The real stupidity that is usually revealed by these "people are stupid" pieces is generally that of the writer of the piece.
So true. You even did a great job of demonstrating that exact principle with your own.sig:
-- George Bush is unliterate. - Jesse Jackson
That really sounded like one of those 'too good to be true' quotes - so I googled it - and sure enough, it is.
Jackson was parodying Bush when he said that for Bush to compare school vouchers to the Brown v Board of Education ruling was unliterate fuzzy history. "Unliterate" being a dig at Bush's propensity for neologism and "fuzzy history" a reference to Bush's claim during the 2000 presidential debates that Al Gore's points about Bush's own budget proposals were "fuzzy math."
But, as you said, this "jesse jackson is stupid" quote just says more about you than it does Jackson.
And anyone thinking of accusing me of liberalism, bite me. I just couldn't resist the irony, "too good to be true" guotes/beliefs being my particular interest.
That was the original idea behind "Microsoft Wallet", which turned into "Microsoft Passport", currently known as "Windows Live ID". See also: Windows Cardspace.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of such services is that they are centralized. I really don't want MS - or anyone else - knowing all of the websites I log into. Even if it's implemented such that the people running the service can't impersonate me (if that's even possible to prevent), they would still get a definitive list of everytime and everywhere I authenticate at websites using their service.
If a majority or a large minority of the users of a system are using it "wrong," then perhaps we ought to consider if our definition of "right" is right.
Wait, are we talking about passwords or copyright?
No. You are confusing a current graphics card for one of six years ago. It may be obvious now that we can do fast vector processing on a GPU, but they have come along way in six years, each generation aiming more at GPGPU.
While I totally disagree that it wasn't obvious from well over a decade ago - TI DSP chips (aka vector processors) were being used on video cards from companies like NeXT in the 1990s - lets ignore that and assume your premise. If the patent really applies to such crippled GPUs then it clearly can't apply to GPUs that have been specifically enhanced for such functionality which make the patent moot when granted.
Use a can of food he wouldn't eat, or something that's not even food,
Bingo. My cat would come running everytime I used the can opener, regardless of what can. Also, if I ran the stereo really loud in the room he was in, he would not react to the can opener in the kitchen.
Your entire analogy was predicated on the false belief that western governments can do no wrong with respect to civil rights. Its such a ridiculous premise that there is literally nothing to comment on.
Islam the ideology can be moved away from by Muslims. When they do that, it generally has positive results.
You're "comfortable acknowledging it's a general label" and when they move away from whatever you've decided your general label means, you think that's good. Great for you. Meaningless except for rationalizing bigotry, but great for you.
Based on your past posts you apparently find nothing wrong with things like the patriot act. So you apparently think that while both pedophilia and china's policies are great evils, neither the patriot act nor homosexuality are small evils. You are wrong.
Because if I say "child rape is bad" and someone else says "it's actually no different from homosexuality", I don't really give a damn that they're probably attacking homosexuality - I care about the fact that they're downplaying a truly evil act in order to further their own political agenda.
Because being gay is morally equivalent to a government spying on, indefinitely imprisoning, and censoring its own citizens. Oh wait, which government was that again?
Isn't it interesting that liberals never miss a chance to defend an evil regime and downplay their evilness?
Why don't you see it as criticizing the problems in the west rather than endorsement of the problems in the east?
We've got effectively no control over what China does, but we do have control over what our governments do and one of the best ways to educate our fellow citizens is to point out the hypocrisy of our own governments so that they won't be so passive about it.
Or are you just defending the failures of the west out of some sort of half-baked nationalism?
Do you eat any fruits or eat anything that ever ate a fruit? Including fruits that some people think are vegetables, tomatoes, peppers, cumcumbers, etc?
I think you got that last one backwards - those aren't fruits, those are eaten by fruits.
Just a thought, you'd probably be better off getting one which talks to you. And only looking at it while parked or at a red light to adjust it.
Why is that better than having one in my normal field of view? My complaint is not that the satnav functionality distracts me, it is that putting it outside of my normal field of view makes its use dangerous.
I'm perfectly fine with my mobile satnav sitting right there on the dash above the wheel. In fact, it makes me a better driver because it also displays a speedometer, further reducing the distance my eyes need to move in order to monitor operation of the vehicle.
But that's because I'm talking about Islam the religion, not "all Muslims". Big difference.
No difference at all. When you talk about islam as if it is monolithic -- which is precisely what you are doing when you say things like "contemporary muslim societies" and "when you start canceling out factors, the biggest one that remains is 'Muslim'" -- then you paint with the broadest brush possible.
Just because there is diversity in the religion means nobody can criticize the religion for fear of offending the people it doesn't apply to?
This has nothing to do with "offending people" -- don't even start with the whining about being PC. It has to do with stereotyping based on the bad math of exaggerating the effects of certain influences and minimizing the effects of others.
Ah but I don't think that there is one sole cause of societies treating women poorly. Maybe that's our misunderstanding. I'm not saying all Muslims, and only Muslims, treat women badly. That would be silly.
No, you are saying that muslims treat women badly because they are muslim - in the face of plenty of evidence that the biggest common factors are poverty and poor education.
Hey come on, I'm sure you know the reason. Afghanistan was becoming communist. It's the commies that made major reforms in the urban areas, introduced education for all, and radically reduced the influence of Islam.
Again more begging the question - islam gets the blame when muslims do something bad but not the credit when they do something good. Sure they were implementing ideas from the west, but the reformers were still muslims who found those ideas to be compatible with their religion. Plus you are wrong about the communists - reforms like coeducation happened in the 50s, long before the rise of the communists in the late 60s and the strengthening of ties with the USSR in the 70s.
The last couple of cars I bought I refused the option of a built-in satnav. Nevermind that they are way over-priced compared to portable units - the real problem I have is placement. I can put a portable unit right on the dash in front of me so I barely have to take my eyes off the road. Almost all of the built-in satnavs have their display half-way down the middle console where it is a major distraction to look at. Infiniti, and I think Volvo, used to have satnavs that popped up in the middle of the dashboard so at least the driver did not need to look down into the car in order to see the screen, but for some reason their newer models dropped that design and went to the crappy placement.
Because you've been saying "islam" you have not been saying "some" muslims.
So because there are a lot of Muslims I'm not allowed to dislike Islam?
Are you seriously trying to pull the "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" bullshit?
When it comes to what I originally talked about, how women are treated in Islam, it's not so trivial to see that "most" Muslims treat women as well as we expect in the West. In more than one major Islamic society today (not 1000 years ago) there are very unfair laws about women.
And there are plenty of non muslim societies that treat their women poorly. If you were seeking truth rather than rationalization you would ask what do all of these groups have in common rather than working backwards from the group of muslim majority countries.
Look at Afghanistan - muslim for centuries. In the 1960s women wore skirts and went to university. Today they don't. Muslim before and muslim after - it should be obvious that other factors were involved.
Now if Christian militias were going around murdering people, every day, in many separate areas, for decades, then yeah I would dislike Christianity too. Fair is fair.
Since Islam has ramifications for all aspects of life, including politics, education, economics, civil rights, and so on, you cannot arbitrarily claim that Factor X is responsible for an ailment in Muslim society, because in reality Factor X is probably influenced by Islam itself.
Its foolish to believe that it is unique to islam when (a) all of the major religions do precisely the same thing and (b) there are no purely islamic states and (c) islam is probably the most diversely practice religion in the world.
Right. This hand-waving about your over-simplified understanding about the prohibition of charging interest trumps things like dictatorship. Begging the question indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
The real stupidity that is usually revealed by these "people are stupid" pieces is generally that of the writer of the piece.
So true. You even did a great job of demonstrating that exact principle with your own .sig:
-- George Bush is unliterate. - Jesse Jackson
That really sounded like one of those 'too good to be true' quotes - so I googled it - and sure enough, it is.
Jackson was parodying Bush when he said that for Bush to compare school vouchers to the Brown v Board of Education ruling was unliterate fuzzy history. "Unliterate" being a dig at Bush's propensity for neologism and "fuzzy history" a reference to Bush's claim during the 2000 presidential debates that Al Gore's points about Bush's own budget proposals were "fuzzy math."
But, as you said, this "jesse jackson is stupid" quote just says more about you than it does Jackson.
And anyone thinking of accusing me of liberalism, bite me.
I just couldn't resist the irony, "too good to be true" guotes/beliefs being my particular interest.
That was the original idea behind "Microsoft Wallet", which turned into "Microsoft Passport", currently known as "Windows Live ID". See also: Windows Cardspace.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of such services is that they are centralized. I really don't want MS - or anyone else - knowing all of the websites I log into. Even if it's implemented such that the people running the service can't impersonate me (if that's even possible to prevent), they would still get a definitive list of everytime and everywhere I authenticate at websites using their service.
Which has nothing to do with "How Stupid People Are With Passwords"
Yes it does - its just a different set of people.
In this case, its the set of people known as "web developers."
If a majority or a large minority of the users of a system are using it "wrong," then perhaps we ought to consider if our definition of "right" is right.
Wait, are we talking about passwords or copyright?
No. You are confusing a current graphics card for one of six years ago. It may be obvious now that we can do fast vector processing on a GPU, but they have come along way in six years, each generation aiming more at GPGPU.
While I totally disagree that it wasn't obvious from well over a decade ago - TI DSP chips (aka vector processors) were being used on video cards from companies like NeXT in the 1990s - lets ignore that and assume your premise. If the patent really applies to such crippled GPUs then it clearly can't apply to GPUs that have been specifically enhanced for such functionality which make the patent moot when granted.
Use a can of food he wouldn't eat, or something that's not even food,
Bingo. My cat would come running everytime I used the can opener, regardless of what can.
Also, if I ran the stereo really loud in the room he was in, he would not react to the can opener in the kitchen.
I know you are, but what am I?
Someone whose argument has been circular from his first post on the topic and is only now coming to realize it.
Yes, when you get called on using a strawman argument, just repeat yourself. Great strategy!
Smart enough to notice I did it, not smart enough to notice I was copying you.
civil rights abuses in western nations are rare and relatively minor,
You don't recognize things like the patriot act, indect, et al as little evils. You are wrong.
Your entire analogy was predicated on the false belief that western governments can do no wrong with respect to civil rights. Its such a ridiculous premise that there is literally nothing to comment on.
Islam the ideology can be moved away from by Muslims. When they do that, it generally has positive results.
You're "comfortable acknowledging it's a general label" and when they move away from whatever you've decided your general label means, you think that's good. Great for you. Meaningless except for rationalizing bigotry, but great for you.
Based on your past posts you apparently find nothing wrong with things like the patriot act.
So you apparently think that while both pedophilia and china's policies are great evils, neither the patriot act nor homosexuality are small evils. You are wrong.
Huh?
You really don't understand the concept of an analogy, do you?
No, you don't understand the implications of your own analogy.
OP: china policies::PATRIOT et al
YOU: pedophilia::homosexuality
You got the first part of each analogy correct, but you fail completely with the second.
What if you're running from a mugger and want to dial 911?
Then don't lock out emergency functions - similar to the way that (in the US at least) phones without a valid subscription can still call 911.
Because if I say "child rape is bad" and someone else says "it's actually no different from homosexuality", I don't really give a damn that they're probably attacking homosexuality - I care about the fact that they're downplaying a truly evil act in order to further their own political agenda.
Because being gay is morally equivalent to a government spying on, indefinitely imprisoning, and censoring its own citizens.
Oh wait, which government was that again?
the problem is, *every time*, I do mean *every time*, an issue comes up, these people always say, meh, it's not worse than what's happening here.
Of course that's not what Per Wigren wrote.
It's not like you are lacking the opportunities of criticizing your own problems.
Right and people do, all the time.
Isn't it interesting that liberals never miss a chance to defend an evil regime and downplay their evilness?
Why don't you see it as criticizing the problems in the west rather than endorsement of the problems in the east?
We've got effectively no control over what China does, but we do have control over what our governments do and one of the best ways to educate our fellow citizens is to point out the hypocrisy of our own governments so that they won't be so passive about it.
Or are you just defending the failures of the west out of some sort of half-baked nationalism?
If I show a short clip from a film just to prove that someone is an actor, how could this possibly NOT be fair use?
You are interfering with the actor's ability charge a fee to shoot a new commercial where he admits he is an actor.
See #4 in 17 USC 107 Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
I'm only half joking, BTW.
Do you eat any fruits or eat anything that ever ate a fruit?
Including fruits that some people think are vegetables, tomatoes, peppers, cumcumbers, etc?
I think you got that last one backwards - those aren't fruits, those are eaten by fruits.
Just a thought, you'd probably be better off getting one which talks to you. And only looking at it while parked or at a red light to adjust it.
Why is that better than having one in my normal field of view?
My complaint is not that the satnav functionality distracts me,
it is that putting it outside of my normal field of view makes its use dangerous.
I'm perfectly fine with my mobile satnav sitting right there on the dash above the
wheel. In fact, it makes me a better driver because it also displays a speedometer,
further reducing the distance my eyes need to move in order to monitor operation
of the vehicle.
But that's because I'm talking about Islam the religion, not "all Muslims". Big difference.
No difference at all. When you talk about islam as if it is monolithic -- which is precisely what you are doing when you say things like "contemporary muslim societies" and "when you start canceling out factors, the biggest one that remains is 'Muslim'" -- then you paint with the broadest brush possible.
Just because there is diversity in the religion means nobody can criticize the religion for fear of offending the people it doesn't apply to?
This has nothing to do with "offending people" -- don't even start with the whining about being PC. It has to do with stereotyping based on the bad math of exaggerating the effects of certain influences and minimizing the effects of others.
Ah but I don't think that there is one sole cause of societies treating women poorly. Maybe that's our misunderstanding. I'm not saying all Muslims, and only Muslims, treat women badly. That would be silly.
No, you are saying that muslims treat women badly because they are muslim - in the face of plenty of evidence that the biggest common factors are poverty and poor education.
Hey come on, I'm sure you know the reason. Afghanistan was becoming communist. It's the commies that made major reforms in the urban areas, introduced education for all, and radically reduced the influence of Islam.
Again more begging the question - islam gets the blame when muslims do something bad but not the credit when they do something good. Sure they were implementing ideas from the west, but the reformers were still muslims who found those ideas to be compatible with their religion. Plus you are wrong about the communists - reforms like coeducation happened in the 50s, long before the rise of the communists in the late 60s and the strengthening of ties with the USSR in the 70s.
The last couple of cars I bought I refused the option of a built-in satnav. Nevermind that they are way over-priced compared to portable units - the real problem I have is placement. I can put a portable unit right on the dash in front of me so I barely have to take my eyes off the road. Almost all of the built-in satnavs have their display half-way down the middle console where it is a major distraction to look at. Infiniti, and I think Volvo, used to have satnavs that popped up in the middle of the dashboard so at least the driver did not need to look down into the car in order to see the screen, but for some reason their newer models dropped that design and went to the crappy placement.
Why all Muslims?
Because you've been saying "islam" you have not been saying "some" muslims.
So because there are a lot of Muslims I'm not allowed to dislike Islam?
Are you seriously trying to pull the "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" bullshit?
When it comes to what I originally talked about, how women are treated in Islam, it's not so trivial to see that "most" Muslims treat women as well as we expect in the West. In more than one major Islamic society today (not 1000 years ago) there are very unfair laws about women.
And there are plenty of non muslim societies that treat their women poorly. If you were seeking truth rather than rationalization you would ask what do all of these groups have in common rather than working backwards from the group of muslim majority countries.
Look at Afghanistan - muslim for centuries. In the 1960s women wore skirts and went to university. Today they don't. Muslim before and muslim after - it should be obvious that other factors were involved.
Now if Christian militias were going around murdering people, every day, in many separate areas, for decades, then yeah I would dislike Christianity too. Fair is fair.
Fair it may be, its still innumeracy.
Since Islam has ramifications for all aspects of life, including politics, education, economics, civil rights, and so on, you cannot arbitrarily claim that Factor X is responsible for an ailment in Muslim society, because in reality Factor X is probably influenced by Islam itself.
Its foolish to believe that it is unique to islam when (a) all of the major religions do precisely the same thing and (b) there are no purely islamic states and (c) islam is probably the most diversely practice religion in the world.
Right. This hand-waving about your over-simplified understanding about the prohibition of charging interest trumps things like dictatorship. Begging the question indeed.