grammar Nazi. He didn't prove, one way or the other, whether he had the intelligence to contribute to the fuel tax conversation. The only way that would have been proven is if your sig were already known to be a true statement, which it isn't. This is in contrast to your posts, which actually do prove some things:
1) You cannot spell.
2) You refuse to acknowledge a spelling mistake, and humbly correct it.
3) You do not understand basic logic.
In fact, I would pose another argument to challenge yours. Refusing to learn from your grammatical and spelling mistakes, and instead unleashing your "grammar Nazi rhetoric" on those who try to correct you, is a sign you do not possess the intelligence to contribute to the conversation. That being said, have a great day!
The FCC would probably give the carriers provisions that allow them to check the legality of the data on their networks. Try to sue your carrier for breaking a state law and the carrier will just have the "federal law trumps state law" defense.
Why can't it be both!? :)
I checked the website given, specifically so I could do a cursory search and come back and say how difficult it was to find anything about the health care bills. Alas, it seems at least two of the bills are linked to from the front page.
Having less lawyers around won't make the law more understandable. That's a different argument entirely. Having less lawyers around will do one thing: make the lawyers who are left think they can charge more for their services.
And some people would call you an idiot for spending $20-$50 on a video game, because there are better options out there. Quite simply, there will ALWAYS be a better option, depending on who you are, how you were raised, etc. So everyone can go around calling each other idiots because of their favorite pastime. Seems kinda pointless doesn't it? Just because video games are your form of poison doesn't mean they are for everybody and it certainly doesn't make them a better choice for everyone else.
Except that when it comes to any sort of tech, persons are completely retarded as well.
He wasn't scammed. He was almost scammed. Everyone who uses the internet has "almost" been scammed, for varying degrees of "almost."
I agree. The problem isn't getting emails from banks. The problem is clicking on a link from within an email from a bank.
What's wrong with emails saying "Hey asshole, you have important information in the Message Center." As long as there isn't a link to the bank within the email, so I have to open a new window, and actually type the bank's address into the address bar, I don't see a problem with it. And that method has worked fine for me for the last few years.
My bank sends email confirmations to me all the time. If I add someone to the account, change the contact info, transfer money, etc, I will get an email. The emails say something like "This is to confirm that you changed your mailing address with us. Please do not reply to this email." The emails my bank sends never have links in them or ask me to input any information. The solution isn't necessarily to block or delete all email from all banks. You can simply choose not to input your bank account information.
If GP paid $20 over 4 months, that is $5/mo. How is $25/mo a good deal?
This happens all the time on a smaller scale as well. In college towns, if a popular bar loses its liquor license, the owners start a new company and gets a license for that company. Change the bar's name over the door and voila, you're good to go. Lose the license again? Just rinse and repeat!
If a company had done enough 'bad deeds' to warrant 'death', then I wouldn't be particularly sad to see it's employees out of work.
Yes, I'm sure they were tangently innocent,
Not to nitpick, just trying to be helpful . . the word you are looking for is "tangentially."
"but at the base of it all, when it comes down to it, a company that is full of people who understand their job is on the line when it comes to 'ethical' business decisions is one where fewer unethical decisions can be made.
I disagree. I believe that if what you say is true, then the crime rates in America would be drastically lower. If bad person wants to do a bad thing because it will get them a quick fix somehow, then the CHANCE of being caught and fired or sent to jail will not deter them. The deterrence is even lower if personal punishment is replaced by mass punishment (i.e. everyone loses their job) because psychologically, the punishment is less . . well . . personal.
As people with more wealth have tried to accrue more wealth, which is fine there is nothing wrong with wanting more money, it has to be taken from elsewhere.
That's not quite true, at least not since we left the gold standard. Nowadays, money is generated out of the public trust. If it is perceived that a company's stock is valuable, then it is in higher demand, and the stock price will go up. This basically generates free money for the current stockholders. That money does not have to be taken from elsewhere. Of course, the opposite can happen as well. If the public believes a stock is worthless, it soon will be, because there will be no demand for the stock, and the price will plummet. A stock's value is only as high, or low, as the public perceives it to be. The tech bubble of the 90's is a good example of this.
Go back and look at these shady business practices you mention. You will see that in most cases, those "shady business practices" are a means of tricking the board and/or the public into believing that the company, and thus it's stock, is more valuable than it actually is. Refer to the Enron scandal for a good example of this.
You seem to have missed a subtle but quite important work in GP's post. " ...nobody is TRULY locked into Comcast . ." So yeah, you can argue about how they have a monopoly in certain areas and some people can't get a satellite connection, but at the end of the day, no one has to sit there watching cable television. If Comcast is the big evil monopoly in your area, and you are anti-Comcast, then just don't watch cable*. So, no. . . nobody is truly locked in.
*Most OTA stations let you stream the newest episodes from their site the day after it airs on TV. Those shows, and most of the ones not available for streaming, including cable shows, can usually be found on torrent within 12 hours of airtime anyway.
How is this modded funny? That post implies that GP has multiple misspelled words, which isn't the case at all. The only word I can't find in dictionary.com is "skiving," and that is because it's British slang.
Why can't you let us have our Godwin fun, you Hitler!
There's a reality TV show I saw the other day where the main character balances Karma by getting rid of bad people after the court system fails to do so. The show is called Dester or something like that.
Yes, one can never have too much Slack.
I can think of a few bungee jumpers who would beg to differ.
How is this a troll? The Japanese are notorious for their SMS and MMS use; even more so than Americans. Releasing a phone in Japan without these capabilities would not garner huge sales. Or is it a troll because previous IPhones DID have these features?
And after actually checking the links, that debate only seems to apply to the summary. The links don't even seem to suggest in any way that local workers should be looked over in favor of international ones. They just point out the tax numbers that congress put into law and has been in effect for years.