ranton: "Bigotry is not accepting your views on race could be wrong." Oxford Dictionary: bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". I'm not having a hard time figuring out which is pedantically correct. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, words eventually mean what most people accept them as meaning.
You're right. Here's the dictionary definition of "bigotry": "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."
Reading comprehension fail. The definition refers to the intolerance found in someone's creed, belief or opinion, not intolerance about someone else's creed, belief, or opinion.
The reading comprehension problem I'm having is with your twist on the definition, not the definition itself. The definition I posted was copied from dictionary.com. Let's try another source. "bigotry: Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". Not having intolerant opinions, but actually being/acting intolerant.
1. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior
The concept I see being pushed these days is that only a member of an oppressed minority can be a victim of racism, and a member of an oppressed minority cannot be a racist, regardless of who he/she discriminates against.
Molding a definition to fit your politics is 1984-esque.
Racism is discrimination or bigotry on the basis of race, not that load of crap you just spewed.
You're right. Here's the dictionary definition of "bigotry": "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." Note that the concept of "race" is absent from the definition, so "bigotry on the basis of race"? Not a thing, according to the definition.
Words end up meaning what most people generally agree they mean, which often diverge from dictionary definitions. Most people would generally agree that someone who believes that persons of a specific race are inherently inferior, is a bigot.
Thanks for proving my point. Everything in your post is strongly held opinion masquerading as fact. As far as determining which is worse, I didn't make that claim; however, it is my opinion that it's like determining whether it's worse to be trampled by stampeding steers or eaten by a shark. There may be a qualitative difference, but in the end the result is the same.
Go ahead and criticize the hell out of Trump. Any friend who supports him isn't worth keeping anyway.
There are plenty of people who feel the same way about Clinton and her supporters. What I find disappointing is that the same group of people who claim to champion diversity of race, gender and orientation, also abhor diversity of opinion and viewpoint. And I'm not talking about the rabid hate-filled ravings from either side, I'm talking about people who want to engage in real discourse.
Disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter. I also am not a Clinton supporter. I think they're both genuinely awful candidates. And the major 3rd party candidates aren't measurably better. This will probably be the first presidential election since I started voting in 1972 where I leave the "For President" section blank.
Moral Statute Machine:
Your repeated violation of the Verbal Morality Statute has caused me to notify the San Angeles Police Department. Please remain where you are for your reprimand.
Simon Phoenix:
I'm sorry to say that the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of robed sissies.
How about all the people that live in apartments with first come first serve parking? Or people that park in the street? Or way down the street? Overnight charging is not simple for everyone.
The article's headline is misleading in this regard. From TFA: "Roughly 90 percent of the personal vehicles on the road daily could be replaced by a low-cost electric vehicle available on the market today, even if the cars can only charge overnight".
So the headline should actually be something like "Electric Vehicles Can Replace 90 Percent of Vehicles Whose Owners Have Access to Overnight Charging". Home ownership in the first quarter of 2016 was just under 64% of households (close to its 48-year low). Making the oversimplified assumption that people who don't own homes don't have access to overnight charging, that puts the percentage of vehicles that could be replaced by electrics at about 58%.
Of course, a lot of people rent single-family homes and would be able to do overnight charging, and some apartment dwellers might be able to do it as well, so that number is probably low. But then there's this, that cites an even lower number because additional factors are taken into consideration.
It's not just access to overnight charging that limits the use of electric cars. Here are some other things to take into account:
Access to parking and an outlet specifically at home.
Drive a maximum of 60 or fewer miles on weekdays. Most of today’s BEVs have driving ranges between 60 and 90 miles. 69% of U.S. drivers have weekday range requirements safely within this range.
Own more than one vehicle or infrequently take long trips. A second vehicle enables longer driving ranges during vacations and trips. 65% of U.S. households have more than one vehicle.
Yeah, I was describing the way they want it to work as outlined in TFA, not the way a random internet user sees it. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
Seems like the correct thing to do in that situation is turn round and sue rights corp for contractual interference.
That might work, if the ISP's terms of service don't include provisions for termination for unlawful use; I think most of them do include such provisions. Contractual interference (known in the legal trade as tortious interference) usually occurs when a one party attempts to induce a second party to breach a contract with a third party. A party that merely points out that a second party has already breached a contract with a third party (e.g., when someone points out that a user has breached the ISP's TOS) is not engaging in tortious interference. Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer, so I may be completely full of shit.
Why can't it be that analog headphone jacks are half a century old and they just simply don't belong on a phone in 2016?
If you get rid of things just because they're old, you're going to have a problem trying to use that new phone that has neither a microphone or a speaker (both well over 100 years old).
I really don't get how all these ISPs that discriminate traffic can get away with remaining non-liable. The safe harbor is ONLY if they are unaware, thus this should be encouragement for not knowing what is happening on their network.
I agree with you, but that's not what this particular issue is about. Rightscorp isn't telling the ISPs they have to detect users' copyright infringing activities. Rightscorp is telling ISPs they have to implement and enforce policies whereby users' connections can be terminated if they (the users) engage in excessive copyright infringement. The ISP cooperation they want works like this:
-- Rightscorp identifies copyright infringement
-- Rightscorp notifes ISP
-- ISP tells user to knock it off
-- User continues infringing and Rightscorp identifies it
-- Rightscorp notifies ISP
-- ISP terminates user's internet connection
As usual, the stories in the press are disappointingly sparse in detail. A few things that would be interesting to know:
Were these "100 party officials and groups" all using the same private email provider? Which one?
What is the convincing evidence that Russia was the source of the cracks?
When Comey discussed HRC's private email server, he said it was likely to have been penetrated by Russia, but they were too skilled to leave evidence of the crack so the FBI couldn't be sure. So the Russians were too skilled to leave evidence on HRC's server, but not on the server(s) they cracked in this case?
They say that no Republican emails have been cracked. Given the skill cited as the reason for the lack of evidence in the case of HRC's private server, how can they be sure?
Actually it is, because diversity brings new opinions and viewpoints. If all you hire are white men you're only going to ever have the viewpoints of white men.
Right, because white men all have the same viewpoint with regard to technology products
Ted Nugent fans also have different viewpoints. Some like deer hunting, others duck hunting. Yet you will probably not find any interested in knitting. People fighting over what to hunt doesn't make a group diverse.
... which has what to do with tech companies, again?
Actually it is, because diversity brings new opinions and viewpoints. If all you hire are white men you're only going to ever have the viewpoints of white men.
Right, because white men all have the same viewpoint with regard to technology products. "Diversity is a good thing" refers, for example, to diversity in approaches to of problem solving, not in getting the LGBT slant on circuit design or software implementation, whatever that might mean.
If you forget to shave or shower on a particular day, should you be required to post that to your Facebook page or wear a billboard sign all day decrying your lack of hygiene?
If you don't shower, it will be apparent to everyone around you; no need for a sign or Facebook post.
Wait a minute... Wouldn't they be better off not spending the $1.25 - $1.50 it takes to raise a net $1? They can spend that directly on the staff positions and what-not. Am I missing something here?
Yes, you are missing pretty much everything. If $1.50 goes out and $2.50 comes in, you net $1.00. If you just spend the $1.50, you net -$1.50.
Slashdot Mirror
ranton: "Bigotry is not accepting your views on race could be wrong." Oxford Dictionary: bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". I'm not having a hard time figuring out which is pedantically correct. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, words eventually mean what most people accept them as meaning.
You're right. Here's the dictionary definition of "bigotry": "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."
Reading comprehension fail. The definition refers to the intolerance found in someone's creed, belief or opinion, not intolerance about someone else's creed, belief, or opinion.
The reading comprehension problem I'm having is with your twist on the definition, not the definition itself. The definition I posted was copied from dictionary.com. Let's try another source. "bigotry: Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". Not having intolerant opinions, but actually being/acting intolerant.
1. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior
The concept I see being pushed these days is that only a member of an oppressed minority can be a victim of racism, and a member of an oppressed minority cannot be a racist, regardless of who he/she discriminates against.
Molding a definition to fit your politics is 1984-esque.
Racism is discrimination or bigotry on the basis of race, not that load of crap you just spewed.
You're right. Here's the dictionary definition of "bigotry": "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." Note that the concept of "race" is absent from the definition, so "bigotry on the basis of race"? Not a thing, according to the definition.
Words end up meaning what most people generally agree they mean, which often diverge from dictionary definitions. Most people would generally agree that someone who believes that persons of a specific race are inherently inferior, is a bigot.
Yes. Yes, they are. So is cash; haven't you heard?
Thanks for proving my point. Everything in your post is strongly held opinion masquerading as fact. As far as determining which is worse, I didn't make that claim; however, it is my opinion that it's like determining whether it's worse to be trampled by stampeding steers or eaten by a shark. There may be a qualitative difference, but in the end the result is the same.
Go ahead and criticize the hell out of Trump. Any friend who supports him isn't worth keeping anyway.
There are plenty of people who feel the same way about Clinton and her supporters. What I find disappointing is that the same group of people who claim to champion diversity of race, gender and orientation, also abhor diversity of opinion and viewpoint. And I'm not talking about the rabid hate-filled ravings from either side, I'm talking about people who want to engage in real discourse.
Disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter. I also am not a Clinton supporter. I think they're both genuinely awful candidates. And the major 3rd party candidates aren't measurably better. This will probably be the first presidential election since I started voting in 1972 where I leave the "For President" section blank.
IT wasn't supposed to be a template for our society.
Yeah. Funny how things work out, right? I mean, for very small values of funny.
Moral Statute Machine:
Your repeated violation of the Verbal Morality Statute has caused me to notify the San Angeles Police Department. Please remain where you are for your reprimand.
Simon Phoenix:
I'm sorry to say that the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of robed sissies.
How about all the people that live in apartments with first come first serve parking? Or people that park in the street? Or way down the street? Overnight charging is not simple for everyone.
The article's headline is misleading in this regard. From TFA: "Roughly 90 percent of the personal vehicles on the road daily could be replaced by a low-cost electric vehicle available on the market today, even if the cars can only charge overnight".
So the headline should actually be something like "Electric Vehicles Can Replace 90 Percent of Vehicles Whose Owners Have Access to Overnight Charging". Home ownership in the first quarter of 2016 was just under 64% of households (close to its 48-year low). Making the oversimplified assumption that people who don't own homes don't have access to overnight charging, that puts the percentage of vehicles that could be replaced by electrics at about 58%.
Of course, a lot of people rent single-family homes and would be able to do overnight charging, and some apartment dwellers might be able to do it as well, so that number is probably low. But then there's this, that cites an even lower number because additional factors are taken into consideration.
It's not just access to overnight charging that limits the use of electric cars. Here are some other things to take into account:
Let me fix that for you;
Yeah, I was describing the way they want it to work as outlined in TFA, not the way a random internet user sees it. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
Seems like the correct thing to do in that situation is turn round and sue rights corp for contractual interference.
That might work, if the ISP's terms of service don't include provisions for termination for unlawful use; I think most of them do include such provisions. Contractual interference (known in the legal trade as tortious interference) usually occurs when a one party attempts to induce a second party to breach a contract with a third party. A party that merely points out that a second party has already breached a contract with a third party (e.g., when someone points out that a user has breached the ISP's TOS) is not engaging in tortious interference. Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer, so I may be completely full of shit.
Why can't it be that analog headphone jacks are half a century old and they just simply don't belong on a phone in 2016?
If you get rid of things just because they're old, you're going to have a problem trying to use that new phone that has neither a microphone or a speaker (both well over 100 years old).
I really don't get how all these ISPs that discriminate traffic can get away with remaining non-liable. The safe harbor is ONLY if they are unaware, thus this should be encouragement for not knowing what is happening on their network.
I agree with you, but that's not what this particular issue is about. Rightscorp isn't telling the ISPs they have to detect users' copyright infringing activities. Rightscorp is telling ISPs they have to implement and enforce policies whereby users' connections can be terminated if they (the users) engage in excessive copyright infringement. The ISP cooperation they want works like this:
-- Rightscorp identifies copyright infringement
-- Rightscorp notifes ISP
-- ISP tells user to knock it off
-- User continues infringing and Rightscorp identifies it
-- Rightscorp notifies ISP
-- ISP terminates user's internet connection
As usual, the stories in the press are disappointingly sparse in detail. A few things that would be interesting to know:
Actually it is, because diversity brings new opinions and viewpoints. If all you hire are white men you're only going to ever have the viewpoints of white men.
Right, because white men all have the same viewpoint with regard to technology products
Ted Nugent fans also have different viewpoints. Some like deer hunting, others duck hunting. Yet you will probably not find any interested in knitting. People fighting over what to hunt doesn't make a group diverse.
... which has what to do with tech companies, again?
Actually it is, because diversity brings new opinions and viewpoints. If all you hire are white men you're only going to ever have the viewpoints of white men.
Right, because white men all have the same viewpoint with regard to technology products. "Diversity is a good thing" refers, for example, to diversity in approaches to of problem solving, not in getting the LGBT slant on circuit design or software implementation, whatever that might mean.
I just want to know, if you're pissing in Central park at 3 a.m, who are you exposing yourself to exactly?
The cop who arrests you, obviously.
If they have served their sentence, then stop with the unconstitutional life punishments. All it does is ensure recidivism.
I guess you missed the part about this being applicable to sex offenders ON PAROLE; i.e., they haven't finished serving their sentences. Get it?
I'm waiting for the day when President Trump jokes that he just launched a nuclear strike on Russia.
I guess you're too young to remember Reagan's "The bombing begins in five minutes" joke.
If you forget to shave or shower on a particular day, should you be required to post that to your Facebook page or wear a billboard sign all day decrying your lack of hygiene?
If you don't shower, it will be apparent to everyone around you; no need for a sign or Facebook post.
Word 2.0c was decent.
I'll second that. Word 2 and Excel 4, on OS/2.
Wait a minute... Wouldn't they be better off not spending the $1.25 - $1.50 it takes to raise a net $1? They can spend that directly on the staff positions and what-not. Am I missing something here?
Yes, you are missing pretty much everything. If $1.50 goes out and $2.50 comes in, you net $1.00. If you just spend the $1.50, you net -$1.50.
Except they were never taken out to the street.
Ah, you're the type that just allows a lifetime of trash to accumulate in your house. I guess I can't find those bills, then.
So nothing illegal occurred, or the deal couldn't have been allowed to go through. Nice try though
Actually, nothing illegal was prosecuted. I guess that means if I rob a bank and don't get arrested, no crime was committed.