Now if you had said that Romny was missleading, I might agree with you, but he was factually true. Nice try though.
It is a "true lie" - it is a literal truth meant to mislead about a larger issue. People who say "true lies" fall into two camps - either they are deliberately intending to mislead, or they are so credulous that they believed the larger implication. Nobody cites a "true lie" because they really care about the true part as the true part is invariably of little interest just by itself.
So yes, it was debunked. Especially when you consider the context of his delivery - stuff like, "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." That is an obvious attempt to imply not paying any tax at all, which is the lie part of that particular true lie.
It was obvious from his tone in the video (and from body language, and from his laughing while saying it) he was joking.
Can you provide a link to the video you watched?
I've found two on youtube, but he was not laughing during the delivery and his body language looked as wooden as always. But both videos cut off pretty quickly after he says those words. If he paused for effect, gave a chuckle or even if the audience just chuckled, I'd totally agree it was a joke.
But I can't seem to find a video with enough footage to tell one way or the other and without that, I'm left thinking it was more like his infamously inane comments about michigan and how he loves cars, lakes and how "the tree's are the right height."
I really I can not tell if your are joking. Obviously at least one mode thinks you are being serious since you got a +1 interesting. A right to do the impossible is no right at all.
It's not like doctors and hospitals have prices for (non-emergency) procedures, tell you what those prices are in advance, tell you what the procedures they will be performing on before in advance, and get agreement on price before doing anything.
They are starting too. Ironically, it seems like Obamacare is indirectly the cause of this change.
I assume this is google+ you are talking about. Are all of the recognized people in your "social circle" or whatever its called there? The reason I ask is because if google only has to search against a database of a couple o fhundred people then its face id algo doesn't need to be as smart since there are going to be less false positives.
I started using DuckDuckGo exclusively just a couple days ago. So far I'm liking it a lot--search results seem just as good as Google's, if not better in some cases.
I wish I could say the same. I do everything to minimize google's tracking of me - no cookies, no other google services, no javascript, etc. So as best I can tell, I get google's searches without the filter bubble. But I still found google to be significantly more effective than DDG. I consider myself to have some damn fine google-fu, so maybe I just don't "get" DDG but whatever the reason I found myself using the !g operator so often that I decided to save a step and just start my searches at google to begin with.
That is a plausible explanation, but I would like to see an evaluation of the trade-offs. How many fakers do they catch that would not have been caught otherwise, for example with a closer examination of the required paperwork. And, is that worth the extra cost, both monetary for the system and the cost to law-abiding citizens of misuse.
You can submit your own photo if you follow certain guidelines: i.e. blank background, well lit, no hats/scarves, even no smile, etc
I wish they let you do that. They sort of let you do that with passport photos and that provides plenty of opportunity to tweak the photo in such a way as to confuse facial recognition algos but still pass muster with any human who looks at the photo. Use photoshop to change the distance between your eyes, smooth out your cheekbones, fiddle with your jawline, etc. All minor things, but the facial recog algos are fragile (hence the no smiling rule) and small changes that most humans won't even notice can be enough to totally throw them off.
NJ isn't the only DMV doing stuff like this to make facial recognition easier. If they won't let you smile, try to turn your head so you are looking at the camera at an angle - part of the algorithm uses the distance between your eyes so turning your head, even slightly, in a simple 2D photo is going to change that. Width of nose and shape of cheekbones are also part of the equation so stuff cotton balls up your nose and in your cheeks and then just pretend you have a cold. Mascara helps too because it trys to figure out the depth of your eye sockets from the 2D photo too.
Beyond all that a big question that none of these DMVs have had to answer is what the hell does the DMV need facial recognition for? It is a license to drive, if you get pulled over and you don't have a license on you (which is not illegal, you are only required to be licensed, not actually carry it with you when you drive that's just for convenience) they can just type your name in the computer in their car and bring up your DMV record and visually confirm your identity, no computerized facial recognition needed.
If its got a GPS receiver and some sort of transmitter in it, then its going to have metal. Seems like one could easily check an entire box of unopened candy bars for a winner with just a metal-dector.
Whatever happened to "Hey, dude, guess you're right, thanks for clarifying?"
Because you are wrong. The page you linked to is all about the OGI - it ends with him specificlly directing the CTO and the OMB to create the OGI, and he kept that promise. You can't accuse the guy of flip-flopping on a promise he actually kept.
The only reason you think the crappy handling of the whistleblowers is a flip-flop is because you bought into the overly broad scope of the original misquote which, given the use on all the anti-obama websites, was probably designed specificly to mislead like that.
Still a misquote - you might call it a summarization, but leaving out the part about "establish a system" completely changes the meaning because what you actually found on the whitehouse website narrowly refers to the OGI.
Obama: "Mine will be the most transparent administration in history."
I'm pretty sure that is a misquote since googling it only turns up anti-obama sites. That's poor form if you want to show something actually hypocritical and not just more fauxbama stuff.
If you want to get a more grounded list of broken promises, try the Obameter. But, I want to point out that broken campaign promises aren't quite the same thing as "flip-flopping" which, in the GP's context of daily show clips, refers to taking up contradictory positions in public statements -- campaign promises are goals that may not be achieved due to circumstances beyond the candidate's control, flip-flops are 100% willful decisions to simply say different things.
No, it absolutely matters if you worship a man who raped a nine year old or not. How can you say it doesn't matter?
I feel you are being deliberately obtuse. Other than repeating what I said before - that they do not worship pedo-mohammed, only islamophobes do - I don't think there is anything more I can do here.
Aren't child marriages somewhat normal in many islamic countries? Why wouldn't they use Aisha as a justification?
"Child brides" are common in all 3rd world countries, regardless of local religiions. Nobody needs a pedo-mohammed to rationalize it.
Over one million children in the USA alone go missing and most are assumed to have been abducted and sold into sexual slavery every year.
Maybe you should pause for a second and think about just how implausible that number is. There were less than 15,000 murders in the USA last year. But you are claiming nearly a million children disappear into sex-slave rings each year.
Luddite with no data plan here... any kind of data plan that I would consider worth having runs $70+/month - $840/year, I don't really care if the phone is free, I don't want to sign up for a multi-thousand dollar future debt.
Well, you didn't actually spell out what your requirements are, so I'm not interested in a comparison with moving goal-posts.
How exactly do you figure? Do you think it's impossible for a pedophile to get aroused by older women too?
You missed my point. What I am saying is that the aisha thing, just like everything else on websites like jihadwatch, atlasshrugs, etc is all about rationalizing bigotry, not finding truth. It doesn't matter what the specifics of any event are, they will always pick and choose an intrepretation that suits their agenda. Just like extremists (of any religion) do.
However, do muslims get to pick and choose what parts of the Hadith they believe to be true?
Yes. It is not unknown for different hadith to be contradictory thus forcing people to pick. Intrepretations of the hadith can vary hugely between different sects - in some cases it is the difference in interpretation that defines the specific sect. This stuff is huge in the religion with all kinds of effort put into figuring out things like the "chain of custody" for the oral reports that ended up being written down and thus the quality of the reports. Some sects even deny the whole concept of hadith.
An important thing to keep in mind is that the issue of aisha's age has always been of little importance. Nobody goes around using it as a justification for child abuse. Most muslims don't even consider it a question of any interest. Ask any average muslim how old Aisha was when she got married and you'll get "I dunno" and a guess from mid-teens to probably mid-20s because that's the Mohammed of their religion. The pedo-mohammed is just the mohammed of people with an axe to grind who aren't even muslim.
Slashdot Mirror
Leaking information to legitimate journalists regarding specific wrongdoing is protected
Apparently not.
Now if you had said that Romny was missleading, I might agree with you, but he was factually true. Nice try though.
It is a "true lie" - it is a literal truth meant to mislead about a larger issue. People who say "true lies" fall into two camps - either they are deliberately intending to mislead, or they are so credulous that they believed the larger implication. Nobody cites a "true lie" because they really care about the true part as the true part is invariably of little interest just by itself.
So yes, it was debunked. Especially when you consider the context of his delivery - stuff like, "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." That is an obvious attempt to imply not paying any tax at all, which is the lie part of that particular true lie.
It was obvious from his tone in the video (and from body language, and from his laughing while saying it) he was joking.
Can you provide a link to the video you watched?
I've found two on youtube, but he was not laughing during the delivery and his body language looked as wooden as always. But both videos cut off pretty quickly after he says those words. If he paused for effect, gave a chuckle or even if the audience just chuckled, I'd totally agree it was a joke.
But I can't seem to find a video with enough footage to tell one way or the other and without that, I'm left thinking it was more like his infamously inane comments about michigan and how he loves cars, lakes and how "the tree's are the right height."
But if the Republicans did it, the talking heads here on /. would be bringing it up for the next 6 months.
In politics everybody beats dead horses.
Mitt Romney personally brought up the "47% don't pay income taxes" canard two years after it was widely debunked.
I really I can not tell if your are joking. Obviously at least one mode thinks you are being serious since you got a +1 interesting. A right to do the impossible is no right at all.
Just saw Pokidok on Boing Boing.
It's kind of a crowd-sourced price-list of cash prices for treatments.
It's not like doctors and hospitals have prices for (non-emergency) procedures, tell you what those prices are in advance, tell you what the procedures they will be performing on before in advance, and get agreement on price before doing anything.
They are starting too. Ironically, it seems like Obamacare is indirectly the cause of this change.
Why would we instead divert all focus to remedying one particular side-effect, when we could attack the problem itself?
Because the current national debate is about CREATING that one particular side-effect. Voter-ID laws are a change from the status quo.
If you want them to be enacted, then yah, you are right, we should take care of all those other problems FIRST.
It is also official identification that can be used when opening bank accounts and such.
I think that aspect of driver's licenses needs to be rethought. Maybe the cat is out of the bag, maybe not.
If that person already has an ID card, then when they apply for another in your name, the system will catch them.
That only works if there is a master database of everyone, not just those in that one state.
I assume this is google+ you are talking about.
Are all of the recognized people in your "social circle" or whatever its called there?
The reason I ask is because if google only has to search against a database of a couple o fhundred people then its face id algo doesn't need to be as smart since there are going to be less false positives.
I started using DuckDuckGo exclusively just a couple days ago. So far I'm liking it a lot--search results seem just as good as Google's, if not better in some cases.
I wish I could say the same. I do everything to minimize google's tracking of me - no cookies, no other google services, no javascript, etc. So as best I can tell, I get google's searches without the filter bubble. But I still found google to be significantly more effective than DDG. I consider myself to have some damn fine google-fu, so maybe I just don't "get" DDG but whatever the reason I found myself using the !g operator so often that I decided to save a step and just start my searches at google to begin with.
That is a plausible explanation, but I would like to see an evaluation of the trade-offs. How many fakers do they catch that would not have been caught otherwise, for example with a closer examination of the required paperwork. And, is that worth the extra cost, both monetary for the system and the cost to law-abiding citizens of misuse.
You can submit your own photo if you follow certain guidelines: i.e. blank background, well lit, no hats/scarves, even no smile, etc
I wish they let you do that. They sort of let you do that with passport photos and that provides plenty of opportunity to tweak the photo in such a way as to confuse facial recognition algos but still pass muster with any human who looks at the photo. Use photoshop to change the distance between your eyes, smooth out your cheekbones, fiddle with your jawline, etc. All minor things, but the facial recog algos are fragile (hence the no smiling rule) and small changes that most humans won't even notice can be enough to totally throw them off.
NJ isn't the only DMV doing stuff like this to make facial recognition easier. If they won't let you smile, try to turn your head so you are looking at the camera at an angle - part of the algorithm uses the distance between your eyes so turning your head, even slightly, in a simple 2D photo is going to change that. Width of nose and shape of cheekbones are also part of the equation so stuff cotton balls up your nose and in your cheeks and then just pretend you have a cold. Mascara helps too because it trys to figure out the depth of your eye sockets from the 2D photo too.
Beyond all that a big question that none of these DMVs have had to answer is what the hell does the DMV need facial recognition for? It is a license to drive, if you get pulled over and you don't have a license on you (which is not illegal, you are only required to be licensed, not actually carry it with you when you drive that's just for convenience) they can just type your name in the computer in their car and bring up your DMV record and visually confirm your identity, no computerized facial recognition needed.
If its got a GPS receiver and some sort of transmitter in it, then its going to have metal. Seems like one could easily check an entire box of unopened candy bars for a winner with just a metal-dector.
Because Britannica has more content than the world's largest encyclopedia and you can be certain nobody is paying them, right?
They've stopped selling copies of Encyclopedia Britannica now so you are probably right, nobody is paying them!
Ah, as I suspected you were just defending your ego, not your argument.
Whatever happened to "Hey, dude, guess you're right, thanks for clarifying?"
Because you are wrong. The page you linked to is all about the OGI - it ends with him specificlly directing the CTO and the OMB to create the OGI, and he kept that promise. You can't accuse the guy of flip-flopping on a promise he actually kept.
The only reason you think the crappy handling of the whistleblowers is a flip-flop is because you bought into the overly broad scope of the original misquote which, given the use on all the anti-obama websites, was probably designed specificly to mislead like that.
Still a misquote - you might call it a summarization, but leaving out the part about "establish a system" completely changes the meaning because what you actually found on the whitehouse website narrowly refers to the OGI.
Obama: "Mine will be the most transparent administration in history."
I'm pretty sure that is a misquote since googling it only turns up anti-obama sites. That's poor form if you want to show something actually hypocritical and not just more fauxbama stuff.
Best I can make out, it refers to his promise to increase access to government records by putting lots of stuff into an internet database. I remember when it went online as the Open Government Initiative. You will see the word "Transparency" is the first ont he sub-heading of that page.
If you want to get a more grounded list of broken promises, try the Obameter. But, I want to point out that broken campaign promises aren't quite the same thing as "flip-flopping" which, in the GP's context of daily show clips, refers to taking up contradictory positions in public statements -- campaign promises are goals that may not be achieved due to circumstances beyond the candidate's control, flip-flops are 100% willful decisions to simply say different things.
It is if you're doing it to gain access to a computer that otherwise doesn't want you accessing it.
By that logic purchasing a brand new PC is just as bad.
No, it absolutely matters if you worship a man who raped a nine year old or not. How can you say it doesn't matter?
I feel you are being deliberately obtuse. Other than repeating what I said before - that they do not worship pedo-mohammed, only islamophobes do - I don't think there is anything more I can do here.
Aren't child marriages somewhat normal in many islamic countries? Why wouldn't they use Aisha as a justification?
"Child brides" are common in all 3rd world countries, regardless of local religiions. Nobody needs a pedo-mohammed to rationalize it.
Over one million children in the USA alone go missing and most are assumed to have been abducted and sold into sexual slavery every year.
Maybe you should pause for a second and think about just how implausible that number is. There were less than 15,000 murders in the USA last year. But you are claiming nearly a million children disappear into sex-slave rings each year.
Luddite with no data plan here... any kind of data plan that I would consider worth having runs $70+/month - $840/year, I don't really care if the phone is free, I don't want to sign up for a multi-thousand dollar future debt.
Well, you didn't actually spell out what your requirements are, so I'm not interested in a comparison with moving goal-posts.
However, Verizon's 2GB plan is $90 (well over your $70 limit) while Virgin Mobile's 2.5GB plan is $30.
It's also prepaid so no contract, you can quit any time.
How exactly do you figure? Do you think it's impossible for a pedophile to get aroused by older women too?
You missed my point. What I am saying is that the aisha thing, just like everything else on websites like jihadwatch, atlasshrugs, etc is all about rationalizing bigotry, not finding truth. It doesn't matter what the specifics of any event are, they will always pick and choose an intrepretation that suits their agenda. Just like extremists (of any religion) do.
However, do muslims get to pick and choose what parts of the Hadith they believe to be true?
Yes. It is not unknown for different hadith to be contradictory thus forcing people to pick. Intrepretations of the hadith can vary hugely between different sects - in some cases it is the difference in interpretation that defines the specific sect. This stuff is huge in the religion with all kinds of effort put into figuring out things like the "chain of custody" for the oral reports that ended up being written down and thus the quality of the reports. Some sects even deny the whole concept of hadith.
An important thing to keep in mind is that the issue of aisha's age has always been of little importance. Nobody goes around using it as a justification for child abuse. Most muslims don't even consider it a question of any interest. Ask any average muslim how old Aisha was when she got married and you'll get "I dunno" and a guess from mid-teens to probably mid-20s because that's the Mohammed of their religion. The pedo-mohammed is just the mohammed of people with an axe to grind who aren't even muslim.