One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims (hypothetical, unlikely premise, original research) into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum
Here you attack the central concept of the satire, the outrageous claim that ExxonMobil is planning to turn dead people into oil. That's not "invented numbers" or "finger pointing without evidence", it is the satirical statement itself. You also seem to be having problems differentiating between Wikipedia and real life.
'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno (conjecture).
This would be an example of irony. Did you really think that they really believed that ExxonMobil is trying yo shut them down because they accidentally stated the truth, as they are implying?
Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' (highly suspect claim, no evidence given to support)
And that's hyperbole. Considering that the previous statements are all intentional lies as part of the satire, why do you think they would suddenly be completely serious with this one?
Slashdot is not for technology enthusiasts. It's for people who dream of the days when computers were the size of closets, and who want a phone that "just makes calls".
In case that isn't percolating, he's saying that you're not going to get rich off of a quick Tetris clone. You might, however, get rich off of a new twist on Tetris that shows high production values and original thinking.
That makes sense. But he's not actually saying that. Maybe he means it, and is just bad at expressing himself, but he still is not saying that. You're adding a whole lot of interpretation there that just isn't in that statement.
This line especially almost directly contradicts that: "The casual space should be encouraging a huge amount of creative design but there's a lot of imitation and that's a shame."
Production values and originality. Learn it, live it, love it.
You know, you just claimed that originality is not as important as minor variations on an old theme a couple of sentences back.
Translation: If you make copies to make a quick buck, all you're ever going to make are quick copies. Try to improve upon formulas and show some originality in your games.
That's all he said. Really. Well, yes, and that's exactly what people are upset about, you know?
Actually, no, he just suffers from that particular kind of paranoid schizophrenia that makes people write huge amounts of incoherent text on badly-designed websites, and draw diagrams with lots of images and arrows (http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/connec5.gif).
Laws are singular, and can only co-exist when they explicitly state that they can. Needless to say, there are always grey areas - countries under invasion, for instance. Your example barely registers on the grey-area meter, though, as the gangster hardly has the power to challenge the prevailing law which clearly outlaws him.
Once again, what is so difficult about this? Schoolkids should be able to grasp it.
What, when I suggested you use words in the same manner as the rest of the English-speaking world? That's hardly a semantic argument. A semantic argument is when you base your argument on literal readings of words instead of on the intended meaning. Such as assuming "enforce" means to enforce punishment every single infraction against the law, when that was obviously not what was meant.
What is this, some kind of pissing contest? Does your penis grow bigger for every "argument" you "debunk" on the internet, never mind if it even was an "argument" in the first place?
What exactly did you "debunk"? Are you saying that since there are screen add-ons for the iPod, no person will ever buy an iPhone just to get a bigger screen to watch video on, ever?
Slashdot Mirror
It's too funny a name to mock just once.
One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims (hypothetical, unlikely premise, original research) into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum
Here you attack the central concept of the satire, the outrageous claim that ExxonMobil is planning to turn dead people into oil. That's not "invented numbers" or "finger pointing without evidence", it is the satirical statement itself. You also seem to be having problems differentiating between Wikipedia and real life.
'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno (conjecture).
This would be an example of irony. Did you really think that they really believed that ExxonMobil is trying yo shut them down because they accidentally stated the truth, as they are implying?
Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' (highly suspect claim, no evidence given to support)
And that's hyperbole. Considering that the previous statements are all intentional lies as part of the satire, why do you think they would suddenly be completely serious with this one?
What about shares in companies that make materials to teach reading comprehension? Sell, right?
And here I thought Slashdot was the place where people made fun of christians for being anti-science.
No, wait, that's right, all those people moved to Reddit.
Slashdot is not for technology enthusiasts. It's for people who dream of the days when computers were the size of closets, and who want a phone that "just makes calls".
And that's why you don't let nerds name products.
Or perhaps you just never understood that "Wii" is a great name?
I'm pretty sure my point still stands.
Do you understand the concept of satire at all?
This is why Apple succeeds where others fail - they don't name their products "FIC Neo1973".
In case that isn't percolating, he's saying that you're not going to get rich off of a quick Tetris clone. You might, however, get rich off of a new twist on Tetris that shows high production values and original thinking.
That makes sense. But he's not actually saying that. Maybe he means it, and is just bad at expressing himself, but he still is not saying that. You're adding a whole lot of interpretation there that just isn't in that statement.
This line especially almost directly contradicts that: "The casual space should be encouraging a huge amount of creative design but there's a lot of imitation and that's a shame."
Production values and originality. Learn it, live it, love it.
You know, you just claimed that originality is not as important as minor variations on an old theme a couple of sentences back.
"I am making lots of money! You are not! Therefore, do not do what I have done!"
Does that really seem like good advice?
What I see is that he's trying to share his experience...
By, once again, telling people not to do what he did, as leader of a successful company, and giving no reason why?
Note that he's telling people to not do what he himself did, and implying that people who do so are stupid.
That's all he said. Really. Well, yes, and that's exactly what people are upset about, you know?
Actually, no, he just suffers from that particular kind of paranoid schizophrenia that makes people write huge amounts of incoherent text on badly-designed websites, and draw diagrams with lots of images and arrows (http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/connec5.gif).
I heard there's this one guy on the loose who kills people who misuse apostrophes.
+5, Rationalizing Away Problems
Being a criminal is about infringing on someone's right,
Once again, the dictionary disagrees with you. I am not going to bother trying to refute you if you can't even get the basic meaning of words right.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly how you don't want to do voting.
One of the big stated reasons for electronic voting is to make it easier for the disabled to vote.
Laws are singular, and can only co-exist when they explicitly state that they can. Needless to say, there are always grey areas - countries under invasion, for instance. Your example barely registers on the grey-area meter, though, as the gangster hardly has the power to challenge the prevailing law which clearly outlaws him.
Once again, what is so difficult about this? Schoolkids should be able to grasp it.
What, when I suggested you use words in the same manner as the rest of the English-speaking world? That's hardly a semantic argument. A semantic argument is when you base your argument on literal readings of words instead of on the intended meaning. Such as assuming "enforce" means to enforce punishment every single infraction against the law, when that was obviously not what was meant.
Oh boy, wannabe-philosopher semantic arguments. My favourite past-time.
Do grow up, and learn how to argue like an adult, please.
Yes, too bad. Didn't say I was buying one.
Neither am I interested in any spec-list "better options", either.
another bullshit argument debunked.
What is this, some kind of pissing contest? Does your penis grow bigger for every "argument" you "debunk" on the internet, never mind if it even was an "argument" in the first place?
What exactly did you "debunk"? Are you saying that since there are screen add-ons for the iPod, no person will ever buy an iPhone just to get a bigger screen to watch video on, ever?