And TV's education abilities are proven in iron-clad studies to be more effective than traditional methods?
I have yet to see a legitimate study on video games and television.
Your biased is plain to see from your very first sentence. Is that you Jonathan Green? Maybe if you watched more TV, you would have better comprehension of English.
Maybe:
Yes, a very BIG maybe.
-Very young children don't yet distinguish completely between real and pretend.
If you believe this argument, then to keep from being a hypocrate, you would also have to believe that reading books are bad for children, and in fact even reading to children as bad. Sorry. I'm not buying it.
-Children who watch TV excessively are more passive
Need you be reminded that Corrolation does not imply causation. In fact, any corrolation could more likely be described as "children who are more passive are more likely to watch TV excessively".(I assume that use use the word passive as an antonym to active, not as an antonym to aggressive) Of course, this argument also would apply to reading.
are less creative.
Absolute BS pulled from your ass. Any study that tries to tell you that they have quantified creativity is utter and complete BS.
-TV takes away from play time, which is more valuable for developing children.
Television IS play time.
-TV is a risk factor for childhood obesity
It is called a 'risk factor' instead of saying that 'it causes' because again, correlation does not imply causation. Did you ever stop to think for just a minute that obese kids are more likely to watch TV? We can argue about what causes people to be fat all day long, for example would could get into the fact that most kids eat diets of 90% surgar, and the government even recommends an almost all sugar diet. Trying to pin obesity on TV is at best misleading, and at worst an all out lie.
and poor social development.
Come on, this is just stupid. Let see, is it more likely that kids who know current popular culture are going to have poor social development, or kids who have poor social development are going to do a solitary activity that still lets them see, and in a sense be around other people? The answer is obvious.
-TV correlates to lower reading scores.
Really? They have found that kids who don't read well like to be entertained too? Amazing! What does that have to do with TV being bad. My kid started reading at 2, and now, having just turned 4, reads better than most of the kids I went to high school with. He watches a lot of TV. I have yet to meet even one other child that could read at 2. Heck, was only even able to 1 reference on the internet to a child that can read at 2. Now, you can argue that my son is some kind of super intelligent mutant that bestows him with intelligence beyond that of mortal men, but even in that very unlikely event, I have a hard time believing that if your premise were true, that he would not have been retarded to at least learning to read at 4.
-TV may diminish short-term memory in children.
And it may increase it. What are you talking about here. There is no indication that this is the case.
-TV is linked to more aggressive behavior
Wrong. Parental neglect causes aggressive behavior. Again. You have your cause and effect mixed up. Preventing kids from watching TV is not going to force parents to pay attention to their kids. Heck, even with the "good" parents, most kids spend 3/4 of the year with more of their time under the custody of the government than they do with their parents, is it any surprise that kids who are ignored during the few hours the state allows t
You clearly did not look up the word ironic, as you misused it.
Perhaps you should read up on what the Scientific Method is. Making a hypothesis, designing experiments that can disprove that hypothesis, performing the test repeatedly, and make a conclusion from those tests, IS the Scientific Method.
The Peak Oil Theory is fundamentally based on the idea that you can determine the quantity of a liquid in a container by measuring the flow rate of the liquid through a pipe when there is still flow. My experiment tests this Theory. It is repeatable. This is the very definition of a legitimate scientific experiment.
Using a tall glass or a plastic dixie cup would work just fine too. Any container that can hold enough liquid to suck water out of without running dry before the experiment is over will work just fine. The fact that water evaporates is irrelevant to the experiment, as the hypothesis is NOT whether the liquid will ever run out or not. Pollution and and greenhouse effects are irrelevant to the experiment that disproves the Peak Oil Myth, as the Peak Oil Hypothesis is not that oil will pollute. It is the absurd belief that you can tell the amount of liquid in a non-empty container by measuring it's flow rate.
Your simply being aggressively ignorant. You clearly don't know what the words you are using mean. Really. Go look up "ironic", "scientific experiment", and "idiot". They don't mean what you think they mean.
Well, since we are pointing out problems with the summery, lets not for get that the internet WAS designed to be peer to peer. ISPs have pretty well successfully broken one of the main points of the internet.
I have yet to see a legitimate study on video games and television. I have seen lots of them that start with the conclusion that they are bad, and then try to justify that conclusion with bad math.
Are you really trying to say that pumping oil from the ground is nothing like putting a pipe into a body of liquid and sucking it out? Are you insane? Last I heard, oil was a liquid, and they used pipes to bring it up. Maybe you should look up the word idiot before you start throwing it around. Maybe you can look up irony while your at it.
If you can't figure out that there is obviously a hypothesis, and a prediction, as well as a defined experiment with predefined expectations, you really are not a good judge of how far people need to go to know what 'scientific' is.
Thank you. I can't count the number of people I have heard try to use this stupid theory to 'prove' that we are running out of oil. Unfortunately, it isn't just crack pots that believe it. It is also the stupid and intellectually lazy that believe it.
For those of you that think it has any validity, try this 6 step experiment.
1) Get a drinking straw.
2) Go to a pool.
3) Start sucking the water out of the pool as fast as you can with that straw. (You probably should not swallow the water)
4) Go to the ocean.
5) Start sucking the water out of the ocean as fast as you can with the same straw. (You definitely should not swallow the water)
6) Now explain to us all how the amount of water that you sucked through the straw was dictated by reserve you are pulling from.
Just to make sure that this is a legitimate scientific experiment, repeat it a hundred times, and see if you get the same results.
I understood what you meant by training. I have found that most dog owners do not train their dogs to not attack. Getting a dog to attack is easy. Heck, they are just one little step away from wolves. It is the not attacking part that causes the problem. I can't count the number of dog attacks I am personally aware of (as in immediate friends and family). I have been attacked multiple times. If the attack isn't bad enough to warrant going to the hospital, excuses usually start flowing about why it wasn't really the dogs fault. I can't count the number of times that I have heard a child blamed for getting bit. I'm not talking about a case where a dog is locked up and a kid keeps going after the dog. I'm talking about where the owner of the dog is present, and knows the kid is playing with the dog. If the same thing happened with a gun, the owner would be on their way to jail.
Most dog owners simply do not understand that their dog is a weapon, so they don't treat it with the caution that they should. Unfortunatly, the trend is to move farther and farther away from understanding what a dog actually is, so more and more dogs are becoming a danger.
The idea that kids should learn how to deal with these people in face to face situations FIRST is just not logical. I never said that, or made any statements that insinuate it either. Your logical fallacy is called the straw man. I was not attributing that to you. I'm sorry if it sounded that way. You are correct that if I had attributed it to you, it would have been a strawman argument. The statement was concerning people who think that the internet is somehow more dangerous than real life.
As for the bullying... The schools clearly have no interest in stopping bullying. It would be great if they did, but a hundred years of inaction shows that they don't. So, you have to ask why they want to do something about 'cyber' bullying when they have done nothing about assaults and abuse physically in front of them. The answer is clear. They want to take over being in charge of your kids when they are at home also. Assault and battery between peers does not make it something other than assault and battery. You and I are presumably peers, but if you punch me in the face, it is still assault and battery.
The problem with having a health class that covers assaults is that the people committing them know full well what they are doing. No one is confused about it. They also know full well that the school doesn't give a crap if they do it as long as the teachers and administration don't have to deal with it. On the bullying, I think we may just have to only half agree.
"Unfortunately, being aware of adults seeking to trick them into sexual situations is NOT an internet issue, it is a social issue"
This is absolutely correct. Not only that, it is WAY better to have your kid learn the basic rules of safety when there is a thousand miles of wire between them and the person that is trying to take advantage of them. (sexually or not) The idea that kids should learn how to deal with these people in face to face situations FIRST is just not logical.
I agree with #1 and #2, but 'Cyber Bullying' is exactly the same situation as sexual predators. Bullying is not a different situation because it is on a computer. Schools want to pretend like it is because it allows them to extend their authority and thus power outside of the schools. In a hundred years, schools have not addressed real life bullying that includes the same things that happens online as well as physical assaults. Your example of the girl who killed herself, helps make this clear. The girl never did know that the person who first pretended to like her, and then said very mean things was an adult. The fact that it WAS an adult is totally irrelevant. The fact is that boys have pretended to like girls, only to spurn them later has been happening for as long as we have recorded history of male female interactions. It is safe to assume that it was going on well before we started recording history. The same can be said of girls pretending to like boys and then spurning them, as well as adults to adults. The girl killed herself because she was infatuated and got dumped. No one would have blamed the telephone for this if it happened over the phone, or the school if a boy had done this to her there.
I would want to see the schools dealing with real live bullying before they start even considering dipping their greedy hands into my home. Heck
"I put that parody up to counterpoint the equally irrational argument put forth by the anti-gun nut"
You failed. Why? Because your parody did not show what pro-gun people say. Yes, your statements sounded absurd. The thing is, those arguments are ONLY used by the anti-gun folks. I call you a liar because your 'parody' did not represent what the other side says. It made no point whatsoever, unless you were trying to reinforce that the anti-gun folks tend to be speak without thinking. I don't think that is what you were trying to do. You made up a situation that neither happened, nor has anything like it happened. So, even if your 'parody' was not a lie, surely when you said "equally irrational argument put forth by the anti-gun nut." (I assume you meant pro-gun nut, as anti-gun nut makes no sense.) you were lying, as you will be hard pressed to find a single pro-gun person that will make the argument you attribute to them. I would go so far as to say that it has never been made. The original, anti-gun argument is made with regular frequency though.
"i wasn't trying to make a credible point. I was illustrating that their are irrational nuts on both sides of the fence, so the fact that the argument was illogical didn't really matter."
And you didn't. Taking a statement that is regularly made by one group, and comparing it to a statement that is never made by another does not in any way show that there are irrational nuts on both sides.
"But what if guns is like driving drunk, where the people who think they're able to do it safely are just deluding themselves and are posing a risk to everyone. Just because you THINK your safe doesn't mean you are. Please understand I'm not saying you are wrong. But simply proclaiming you are right doesn't make you right."
This is a very poor argument, since you just pulled it out of your ass. There is no reason to believe that it is the case. If you believe it, you would also have to support the idea that the same holds true for electrical outlets, stoves, and power tools. Heck, if your going to use your logic, you should fear, fluffy bunnies, cotton balls, and marshmallows. Your premise requires that either guns act on their own or guns magically force people to shoot each other. A gun is a tool. I don't think this is disputed. Just as a stove is a tool. If you misuse either of them, someone can die. If you don't misuse them, no one will die unless that is your intent.
"So... what about knives, tasers, mace, baseball bats? What percentage of situations where a gun has protected somebody could have been handled by a far less [potentially] lethal alternative? If I use a gun to scare away a burglar... is that really a pro-gun argument? In reality most burglars flee if they are confronted. My father once chased a burglar out with a hammer while in his underwear, without his much needed glasses on..."
"The question remains, what percentage of those incidents actually hinged on there being a gun present. Perhaps ANY weapon would have been equally sufficient in most circumstances? Perhaps less lethal weapons like tasers would suffice in 99% of those incidents."
You don't seem to understand how violence works. We have all of recorded history to see that the powerful attack those they believe they can win against. While there have been a few recorded incidents of people attacking those that they believe will beat them, it is very rare. In fact, it could be argued that doing so is evidence of insanity. The gun brought parity between the physically weak and the physically strong. So, would a knife be as effective as a gun? That depends on:
size of the attacker
the size of the defender
whether the attacker believes the defender is willing to kill them
whether the defender can effectively use the knife
whether the attacker believes the defender can effectively use the knife
The same would be true for any other weapon. Heck, the whole point of a weapon is to
swimming pool
electrical outlet
toaster
car
bus
bicycling
rock climbing
pedestrian around cars
rope
any other item or activities that regularly kill people involved with them
Type, you obviously believe in some kind of magic surrounding guns. If you really are anti-anything that can easily kill you, you should know that you are a very rare breed. I know I would find it very difficult being surrounded by things I hate 100% of the time. I would also find it interesting to hear how hard you find it living in modern times without electricity, fire, or water, as well as what hurdles you have had to jump to implement IPoAC. Did you stick with RFC 1149 or did you implement RFC 2549?
It is true that if she trained them well, she would increase safety. Unfortunately, she is like most dog owners, so the dogs are not trained well. Fortunately, she DOES have very good fences, so I do not feel unsafe living next door. My point is not that dog are inherently a bad weapon. It is just that they ARE a weapon. They are a weapon that can be very dangerous, and unlike guns, most people don't recognize this simple fact.
I will disagree on the statement that "Crooks tend to be cowards". Not because it isn't true, but because it implies that crooks are more cowardly than your average person. I do believe that PEOPLE tend to be cowards and that crooks are a subset of people. Crooks are more likely to move to the next house because like most people, they take the path of least resistance. It is the same reason that they are more likely to move to the next house if someone is at home, there are NRA, or Home Security stickers on the windows, or any thing else that might increase their chance of getting caught or having to put in extra effort.
I agree Dogs + Gun is safer. (Given responsible ownership of both) We can go farther and say that Dogs + Gun + security system is safer still. Keep adding ways to protect your home, and you keep getting safer.
"They're probably 'part of the family' though, so I won't go further."
This is where the problem with dogs begins. There is a growing percentage of the population that has gone insane. They can no longer completely differentiate between dogs and people. They really do see dogs as part of their family, and do not comprehend that a dog will behave like a dog. They really think that their dogs have brains equivalent to humans. This means that they try to treat their dogs like people, which does not work for proper training. Anecdotally, while standing in front of a previous home, talking to a neighbor, the neighbor was telling me how his three legged dog had really good lines, and that if the dog had not lost one of it's legs, it would make a very good show dog. Another neighbor that was that was there got very offended by this comment. He exclaimed to us that 'that's racist, they can't discriminate againt him just because he lost a leg!', and rode off in a huff. Now clearly this gentleman did not know what the word 'racist' meant, but he also clearly did not completely understand that a dog is not a human.
"On the other hand, I also live alone, but must travel for extended periods on occasion where I couldn't take a pet with me. I wouldn't put a pet through extended boarding, so I don't have a dog. I DO have a gun though."
It sounds like you made a sound decision based on your circumstances. It is unfortunate that more people cannot do the same. I personally won't own a dog because I know that I will not put the time and effort into properly training it, and thus it would be irresponsible for me to own one. It amazes me how many people take that as a statement of not liking dogs.
Your response validates my point. When you try to turn it around, virtually all of them are wrong. Your examples make no sense.
When asked what she would do if someone broke into her home to rape and murder her and her children, her response was simply, and genuinely: "I've decided that that won't happen to me."
I guess you think that sounds pretty nutters doesn't it?
Yes, yes it does.
What if her response had been, "What are the odds I'll be able to retrieve my gun, unlock it, load it, and successfully fend off a murderer/rapist?"
What percentage of people who have a gun are actually able to use it in these circumstances they imagine it will be so useful in? Any real statistics out there?
What if her response had been, "What if I had a gun, and it was stolen while I was out, and used to shoot a small child?" or "What if I had a gun, and one of those children you were so concerned about accidently shot the other one with it?"
Again, what percentage of people who have a gun are involved in accidental / misuse / etc?
In other words, what percentage of guns end up actually used to prevent a crime vs end up being used to commit one and/or are involved in accidental shootings?
What if the number involved in crimes / accidental shootings significantly exceeds the number that actually actively prevented crimes... ??
If she had said any of those, we could have had a sane conversation. She did not. What she said was that her magic powers would protect her. That is as you say.. "nutters".
Of course, if she had said those things, she would still be wrong. Anyone with actual familiarity with guns beyond what they have seen in anti-gun pamphlets knows that guns very rarely need to be fired to protect you. Gun use statistics do not, and cannot count the number of times that an unfired gun protects someone. Trying to pretend that the number of reported incidents is even close the the actual number of times that a gun has protected someone is simply dishonest. Of course even that is not relevant to your comment, as your comment shows the dishonesty of the anti-gun folks. You answered the accusation of magic being a protection being insane with unrelated comments. Not one of the items in the proceeding paragraph are arguments that support the absolutely insane premise that mere force of will will keep a person from being a victim of violent crime. If you wanted to be honest, you would have acknowledged that force of will is not a form of self defense. You would have distanced yourself from her argument instead of defending her.
In any case, I recently had a conversation with a pro-gun man. It was very civil, so no over the top rhetoric. When asked what he would do if his teenage child ever got pissed off at him, and in a fit of incredibly poor judgment takes the gun and shoots you with it. Then realizing what he's done, turns it on himself.
His response was simply "I've that decide that won't happen to me." When followed up with a "What?" He explained that people decide to have those things happen to them, [when they choose ineffective parenting approaches, and fail to teach their children proper respect of guns], and that he had chosen not to have that happen to anyone in his family.
You are a liar. You did not have that conversation. This again shows the dishonesty of the anti-gun folks. You are more than willing to lie to try to make a point that is simply wrong.
Pro-gun types actually believe that guns have magical powers to imbue people with good judgment, so if guns are given to THEM, they will somehow magically be immune from ever 'misusing' it or using it 'accidentally'.
Again, you are a lair. You have never met a single pro-gun advocate that believes guns have magical powers to imbue people with good judgment. Not one.
Let me explain it then. I recently had a conversation with an anti-gun woman. It was very civil, so no over the top rhetoric. When asked what she would do if someone broke into her home to rape and murder her and her children, her response was simply, and genuinely: "I've decided that that won't happen to me." When that was followed up with a "What?" She explained that people decide to have those thing done to them, and that she has chosen not to be raped and murdered.
Anti-gun types actually believe that guns have magical powers to make people commit crimes, so if guns are taken away from a SOME of people, that will somehow magically stop crime.
One thing that always strikes me as bizarre, stupid, whatever. Is people like my neighbor who has 3 huge dogs. Specifically states that she feels safer having them because she lives alone, but thinks that guns are evil.
What are you talking about. The system he described would have greater accuracy than either paper alone, or electronic voting. It would also allow for instant translations to foreign languages, which I personally oppose, but if we are going to do it, it would do it better. It would also give you instant results while still allowing hand counting.
profplump is absolutely correct. An electronic voting machine should receive and count votes, but should also spit out a scantron style output that looks just like the ones we fill out by hand.
While I cannot say they don't exist, there certainly are not enough women that don't date and marry for money to go around. Your advice is about as good as telling a kid he should be a pro football player when he grows up. It is possible, and there are lots of examples of it happening, but you are going to end up with a lot more failures than successes if even small percentage of the boys go for it.
The thing that surprised me was the that the Children of Dune mini-series was better than the Dune movie. It was clear that Dune and a bigger budget, as there were a some 'this looks like CGI' moments in Children of Dune. Nothing as bad as the Hulk, but they were there. The acting, flow, pacing and everything else seemed to be noticeably better in Children of dune.
That's just untrue. The only issue with not having faster cars is safety. Turning a hour each way commute to an eighth of the time would definitely change the world. That would give a very large number of people an extra 1:45 hours a day. That's 35:00 daylight hours of extra free time. To me, that would be WAY more useful.
"How is it that he can be such a dick and simultaneously be so concerned with helping his buddies? That argument never made sense to me."
Because that is what a dick does. He looks out for his own interest and is willing to screw over anybody that will accomplish that. Looking out for your interest frequently includes making sure that those close to you, and those that can help you are given help if it doesn't cost you.
I'm sorry, but the question is stupid. Of any group, Slashdot readers should know that "On A Computer" does not make something totally unique. If your going to totally lock down their computer because they might have illegal stuff there, you should also be locking all of the drawers in their desks. After all, they could have something illegal hidden in there too. I can understand it in a high risk environment, just as I can understand not letting employees bring purses and briefcases into the vault at a bank, but this whole "But it's on a computer!" line of reasoning is plain silly.
It gets even more ridiculous when you start talking about businesses that lock down speakers so that people cannot listen to MP3s or CDs because "work shouldn't be fun", or "they might be pirated". Yet, again they don't ban people from putting the CD wallet with 20 burned disks into their desk drawer.
We can debate the definition of a blog all day long. The slashdot format is the same as any other blog. A Slashdot style site, or what you consider a blog are so similar that you would not change the code. The only difference is at most the number of editors. If I understand the history of Slashdot correctly, it also started with one editor. There are literally thousands of Blogs out there that have links to news stories. And please explain how things like "I have mixed feelings about this: on one hand, this is a really clever idea and a cool hack. On the other hand, the fact that DRM makes something like this necessary is truly infuriating." is not 'someone writing a daily diatribe or waxing on about how their kitten has grown or adding to their online diary/journal, and then lots of people add comments saying "you are so right"'?
That being said, it doesn't change my original point concerning small time media that the major media dismisses, having a much bigger than expected impact over the long haul.
Slashdot Mirror
And TV's education abilities are proven in iron-clad studies to be more effective than traditional methods?
I have yet to see a legitimate study on video games and television.
Your biased is plain to see from your very first sentence. Is that you Jonathan Green? Maybe if you watched more TV, you would have better comprehension of English.
Maybe:
Yes, a very BIG maybe.
-Very young children don't yet distinguish completely between real and pretend.
If you believe this argument, then to keep from being a hypocrate, you would also have to believe that reading books are bad for children, and in fact even reading to children as bad. Sorry. I'm not buying it.
-Children who watch TV excessively are more passive
Need you be reminded that Corrolation does not imply causation. In fact, any corrolation could more likely be described as "children who are more passive are more likely to watch TV excessively".(I assume that use use the word passive as an antonym to active, not as an antonym to aggressive) Of course, this argument also would apply to reading.
are less creative.
Absolute BS pulled from your ass. Any study that tries to tell you that they have quantified creativity is utter and complete BS.
-TV takes away from play time, which is more valuable for developing children.
Television IS play time.
-TV is a risk factor for childhood obesity
It is called a 'risk factor' instead of saying that 'it causes' because again, correlation does not imply causation. Did you ever stop to think for just a minute that obese kids are more likely to watch TV? We can argue about what causes people to be fat all day long, for example would could get into the fact that most kids eat diets of 90% surgar, and the government even recommends an almost all sugar diet. Trying to pin obesity on TV is at best misleading, and at worst an all out lie.
and poor social development.
Come on, this is just stupid. Let see, is it more likely that kids who know current popular culture are going to have poor social development, or kids who have poor social development are going to do a solitary activity that still lets them see, and in a sense be around other people? The answer is obvious.
-TV correlates to lower reading scores.
Really? They have found that kids who don't read well like to be entertained too? Amazing! What does that have to do with TV being bad. My kid started reading at 2, and now, having just turned 4, reads better than most of the kids I went to high school with. He watches a lot of TV. I have yet to meet even one other child that could read at 2. Heck, was only even able to 1 reference on the internet to a child that can read at 2. Now, you can argue that my son is some kind of super intelligent mutant that bestows him with intelligence beyond that of mortal men, but even in that very unlikely event, I have a hard time believing that if your premise were true, that he would not have been retarded to at least learning to read at 4.
-TV may diminish short-term memory in children.
And it may increase it. What are you talking about here. There is no indication that this is the case.
-TV is linked to more aggressive behavior
Wrong. Parental neglect causes aggressive behavior. Again. You have your cause and effect mixed up. Preventing kids from watching TV is not going to force parents to pay attention to their kids. Heck, even with the "good" parents, most kids spend 3/4 of the year with more of their time under the custody of the government than they do with their parents, is it any surprise that kids who are ignored during the few hours the state allows t
You clearly did not look up the word ironic, as you misused it.
Perhaps you should read up on what the Scientific Method is. Making a hypothesis, designing experiments that can disprove that hypothesis, performing the test repeatedly, and make a conclusion from those tests, IS the Scientific Method. The Peak Oil Theory is fundamentally based on the idea that you can determine the quantity of a liquid in a container by measuring the flow rate of the liquid through a pipe when there is still flow. My experiment tests this Theory. It is repeatable. This is the very definition of a legitimate scientific experiment.
Using a tall glass or a plastic dixie cup would work just fine too. Any container that can hold enough liquid to suck water out of without running dry before the experiment is over will work just fine. The fact that water evaporates is irrelevant to the experiment, as the hypothesis is NOT whether the liquid will ever run out or not. Pollution and and greenhouse effects are irrelevant to the experiment that disproves the Peak Oil Myth, as the Peak Oil Hypothesis is not that oil will pollute. It is the absurd belief that you can tell the amount of liquid in a non-empty container by measuring it's flow rate.
Your simply being aggressively ignorant. You clearly don't know what the words you are using mean. Really. Go look up "ironic", "scientific experiment", and "idiot". They don't mean what you think they mean.
Well, since we are pointing out problems with the summery, lets not for get that the internet WAS designed to be peer to peer. ISPs have pretty well successfully broken one of the main points of the internet.
I have yet to see a legitimate study on video games and television. I have seen lots of them that start with the conclusion that they are bad, and then try to justify that conclusion with bad math.
Are you really trying to say that pumping oil from the ground is nothing like putting a pipe into a body of liquid and sucking it out? Are you insane? Last I heard, oil was a liquid, and they used pipes to bring it up. Maybe you should look up the word idiot before you start throwing it around. Maybe you can look up irony while your at it.
If you can't figure out that there is obviously a hypothesis, and a prediction, as well as a defined experiment with predefined expectations, you really are not a good judge of how far people need to go to know what 'scientific' is.
Yes. That is where our plentiful healthy plankton grows. Remember. Thursday is Soyelent Green day.
Thank you. I can't count the number of people I have heard try to use this stupid theory to 'prove' that we are running out of oil. Unfortunately, it isn't just crack pots that believe it. It is also the stupid and intellectually lazy that believe it.
For those of you that think it has any validity, try this 6 step experiment. 1) Get a drinking straw. 2) Go to a pool. 3) Start sucking the water out of the pool as fast as you can with that straw. (You probably should not swallow the water) 4) Go to the ocean. 5) Start sucking the water out of the ocean as fast as you can with the same straw. (You definitely should not swallow the water) 6) Now explain to us all how the amount of water that you sucked through the straw was dictated by reserve you are pulling from. Just to make sure that this is a legitimate scientific experiment, repeat it a hundred times, and see if you get the same results.
I understood what you meant by training. I have found that most dog owners do not train their dogs to not attack. Getting a dog to attack is easy. Heck, they are just one little step away from wolves. It is the not attacking part that causes the problem. I can't count the number of dog attacks I am personally aware of (as in immediate friends and family). I have been attacked multiple times. If the attack isn't bad enough to warrant going to the hospital, excuses usually start flowing about why it wasn't really the dogs fault. I can't count the number of times that I have heard a child blamed for getting bit. I'm not talking about a case where a dog is locked up and a kid keeps going after the dog. I'm talking about where the owner of the dog is present, and knows the kid is playing with the dog. If the same thing happened with a gun, the owner would be on their way to jail.
Most dog owners simply do not understand that their dog is a weapon, so they don't treat it with the caution that they should. Unfortunatly, the trend is to move farther and farther away from understanding what a dog actually is, so more and more dogs are becoming a danger.
As for the bullying... The schools clearly have no interest in stopping bullying. It would be great if they did, but a hundred years of inaction shows that they don't. So, you have to ask why they want to do something about 'cyber' bullying when they have done nothing about assaults and abuse physically in front of them. The answer is clear. They want to take over being in charge of your kids when they are at home also. Assault and battery between peers does not make it something other than assault and battery. You and I are presumably peers, but if you punch me in the face, it is still assault and battery.
The problem with having a health class that covers assaults is that the people committing them know full well what they are doing. No one is confused about it. They also know full well that the school doesn't give a crap if they do it as long as the teachers and administration don't have to deal with it. On the bullying, I think we may just have to only half agree.
"Unfortunately, being aware of adults seeking to trick them into sexual situations is NOT an internet issue, it is a social issue"
This is absolutely correct. Not only that, it is WAY better to have your kid learn the basic rules of safety when there is a thousand miles of wire between them and the person that is trying to take advantage of them. (sexually or not) The idea that kids should learn how to deal with these people in face to face situations FIRST is just not logical.
I agree with #1 and #2, but 'Cyber Bullying' is exactly the same situation as sexual predators. Bullying is not a different situation because it is on a computer. Schools want to pretend like it is because it allows them to extend their authority and thus power outside of the schools. In a hundred years, schools have not addressed real life bullying that includes the same things that happens online as well as physical assaults. Your example of the girl who killed herself, helps make this clear. The girl never did know that the person who first pretended to like her, and then said very mean things was an adult. The fact that it WAS an adult is totally irrelevant. The fact is that boys have pretended to like girls, only to spurn them later has been happening for as long as we have recorded history of male female interactions. It is safe to assume that it was going on well before we started recording history. The same can be said of girls pretending to like boys and then spurning them, as well as adults to adults. The girl killed herself because she was infatuated and got dumped. No one would have blamed the telephone for this if it happened over the phone, or the school if a boy had done this to her there.
I would want to see the schools dealing with real live bullying before they start even considering dipping their greedy hands into my home. Heck
"I put that parody up to counterpoint the equally irrational argument put forth by the anti-gun nut"
You failed. Why? Because your parody did not show what pro-gun people say. Yes, your statements sounded absurd. The thing is, those arguments are ONLY used by the anti-gun folks. I call you a liar because your 'parody' did not represent what the other side says. It made no point whatsoever, unless you were trying to reinforce that the anti-gun folks tend to be speak without thinking. I don't think that is what you were trying to do. You made up a situation that neither happened, nor has anything like it happened. So, even if your 'parody' was not a lie, surely when you said "equally irrational argument put forth by the anti-gun nut." (I assume you meant pro-gun nut, as anti-gun nut makes no sense.) you were lying, as you will be hard pressed to find a single pro-gun person that will make the argument you attribute to them. I would go so far as to say that it has never been made. The original, anti-gun argument is made with regular frequency though.
"i wasn't trying to make a credible point. I was illustrating that their are irrational nuts on both sides of the fence, so the fact that the argument was illogical didn't really matter."
And you didn't. Taking a statement that is regularly made by one group, and comparing it to a statement that is never made by another does not in any way show that there are irrational nuts on both sides.
"But what if guns is like driving drunk, where the people who think they're able to do it safely are just deluding themselves and are posing a risk to everyone. Just because you THINK your safe doesn't mean you are. Please understand I'm not saying you are wrong. But simply proclaiming you are right doesn't make you right."
This is a very poor argument, since you just pulled it out of your ass. There is no reason to believe that it is the case. If you believe it, you would also have to support the idea that the same holds true for electrical outlets, stoves, and power tools. Heck, if your going to use your logic, you should fear, fluffy bunnies, cotton balls, and marshmallows. Your premise requires that either guns act on their own or guns magically force people to shoot each other. A gun is a tool. I don't think this is disputed. Just as a stove is a tool. If you misuse either of them, someone can die. If you don't misuse them, no one will die unless that is your intent.
"So... what about knives, tasers, mace, baseball bats? What percentage of situations where a gun has protected somebody could have been handled by a far less [potentially] lethal alternative? If I use a gun to scare away a burglar... is that really a pro-gun argument? In reality most burglars flee if they are confronted. My father once chased a burglar out with a hammer while in his underwear, without his much needed glasses on..."
"The question remains, what percentage of those incidents actually hinged on there being a gun present. Perhaps ANY weapon would have been equally sufficient in most circumstances? Perhaps less lethal weapons like tasers would suffice in 99% of those incidents."
You don't seem to understand how violence works. We have all of recorded history to see that the powerful attack those they believe they can win against. While there have been a few recorded incidents of people attacking those that they believe will beat them, it is very rare. In fact, it could be argued that doing so is evidence of insanity. The gun brought parity between the physically weak and the physically strong. So, would a knife be as effective as a gun? That depends on:
size of the attacker
the size of the defender
whether the attacker believes the defender is willing to kill them
whether the defender can effectively use the knife
whether the attacker believes the defender can effectively use the knife
The same would be true for any other weapon. Heck, the whole point of a weapon is to
If your the one with goatse... Yes, you are the evil one.
Ohhhh! goatEE. Never mind.
Unless you are also an anti:
swimming pool
electrical outlet
toaster
car
bus
bicycling
rock climbing
pedestrian around cars
rope
any other item or activities that regularly kill people involved with them
Type, you obviously believe in some kind of magic surrounding guns. If you really are anti-anything that can easily kill you, you should know that you are a very rare breed. I know I would find it very difficult being surrounded by things I hate 100% of the time. I would also find it interesting to hear how hard you find it living in modern times without electricity, fire, or water, as well as what hurdles you have had to jump to implement IPoAC. Did you stick with RFC 1149 or did you implement RFC 2549?
It is true that if she trained them well, she would increase safety. Unfortunately, she is like most dog owners, so the dogs are not trained well. Fortunately, she DOES have very good fences, so I do not feel unsafe living next door. My point is not that dog are inherently a bad weapon. It is just that they ARE a weapon. They are a weapon that can be very dangerous, and unlike guns, most people don't recognize this simple fact.
I will disagree on the statement that "Crooks tend to be cowards". Not because it isn't true, but because it implies that crooks are more cowardly than your average person. I do believe that PEOPLE tend to be cowards and that crooks are a subset of people. Crooks are more likely to move to the next house because like most people, they take the path of least resistance. It is the same reason that they are more likely to move to the next house if someone is at home, there are NRA, or Home Security stickers on the windows, or any thing else that might increase their chance of getting caught or having to put in extra effort.
I agree Dogs + Gun is safer. (Given responsible ownership of both) We can go farther and say that Dogs + Gun + security system is safer still. Keep adding ways to protect your home, and you keep getting safer.
"They're probably 'part of the family' though, so I won't go further."
This is where the problem with dogs begins. There is a growing percentage of the population that has gone insane. They can no longer completely differentiate between dogs and people. They really do see dogs as part of their family, and do not comprehend that a dog will behave like a dog. They really think that their dogs have brains equivalent to humans. This means that they try to treat their dogs like people, which does not work for proper training. Anecdotally, while standing in front of a previous home, talking to a neighbor, the neighbor was telling me how his three legged dog had really good lines, and that if the dog had not lost one of it's legs, it would make a very good show dog. Another neighbor that was that was there got very offended by this comment. He exclaimed to us that 'that's racist, they can't discriminate againt him just because he lost a leg!', and rode off in a huff. Now clearly this gentleman did not know what the word 'racist' meant, but he also clearly did not completely understand that a dog is not a human.
"On the other hand, I also live alone, but must travel for extended periods on occasion where I couldn't take a pet with me. I wouldn't put a pet through extended boarding, so I don't have a dog. I DO have a gun though."
It sounds like you made a sound decision based on your circumstances. It is unfortunate that more people cannot do the same. I personally won't own a dog because I know that I will not put the time and effort into properly training it, and thus it would be irresponsible for me to own one. It amazes me how many people take that as a statement of not liking dogs.
When asked what she would do if someone broke into her home to rape and murder her and her children, her response was simply, and genuinely: "I've decided that that won't happen to me."
I guess you think that sounds pretty nutters doesn't it?
Yes, yes it does.
What if her response had been, "What are the odds I'll be able to retrieve my gun, unlock it, load it, and successfully fend off a murderer/rapist?"
What percentage of people who have a gun are actually able to use it in these circumstances they imagine it will be so useful in? Any real statistics out there?
What if her response had been, "What if I had a gun, and it was stolen while I was out, and used to shoot a small child?" or "What if I had a gun, and one of those children you were so concerned about accidently shot the other one with it?"
Again, what percentage of people who have a gun are involved in accidental / misuse / etc?
In other words, what percentage of guns end up actually used to prevent a crime vs end up being used to commit one and/or are involved in accidental shootings?
What if the number involved in crimes / accidental shootings significantly exceeds the number that actually actively prevented crimes... ??
If she had said any of those, we could have had a sane conversation. She did not. What she said was that her magic powers would protect her. That is as you say.. "nutters".
Of course, if she had said those things, she would still be wrong. Anyone with actual familiarity with guns beyond what they have seen in anti-gun pamphlets knows that guns very rarely need to be fired to protect you. Gun use statistics do not, and cannot count the number of times that an unfired gun protects someone. Trying to pretend that the number of reported incidents is even close the the actual number of times that a gun has protected someone is simply dishonest. Of course even that is not relevant to your comment, as your comment shows the dishonesty of the anti-gun folks. You answered the accusation of magic being a protection being insane with unrelated comments. Not one of the items in the proceeding paragraph are arguments that support the absolutely insane premise that mere force of will will keep a person from being a victim of violent crime. If you wanted to be honest, you would have acknowledged that force of will is not a form of self defense. You would have distanced yourself from her argument instead of defending her.
In any case, I recently had a conversation with a pro-gun man. It was very civil, so no over the top rhetoric. When asked what he would do if his teenage child ever got pissed off at him, and in a fit of incredibly poor judgment takes the gun and shoots you with it. Then realizing what he's done, turns it on himself.
His response was simply "I've that decide that won't happen to me." When followed up with a "What?" He explained that people decide to have those things happen to them, [when they choose ineffective parenting approaches, and fail to teach their children proper respect of guns], and that he had chosen not to have that happen to anyone in his family.
You are a liar. You did not have that conversation. This again shows the dishonesty of the anti-gun folks. You are more than willing to lie to try to make a point that is simply wrong.
Pro-gun types actually believe that guns have magical powers to imbue people with good judgment, so if guns are given to THEM, they will somehow magically be immune from ever 'misusing' it or using it 'accidentally'.
Again, you are a lair. You have never met a single pro-gun advocate that believes guns have magical powers to imbue people with good judgment. Not one.
One thing that always
Let me explain it then. I recently had a conversation with an anti-gun woman. It was very civil, so no over the top rhetoric. When asked what she would do if someone broke into her home to rape and murder her and her children, her response was simply, and genuinely: "I've decided that that won't happen to me." When that was followed up with a "What?" She explained that people decide to have those thing done to them, and that she has chosen not to be raped and murdered.
Anti-gun types actually believe that guns have magical powers to make people commit crimes, so if guns are taken away from a SOME of people, that will somehow magically stop crime.
One thing that always strikes me as bizarre, stupid, whatever. Is people like my neighbor who has 3 huge dogs. Specifically states that she feels safer having them because she lives alone, but thinks that guns are evil.
What are you talking about. The system he described would have greater accuracy than either paper alone, or electronic voting. It would also allow for instant translations to foreign languages, which I personally oppose, but if we are going to do it, it would do it better. It would also give you instant results while still allowing hand counting.
profplump is absolutely correct. An electronic voting machine should receive and count votes, but should also spit out a scantron style output that looks just like the ones we fill out by hand.
While I cannot say they don't exist, there certainly are not enough women that don't date and marry for money to go around. Your advice is about as good as telling a kid he should be a pro football player when he grows up. It is possible, and there are lots of examples of it happening, but you are going to end up with a lot more failures than successes if even small percentage of the boys go for it.
The thing that surprised me was the that the Children of Dune mini-series was better than the Dune movie. It was clear that Dune and a bigger budget, as there were a some 'this looks like CGI' moments in Children of Dune. Nothing as bad as the Hulk, but they were there. The acting, flow, pacing and everything else seemed to be noticeably better in Children of dune.
"Get an apartment near your work."
Terrible, terrible idea. Definitely not thought out.
That's just untrue. The only issue with not having faster cars is safety. Turning a hour each way commute to an eighth of the time would definitely change the world. That would give a very large number of people an extra 1:45 hours a day. That's 35:00 daylight hours of extra free time. To me, that would be WAY more useful.
"How is it that he can be such a dick and simultaneously be so concerned with helping his buddies? That argument never made sense to me."
Because that is what a dick does. He looks out for his own interest and is willing to screw over anybody that will accomplish that. Looking out for your interest frequently includes making sure that those close to you, and those that can help you are given help if it doesn't cost you.
I'm sorry, but the question is stupid. Of any group, Slashdot readers should know that "On A Computer" does not make something totally unique. If your going to totally lock down their computer because they might have illegal stuff there, you should also be locking all of the drawers in their desks. After all, they could have something illegal hidden in there too. I can understand it in a high risk environment, just as I can understand not letting employees bring purses and briefcases into the vault at a bank, but this whole "But it's on a computer!" line of reasoning is plain silly.
It gets even more ridiculous when you start talking about businesses that lock down speakers so that people cannot listen to MP3s or CDs because "work shouldn't be fun", or "they might be pirated". Yet, again they don't ban people from putting the CD wallet with 20 burned disks into their desk drawer.
We can debate the definition of a blog all day long. The slashdot format is the same as any other blog. A Slashdot style site, or what you consider a blog are so similar that you would not change the code. The only difference is at most the number of editors. If I understand the history of Slashdot correctly, it also started with one editor. There are literally thousands of Blogs out there that have links to news stories. And please explain how things like "I have mixed feelings about this: on one hand, this is a really clever idea and a cool hack. On the other hand, the fact that DRM makes something like this necessary is truly infuriating." is not 'someone writing a daily diatribe or waxing on about how their kitten has grown or adding to their online diary/journal, and then lots of people add comments saying "you are so right"'?
That being said, it doesn't change my original point concerning small time media that the major media dismisses, having a much bigger than expected impact over the long haul.