Well, let's see, I posted my definiton of the fallacy I was applying,
Yes, you did.
which applies perfectly.
No, it doesn't.
For that fallacy to be relevant, what would have to happen would be for somebody to say that since he has been associated with Microsoft then *nothing* he has to say can be true or of any value.
That is indeed a fallacy of the type you're trying to claim is relevant.
That isn't what is happening.
What is happening is that people are saying that since this person was paid to do this study by Microsoft who has paid for bogus, misleading studies many times in the past, that it makes sense to keep that in mind.
That is what is happening, and it is known as basic common sense.
"It's only required if you are completely devoid of ethics, and expect that everyone else is as well."
and ad hominem. It's NOT an ad hominem, and the fact that you don;t know that calls the rest of your post into question.
In fact it is an Ad Hominem. You are attacking me, saying I must be devoid of integrity to think what it is that you are trying to claim I am saying which I quite obviously am not. You are attacking me, even though you try to make it look like you are attacking my argument. You didn't understand my point, or didn't like it or whatever so obviously I'm lacking in integrity. Therefore, you'll make up some nonsense and claim I said it.
Arguably, strawman would be a better description, but you're being deceptive on several levels, so it's hard to actually nail down exactly which specific fallacies you're using at any given moment. Perhaps, your understanding of logic is so fundamentally flawed that you're just spouting nonsense. Anyway, trying to put a name on what's wrong with your rant is pretty worthless at this point.
Studies, which are often paid for by specific companies, ar ealso just as often reqired to be INDEPENDENT.
Which is totally irrelevant to the point that he was paid by Microsoft to do this *JOB* for them.
You're also, again, ignoring the main point which is that Microsoft has a long history of paying for "independent" studies and the studies showing up totally slanted. Again, this *fact* doesn't mean that there is no truth whatsoever in this study (that would be the fallacy you keep trying unsuccessfully to cram in here) but it does mean that it needs to be looked at very hard before accepting anything in it. Again, this is basic common sense.
Oh here, you demonstrate your inability to read the definition again:
"I am not assuming anything. Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly their total lack of ethics. He accepted a *job* with an extremely dishonest company. That fact alone puts his ethics very clearly in question."
Yay, you restated EXACTLY the same fallacy I started out denouncing. You know this one
You are so fucking wrong it's silly at this point. If I said that he could never again be believed on a single thing then I would have made that fallacy.
He chose to take money from a known criminal, extremely corrupt and dishonest company. That does call his morals into question. How does it not?!? If it's a fallacy, then it would be trivial to show how it does not, but you can't. Look at what I said above about how a fallacious interpretation could be made. Since he blagh blagh, he can no longer be believed under any circumstances. He says the sky is blue. Does that mean the sky is not blue? Of course not, because *that* is the fallacy you keep trying to use where it in no way is relevant.
Examples:
"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!
You can have your glorious peoples' republic, others can live in a christian theocracy, and I can live in a place that values individual and economic liberty.
I don't know where you got that insane nutjobism.
I'm sick of paying for welfare staters who don't even have the integrity to admit that that is what they are.
I'll take the individual liberty *and* responsibility state, as was obvious in everything I said.
Where that puts you, I don't know. Maybe in the "I want to claim I believe in liberty but would rather bitch about anybody calling people on not living up what they claim to believe in while living off of my tax dollars" camp. I have no idea what else you could believe if you're trying to claim I want a workers paradise when my sole complaint was welfare state socialists without the courage to admit it to themselves.
The rest of your ignorant rant was equally nonsensical, since the Theocracy would obviously be the poorest, since it already is even with the tremendous amount of wealth that they steal from the states in the union that actually pay their own way. Take away the thievery that props up their backwards ass economy, and it would collapse.
As for "Red States", note that I used the term "Rusty States", not as a political color, but as the indicator of post-industrial-ness with (special emphasis) NOTHING to replace their prosperity with.
Sure, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth. This fundamental dichotomy in our country is one of my big issues, so I jump in sometimes to point it out when a related issue comes up;-)
Urban yuppies were voting for Clinton, Gore and Kerry in droves, while these assholes did their political work of extensively greasing the wheels of globalism -- which is just socialism for the wealthy, and the free market for the working class.
Sure. I never claimed the Democrats were good. The best you can really say is that they have to maintain some sort of tenuous grip on reality since their base is very diverse and generally has better bullshit detectors. Whereas, there are still people trying to defend this administration over their lying about the Iraq war. I'll bet there are even nutjobs repeating the administration's nonsense about "rewriting history" when people like me who actually read the Project for a new American Century have been saying the same exact thing since 2000. That's a fundamental difference. Clinton was impeached over a blowjob after an incredibly expensive witch hunt. Bush is still spewing blatant lies and barely getting called on it even at this point because his supporters believe him becasue they want to believe him and reality be damned.
The disenfranchised conservative folk in the flyover finally rallied behind an icon... after watching the big-L Liberal elite try to outlaw freedom of speech and the keeping and bearing of arms, for starters.
Now here, you're pretty far off base. In the first place, they are hardly "disenfranchised". They have far more political power than I do merely because they live in rural areas. Secondly, nobody has tried to outlaw freedom of speech, least of all any sort of "Liberal Elite" which is pretty much a boogy man made up by crazy conservatives to have a direction to focus their hatred. All the big media is owned by major corporations... you know, the same ones selling globalism as hard as possible?
We're all to blame.
True.
We all have to fix this.
True.
Disdain of any kind is not serving the solution. We can point fingers for a bit, but eventually we have to work together... urban and rural, liberal and conservative, yuppie and redneck, technician and salesman, labor and management.
True enough, but when you have one group that is so far out there, so out of touch with reality, then how do you propose having a rational discussion with them?!?
I'm an "evil communist bastard" (who pays their fucking bills for them), and anything I have to say is an "evil Liberal plot".
Seriously, these people don't even understand basic economics enough to realise that when they get more back from the government than they put in then they are not living under capitalism. How are you supposed to discuss globalism or economics with them?!?
They are totally unable to recognize that rampant hyper capitalism is inherently liberalising, and so the "moral breakdown of our society" is a direct result of their actions, yet they keep doing the same thing expecting different results.
That's the commonly used definition of insanity.
Seriously, how are we supposed to have rational discussions with people who are incapable of being rational?!?
It's at least 50 years worth of reinforced delusion that we're fighting against if we want to even open a rational dialog. Do you honestly expect these people to recognize their own responsibility, step up and take the blame for it and work to actually help anything?!?
I'm well past the point of believing that's possible. It would take an incredible amount of integrity, and I just don't see anybody on that side with any. There isn
It's because the "Red Staters" have different values.
Yeah, they'll vote for anybody who tells them their predicament isn't their fault. As long as they're given somebody else to blame, and do not have to take any personal responsibility for anything then they're happy.
In sum, Red Staters would rather be fucked by someone who doesn't demand absolute control over them.
Whereas I'd prefer to try and avoid getting fucked at all rather than wrapping my whole life in a delusion.
By the way, the only reason that "Blue States" pay more taxes is because the wealth from "Red States" is shipped to the coasts where it can be transported overseas. The "Blue States" aren't supporting the "Red States", they're living in luxury off of the wealth of the "Red States" and pretending they're not capitalists while they exploit proletariat.
Yeah right.
What fucking wealth of the Red States? Sorry, but For the most part, the Red states pay negative net taxes. That's my money taken away to pay for their fucking phones and electricity.
Sorry to break it to you, but if the Blue States split off from the Red states we'd have billions in surplus which now goes to the welfare states.
More that we're voting against socialism. By helping small business, jobs are created. I get to work in those jobs. I could even make a business and thus jobs. Why should I vote to be taxed into oblivion and no hope for earning any money or making any(if I'm a business).
The point is that you already are living under socialism if you're in a rural area, and you're voting for the ones pissing your jobs overseas all the time whining about how you hate socialism. Now you're getting your first real taste of capitalism and not liking it at all. Instead of admitting your mistakes and workingg to fix things, you keep blaming your problems on those who pay your welfare.
You're assuming he would risk that for a paycheck, which speaks more to your lack of ethics than his.
No, it says nothing about my ethics, nice try at the around the back strawman attack, but no dice bucko. I am not assuming anything. Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly their total lack of ethics. He accepted a *job* with an extremely dishonest company. That fact alone puts his ethics very clearly in question.
"The *required* assumption is that he is now working to help Microsoft. Period."
It's only required if you are completely devoid of ethics, and expect that everyone else is as well.
Again with the valueless ad hominem attacks that don't even make sense. He was paid to do a job for Microsoft. It is required as an assumption unless you are assuming that Microsoft is working against their own financial interests. Why would they pay for something that they expect to hurt them?
Ok, I get it. HE'S NOT AN "ADVOCATE". You have assumed he is because you don't like his results. That's bad science, but I doubt very seriously if you care, because this about being right for you, not about the facts. You want MS to be evil, and by association, everyone around them must be evil as well.
No, I did no such thing, nor is there a rational way for you to conclude that I did based on what I said. He is an advocate because he was paid *by Microsoft* to do a job. Period. I do not want MS to be evil, however, the facts demonstrate absolutely that they are an extremely unethical company. Anyone who accepts money from them does bear watching from an ethical perspective, that's just reality.
Why is it NOT a logical fallacy when it meets the exact definfition of the fallacy provided?
Because it doesn't meet the definition for one.
Being suspicious of a study by a person who was paid to do a study by a company with a long history of buying bogus studies is basic common sense, not a logical fallacy.
And why are you so fucking excited to be a shill for Novell? See, works both ways, but because you know nothing of logic and reason, you didn't see any of that coming.
More ridiculous ad hominems with no basis in reality.
I got my BS in mathematics, so I know quite a bit about logic and reason. You clearly do not since you are continually misapplying a basic definition. It's a little tough to maintain a consistent argument when you can't even understand the definitions you are trying to use.
It's all about class war, Ace. The Midwesterners are merely on the losing side, and losers never get fair treatment from the media.
It is about class war, most of us are losers in it, but you have totally failed to even recognize the facts of the matter.
The Midwesterners, Rural people, Red Staters, whatever you want to call them are "on" the winning side, since they continually vote for the Republican party who is the party of the wealthy elite. The fact that their choices continue to fuck them *as well as everyone else* has been obvious for decades now, but they stubbornly refuse to actually think things through before they vote.
The fact is that when Rural folk, Christian folk, and anybody who is not *extremely rich* vote Republican they are voting directly against their best interests.
This is because the coasts treat news of Midwest factory closings and the like as unimportant. The economy is crashing in the Rusty States, and the coasters not only couldn't care less, but probably find it encouraging, since such a thing only translates to short-term gains in their stock portfolios.
You are so wrong about the motivation. Maybe, it's that we're sick of paying welfare ( tax subsidies and the like )for these people who refuse to think about their vote before casting it. Further, it's largely their votes that caused the issues they're experiencing. Further, it's been obvious that this was coming if they kept up with voting against the country's best interest and their own, so hearing them whine like little bitches about what *they fucking brought down on all of us* makes me fucking sick at this point.
Despite my contempt for attitudes like yours, it still isn't rational to sympathize with the Midwesterners who are turning into America's fastest growing wage-slave class.
Now if none of these stupid fuckers ever votes for a Republican again, then they will have demonstrated the ability to learn. Since they still support this administration, they have nobody but their own ignorant selves to blame.
Sorry, but if they can't even be bothered to think through their choices, and then refuse to take any personal responsibility for the results of their choices then they can fuck themselves. They've already fucked everybody else.
The fact that they have been living under socialism for decades and only now are learning about capitalism and still refuse to be honest about the results puts the blame squarely on them.
The burden is to prove that this guy is somehow dishonest.
No, it isn't. He was paid by Microsoft to perform a job. The *required* assumption is that he is now working to help Microsoft. Period.
That isn't even an assumption. It's the way business works. In fact, Microsoft's leaders would be liable if this were not the case.
Until you can show that his funding does in fact affect his data, then you're simply making shit up.
No, until you can show absolute proof that every word in the study is accurate, every possible interaction was taken into account, and every single possible bias is explicitly listed in the study with all possible differences they could cause, then you are simply shilling.
Where could you possibly have gotten the idea that the default assumption *in any case ever* should be that the paid advocate is to be believed blindly until proven otherwise?!?
And all you jackass mods, what part of my post was a troll? Was it the part where I said something true and logica, or the part where you didn't what I said, despite the fact that it is true?
It's probably the fact that what you ssaid isn't true, coupled with the fact that it is not a logical fallacy to be skeptical, coupled with the fact that your claim boils down to "believe whatever a corporate shill tells you".
Yeah, it's nice. I mention I can compile a kernel in any bar, and models, strippers and hookers are begging me to do coke off their tits. Truly amazing.
I'm going to be a very unpopular middleschool science teacher when I graduate college. I really should just move.
No, think this through. You'll be a rebel. Nothing the naughtiest of the school girls like more than that. Of course, that's illegal so you probably wouldn't want to do anything about that. Of course, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned so your refusal will probably prompt her to make up some story about what you did. Now of course, given that you're one of those evil satanic heathens or whatever nobody in the community would be likely to doubt any bad story about you so you'll end up in prison for a long time...
Please oh please, find a way to get yourself on TV so you can actually get that viewpoint out there. I'm not a Christian, but the philosophy is pretty cool all in all. The people who you are apologizing for are about as viciously anti-Christian as it is possible to get which means if they keep on as they are going, you and those like you will be burned at the stake right after the heathens like me.
Your people really do need to step up and defend your faith, because it is being destroyed from the inside.
Yes it is. Have you ever seen a dog? A seedless watermelon? There 100% absolute positive proof of evolution. It exists, it's real and it's all around you all the time.
It is what is the most commonly accepted explanation for how life started and turned into what it is today.
Absolutely not. "The Theory of Evolution", which is a different entity than "evolution" seeks to explain how life changed over the years. It does not seek to explain how life started. It does a fairly decent job of explaining what it tries to. Not perfect, but nobody on that side claims it is.
Do you see why sane, rational people get very frightened when people who are incapable of even bothering to figure out what it is they are fighting against are trying to destroy the most important protection that is the fundamental basis of our society?
Seriously, people like you terrify people who are moral and rational. You're neither, and history is full of the results of letting evil like that get control.
You have no idea what it is you are arguing against, but you argue against it because evil people with agendas have told you it means something totally different than it does and you believe the evil people. Heck, you probably worship at their churches and think they're holy.
Shit. That sucks. He hasn't lost my vote yet (god, I hope he runs), but between that and kissing W's ass during the last election... I dunno. He's slowly loosing "awesome" points with me.
Hech dude, he lost all integrity on kissing W's ass. He was a soldier and a POW who lost the primary in large part due to W's assault on him in terms of his courage, service, and patriotism.
Coming from a cowardly deserter, that was a vicious slap in the face to anybody who ever wore a uniform.
McCain then demonstrated that his loyalty above all else was to his party rather than to his country, his fellow soldiers, to his honor, or to his integrity.
That really and truly sucks for our country because he actually is about the only Republican in congress that isn't a complete and total scumbag piece of shit. Just like Feingold is about the only Democrat.
Maybe Feingold/McCain (have to have the Democrat on top, the Republicans have completely disgraced themselves and betrayed their country too completely in recent years.)
They could run with the motto "We're not complete pieces of shit like the rest of them, just mostly". At least it would be a step towards getting integrity back into government.
Certainly, the results are visible. You're not postulating results, you're postulating a conscious entity making the results happen. The only test for that is to actually see him doing it.
Statistical analysis does nothing. At exactly what probability does it magically change from natural to design? So everything at 1 100 trillionth greater probability couldn't have been said designer? That's the god of the gaps to the extreme.
If one can observe it in the wild, then ID is proven false. No, it isn't. Unless you're postulating that the designer is visible.
No. Put up video cameras over a large area. Observe a new species evolve. ID is proven false, there you go.
Ditto.
That's the point. That is exactly why ID isn't science. You can put a designer anywhere and everywhere for any reason or no reason and it neither makes a difference or adds to the discussion.
Well, somebody considered it interesting so what the heck.
I got home, turns out Dell had an update for people with my exact card and storage solution combined. It worked too;-) So I'm home.
Download latest version, put it in/usr/portage/distfiles/. Emerge Cedega. Trying to emerge the version I already have. Doh! My computer is the local rsync server and it's not in cron, ok emerge --sync. Emerge cedega (take 2). cedega 5 is blocked by Point 2 Play. Right, someone else said Point 2 Play is gone. unmerge that. Don't have much there, don't care if it gets borked. Not worth even reading up first. Emerge cedega (take 3). Worked like a charm. I love you, oh Gentoo cedega package maintainer.
Run cedega. It says, you used to have point 2 play, so lets import all your old crap. Thanks!
Stick in Civ4 disk 1, click install, click mount. Browse, select setup.exe. Bork! Bork! Bork! Crap. Ok, try autorun.exe Nice!
Update direct X. Hmmm... well, WTF I really don't care if it kills everything go for it. OK, installing away.
"Insert disk 2". Alt-Tab click mount. Disk pops out. Insert second disk, click mount, Alt-Tab, click ok. Install away.
Finish, swap disks again, click play. Show first loading dialog, nice.
A whole screen ( in the terminal I ran cedega from) full of: 0005:: Bad stuff: client ignore setting select events for 0x900ed830 to 1
and not much else.
Could try to figure it out. Too late, too many hours this week already. Heck, my boss already gave me Friday off. But the cluster is up, and mysql01 and mysql02 are all updated. Amazing what changes in the year and a half since they were rebooted;-)
YMMV obviously, I suppose a week is a little early to expect a game with the latest directX and an already demonstrated glitchy implementation on its native platform to work well.
Last I checked, NWN or Doom3 or Heretic II were not included in any RPM/DPKG repository, at least not any configured by default on any of the mainstream distributions.
Hmmm.. I wonder....
# emerge doom3 Calculating dependencies...done! >>> emerge (1 of 1) games-fps/doom3-1.3.1302 to /
# emerge heretic2 Calculating dependencies emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "heretic2".
# emerge nwn Calculating dependencies...done! >>> emerge (1 of 1) games-rpg/nwn-1.66 to /
Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Add in Soldier of Fortune, Tribes2 and a bunch of others as well. Neat.
I'm wondering if Civilization 4 will be playable with it. It sure as hell isn't playable under Windows for a metric assload of people. It's not MSs fault, just poor programming released too early, but maybe the memory leaks won't kill performance after only a couple turns.
I'll have to try it when I get home.. Well, if I get home....stupid PERC cards.
Slashdot Mirror
they have all the rights to do that and people who enjoy infringing copyrights are legally and morally wrong in my honest opinion.
So you're saying that they have the right to buy big government legislation to pry into every aspect of your life?
Like hell you're the least bit libertarian in your leanings.
And yes, you have said exactly that several times in this thread.
Well, let's see, I posted my definiton of the fallacy I was applying,
Yes, you did.
which applies perfectly.
No, it doesn't.
For that fallacy to be relevant, what would have to happen would be for somebody to say that since he has been associated with Microsoft then *nothing* he has to say can be true or of any value.
That is indeed a fallacy of the type you're trying to claim is relevant.
That isn't what is happening.
What is happening is that people are saying that since this person was paid to do this study by Microsoft who has paid for bogus, misleading studies many times in the past, that it makes sense to keep that in mind.
That is what is happening, and it is known as basic common sense.
"It's only required if you are completely devoid of ethics, and expect that everyone else is as well."
and ad hominem. It's NOT an ad hominem, and the fact that you don;t know that calls the rest of your post into question.
In fact it is an Ad Hominem. You are attacking me, saying I must be devoid of integrity to think what it is that you are trying to claim I am saying which I quite obviously am not.
You are attacking me, even though you try to make it look like you are attacking my argument. You didn't understand my point, or didn't like it or whatever so obviously I'm lacking in integrity. Therefore, you'll make up some nonsense and claim I said it.
Arguably, strawman would be a better description, but you're being deceptive on several levels, so it's hard to actually nail down exactly which specific fallacies you're using at any given moment. Perhaps, your understanding of logic is so fundamentally flawed that you're just spouting nonsense. Anyway, trying to put a name on what's wrong with your rant is pretty worthless at this point.
Studies, which are often paid for by specific companies, ar ealso just as often reqired to be INDEPENDENT.
Which is totally irrelevant to the point that he was paid by Microsoft to do this *JOB* for them.
You're also, again, ignoring the main point which is that Microsoft has a long history of paying for "independent" studies and the studies showing up totally slanted.
Again, this *fact* doesn't mean that there is no truth whatsoever in this study (that would be the fallacy you keep trying unsuccessfully to cram in here) but it does mean that it needs to be looked at very hard before accepting anything in it. Again, this is basic common sense.
Oh here, you demonstrate your inability to read the definition again:
"I am not assuming anything. Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly their total lack of ethics. He accepted a *job* with an extremely dishonest company.
That fact alone puts his ethics very clearly in question."
Yay, you restated EXACTLY the same fallacy I started out denouncing. You know this one
You are so fucking wrong it's silly at this point.
If I said that he could never again be believed on a single thing then I would have made that fallacy.
He chose to take money from a known criminal, extremely corrupt and dishonest company.
That does call his morals into question. How does it not?!?
If it's a fallacy, then it would be trivial to show how it does not, but you can't.
Look at what I said above about how a fallacious interpretation could be made.
Since he blagh blagh, he can no longer be believed under any circumstances. He says the sky is blue. Does that mean the sky is not blue? Of course not, because *that* is the fallacy you keep trying to use where it in no way is relevant.
Examples:
"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!
You can have your glorious peoples' republic, others can live in a christian theocracy, and I can live in a place that values individual and economic liberty.
I don't know where you got that insane nutjobism.
I'm sick of paying for welfare staters who don't even have the integrity to admit that that is what they are.
I'll take the individual liberty *and* responsibility state, as was obvious in everything I said.
Where that puts you, I don't know. Maybe in the "I want to claim I believe in liberty but would rather bitch about anybody calling people on not living up what they claim to believe in while living off of my tax dollars" camp. I have no idea what else you could believe if you're trying to claim I want a workers paradise when my sole complaint was welfare state socialists without the courage to admit it to themselves.
The rest of your ignorant rant was equally nonsensical, since the Theocracy would obviously be the poorest, since it already is even with the tremendous amount of wealth that they steal from the states in the union that actually pay their own way.
Take away the thievery that props up their backwards ass economy, and it would collapse.
As for "Red States", note that I used the term "Rusty States", not as a political color, but as the indicator of post-industrial-ness with (special emphasis) NOTHING to replace their prosperity with.
;-)
... after watching the big-L Liberal elite try to outlaw freedom of speech and the keeping and bearing of arms, for starters.
... urban and rural, liberal and conservative, yuppie and redneck, technician and salesman, labor and management.
Sure, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth. This fundamental dichotomy in our country is one of my big issues, so I jump in sometimes to point it out when a related issue comes up
Urban yuppies were voting for Clinton, Gore and Kerry in droves, while these assholes did their political work of extensively greasing the wheels of globalism -- which is just socialism for the wealthy, and the free market for the working class.
Sure. I never claimed the Democrats were good. The best you can really say is that they have to maintain some sort of tenuous grip on reality since their base is very diverse and generally has better bullshit detectors. Whereas, there are still people trying to defend this administration over their lying about the Iraq war. I'll bet there are even nutjobs repeating the administration's nonsense about "rewriting history" when people like me who actually read the Project for a new American Century have been saying the same exact thing since 2000. That's a fundamental difference. Clinton was impeached over a blowjob after an incredibly expensive witch hunt. Bush is still spewing blatant lies and barely getting called on it even at this point because his supporters believe him becasue they want to believe him and reality be damned.
The disenfranchised conservative folk in the flyover finally rallied behind an icon
Now here, you're pretty far off base.
In the first place, they are hardly "disenfranchised". They have far more political power than I do merely because they live in rural areas.
Secondly, nobody has tried to outlaw freedom of speech, least of all any sort of "Liberal Elite" which is pretty much a boogy man made up by crazy conservatives to have a direction to focus their hatred.
All the big media is owned by major corporations... you know, the same ones selling globalism as hard as possible?
We're all to blame.
True.
We all have to fix this.
True.
Disdain of any kind is not serving the solution. We can point fingers for a bit, but eventually we have to work together
True enough, but when you have one group that is so far out there, so out of touch with reality, then how do you propose having a rational discussion with them?!?
I'm an "evil communist bastard" (who pays their fucking bills for them), and anything I have to say is an "evil Liberal plot".
Seriously, these people don't even understand basic economics enough to realise that when they get more back from the government than they put in then they are not living under capitalism. How are you supposed to discuss globalism or economics with them?!?
They are totally unable to recognize that rampant hyper capitalism is inherently liberalising, and so the "moral breakdown of our society" is a direct result of their actions, yet they keep doing the same thing expecting different results.
That's the commonly used definition of insanity.
Seriously, how are we supposed to have rational discussions with people who are incapable of being rational?!?
It's at least 50 years worth of reinforced delusion that we're fighting against if we want to even open a rational dialog. Do you honestly expect these people to recognize their own responsibility, step up and take the blame for it and work to actually help anything?!?
I'm well past the point of believing that's possible. It would take an incredible amount of integrity, and I just don't see anybody on that side with any. There isn
It's because the "Red Staters" have different values.
Yeah, they'll vote for anybody who tells them their predicament isn't their fault. As long as they're given somebody else to blame, and do not have to take any personal responsibility for anything then they're happy.
In sum, Red Staters would rather be fucked by someone who doesn't demand absolute control over them.
Whereas I'd prefer to try and avoid getting fucked at all rather than wrapping my whole life in a delusion.
By the way, the only reason that "Blue States" pay more taxes is because the wealth from "Red States" is shipped to the coasts where it can be transported overseas. The "Blue States" aren't supporting the "Red States", they're living in luxury off of the wealth of the "Red States" and pretending they're not capitalists while they exploit proletariat.
Yeah right.
What fucking wealth of the Red States?
Sorry, but For the most part, the Red states pay negative net taxes. That's my money taken away to pay for their fucking phones and electricity.
Sorry to break it to you, but if the Blue States split off from the Red states we'd have billions in surplus which now goes to the welfare states.
More that we're voting against socialism. By helping small business, jobs are created. I get to work in those jobs. I could even make a business and thus jobs. Why should I vote to be taxed into oblivion and no hope for earning any money or making any(if I'm a business).
The point is that you already are living under socialism if you're in a rural area, and you're voting for the ones pissing your jobs overseas all the time whining about how you hate socialism.
Now you're getting your first real taste of capitalism and not liking it at all.
Instead of admitting your mistakes and workingg to fix things, you keep blaming your problems on those who pay your welfare.
That's the problem.
"He was paid by Microsoft to perform a job."
NO, he was paid to do a STUDY,
How is performing a study not a job? Exactly.
You're assuming he would risk that for a paycheck, which speaks more to your lack of ethics than his.
No, it says nothing about my ethics, nice try at the around the back strawman attack, but no dice bucko.
I am not assuming anything. Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly their total lack of ethics. He accepted a *job* with an extremely dishonest company.
That fact alone puts his ethics very clearly in question.
"The *required* assumption is that he is now working to help Microsoft. Period."
It's only required if you are completely devoid of ethics, and expect that everyone else is as well.
Again with the valueless ad hominem attacks that don't even make sense.
He was paid to do a job for Microsoft.
It is required as an assumption unless you are assuming that Microsoft is working against their own financial interests. Why would they pay for something that they expect to hurt them?
Ok, I get it. HE'S NOT AN "ADVOCATE". You have assumed he is because you don't like his results. That's bad science, but I doubt very seriously if you care, because this about being right for you, not about the facts. You want MS to be evil, and by association, everyone around them must be evil as well.
No, I did no such thing, nor is there a rational way for you to conclude that I did based on what I said.
He is an advocate because he was paid *by Microsoft* to do a job. Period.
I do not want MS to be evil, however, the facts demonstrate absolutely that they are an extremely unethical company. Anyone who accepts money from them does bear watching from an ethical perspective, that's just reality.
Why is it NOT a logical fallacy when it meets the exact definfition of the fallacy provided?
Because it doesn't meet the definition for one.
Being suspicious of a study by a person who was paid to do a study by a company with a long history of buying bogus studies is basic common sense, not a logical fallacy.
And why are you so fucking excited to be a shill for Novell? See, works both ways, but because you know nothing of logic and reason, you didn't see any of that coming.
More ridiculous ad hominems with no basis in reality.
I got my BS in mathematics, so I know quite a bit about logic and reason. You clearly do not since you are continually misapplying a basic definition. It's a little tough to maintain a consistent argument when you can't even understand the definitions you are trying to use.
It's all about class war, Ace. The Midwesterners are merely on the losing side, and losers never get fair treatment from the media.
It is about class war, most of us are losers in it, but you have totally failed to even recognize the facts of the matter.
The Midwesterners, Rural people, Red Staters, whatever you want to call them are "on" the winning side, since they continually vote for the Republican party who is the party of the wealthy elite. The fact that their choices continue to fuck them *as well as everyone else* has been obvious for decades now, but they stubbornly refuse to actually think things through before they vote.
The fact is that when Rural folk, Christian folk, and anybody who is not *extremely rich* vote Republican they are voting directly against their best interests.
This is because the coasts treat news of Midwest factory closings and the like as unimportant. The economy is crashing in the Rusty States, and the coasters not only couldn't care less, but probably find it encouraging, since such a thing only translates to short-term gains in their stock portfolios.
You are so wrong about the motivation.
Maybe, it's that we're sick of paying welfare ( tax subsidies and the like )for these people who refuse to think about their vote before casting it. Further, it's largely their votes that caused the issues they're experiencing. Further, it's been obvious that this was coming if they kept up with voting against the country's best interest and their own, so hearing them whine like little bitches about what *they fucking brought down on all of us* makes me fucking sick at this point.
Despite my contempt for attitudes like yours, it still isn't rational to sympathize with the Midwesterners who are turning into America's fastest growing wage-slave class.
Now if none of these stupid fuckers ever votes for a Republican again, then they will have demonstrated the ability to learn. Since they still support this administration, they have nobody but their own ignorant selves to blame.
Sorry, but if they can't even be bothered to think through their choices, and then refuse to take any personal responsibility for the results of their choices then they can fuck themselves. They've already fucked everybody else.
The fact that they have been living under socialism for decades and only now are learning about capitalism and still refuse to be honest about the results puts the blame squarely on them.
The burden is to prove that this guy is somehow dishonest.
No, it isn't.
He was paid by Microsoft to perform a job.
The *required* assumption is that he is now working to help Microsoft. Period.
That isn't even an assumption. It's the way business works. In fact, Microsoft's leaders would be liable if this were not the case.
Until you can show that his funding does in fact affect his data, then you're simply making shit up.
No, until you can show absolute proof that every word in the study is accurate, every possible interaction was taken into account, and every single possible bias is explicitly listed in the study with all possible differences they could cause, then you are simply shilling.
Where could you possibly have gotten the idea that the default assumption *in any case ever* should be that the paid advocate is to be believed blindly until proven otherwise?!?
And all you jackass mods, what part of my post was a troll? Was it the part where I said something true and logica, or the part where you didn't what I said, despite the fact that it is true?
It's probably the fact that what you ssaid isn't true, coupled with the fact that it is not a logical fallacy to be skeptical, coupled with the fact that your claim boils down to "believe whatever a corporate shill tells you".
or Gods.
Yeah, it's nice. I mention I can compile a kernel in any bar, and models, strippers and hookers are begging me to do coke off their tits.
Truly amazing.
No prob, It's been a long week already ;-)
Good luck.
Stats answered this question a long ass time ago. Read up on confidence intervals.
Present some possible way that doesn't boil down to religion in which this can be applied to the subject.
I'm going to be a very unpopular middleschool science teacher when I graduate college. I really should just move.
;-)
No, think this through. You'll be a rebel. Nothing the naughtiest of the school girls like more than that. Of course, that's illegal so you probably wouldn't want to do anything about that. Of course, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned so your refusal will probably prompt her to make up some story about what you did. Now of course, given that you're one of those evil satanic heathens or whatever nobody in the community would be likely to doubt any bad story about you so you'll end up in prison for a long time...
Ok, maybe you'd better move
Please oh please, find a way to get yourself on TV so you can actually get that viewpoint out there.
I'm not a Christian, but the philosophy is pretty cool all in all. The people who you are apologizing for are about as viciously anti-Christian as it is possible to get which means if they keep on as they are going, you and those like you will be burned at the stake right after the heathens like me.
Your people really do need to step up and defend your faith, because it is being destroyed from the inside.
Evolution is not a fact!
Yes it is. Have you ever seen a dog? A seedless watermelon? There 100% absolute positive proof of evolution. It exists, it's real and it's all around you all the time.
It is what is the most commonly accepted explanation for how life started and turned into what it is today.
Absolutely not. "The Theory of Evolution", which is a different entity than "evolution" seeks to explain how life changed over the years. It does not seek to explain how life started. It does a fairly decent job of explaining what it tries to. Not perfect, but nobody on that side claims it is.
Do you see why sane, rational people get very frightened when people who are incapable of even bothering to figure out what it is they are fighting against are trying to destroy the most important protection that is the fundamental basis of our society?
Seriously, people like you terrify people who are moral and rational. You're neither, and history is full of the results of letting evil like that get control.
You have no idea what it is you are arguing against, but you argue against it because evil people with agendas have told you it means something totally different than it does and you believe the evil people. Heck, you probably worship at their churches and think they're holy.
Jerry Kilgore (*republican candidate* for VA gov.)
;-)
But, if you ask me, it was more that Kilgore ran a strictly attack campaign
You're repeating yourself
Seriously, it's not like the Democrats don't do it as well, but the Republicans wrote the book on hate-based media manipulation and campaigning.
Shit. That sucks. He hasn't lost my vote yet (god, I hope he runs), but between that and kissing W's ass during the last election... I dunno. He's slowly loosing "awesome" points with me.
Hech dude, he lost all integrity on kissing W's ass. He was a soldier and a POW who lost the primary in large part due to W's assault on him in terms of his courage, service, and patriotism.
Coming from a cowardly deserter, that was a vicious slap in the face to anybody who ever wore a uniform.
McCain then demonstrated that his loyalty above all else was to his party rather than to his country, his fellow soldiers, to his honor, or to his integrity.
That really and truly sucks for our country because he actually is about the only Republican in congress that isn't a complete and total scumbag piece of shit.
Just like Feingold is about the only Democrat.
Maybe Feingold/McCain (have to have the Democrat on top, the Republicans have completely disgraced themselves and betrayed their country too completely in recent years.)
They could run with the motto "We're not complete pieces of shit like the rest of them, just mostly". At least it would be a step towards getting integrity back into government.
A picture of OBL and one of his cronies standing in a cornfield, with the crony saying "I don't think we're in Afghanistan any more, Osama."
;-)
Nice work. That's really funny
No, but the results are.
Certainly, the results are visible. You're not postulating results, you're postulating a conscious entity making the results happen. The only test for that is to actually see him doing it.
Statistical analysis does nothing. At exactly what probability does it magically change from natural to design?
So everything at 1 100 trillionth greater probability couldn't have been said designer?
That's the god of the gaps to the extreme.
If one can observe it in the wild, then ID is proven false.
No, it isn't. Unless you're postulating that the designer is visible.
No. Put up video cameras over a large area. Observe a new species evolve. ID is proven false, there you go.
Ditto.
That's the point.
That is exactly why ID isn't science. You can put a designer anywhere and everywhere for any reason or no reason and it neither makes a difference or adds to the discussion.
Well, somebody considered it interesting so what the heck.
;-) So I'm home.
/usr/portage/distfiles/.
;-)
I got home, turns out Dell had an update for people with my exact card and storage solution combined. It worked too
Download latest version, put it in
Emerge Cedega. Trying to emerge the version I already have. Doh! My computer is the local rsync server and it's not in cron, ok emerge --sync.
Emerge cedega (take 2). cedega 5 is blocked by Point 2 Play. Right, someone else said Point 2 Play is gone. unmerge that. Don't have much there, don't care if it gets borked. Not worth even reading up first.
Emerge cedega (take 3). Worked like a charm. I love you, oh Gentoo cedega package maintainer.
Run cedega. It says, you used to have point 2 play, so lets import all your old crap. Thanks!
Stick in Civ4 disk 1, click install, click mount. Browse, select setup.exe. Bork! Bork! Bork! Crap.
Ok, try autorun.exe Nice!
Update direct X. Hmmm... well, WTF I really don't care if it kills everything go for it. OK, installing away.
"Insert disk 2". Alt-Tab click mount. Disk pops out. Insert second disk, click mount, Alt-Tab, click ok. Install away.
Finish, swap disks again, click play.
Show first loading dialog, nice.
A whole screen ( in the terminal I ran cedega from) full of:
0005:: Bad stuff: client ignore setting select events for 0x900ed830 to 1
and not much else.
Could try to figure it out. Too late, too many hours this week already. Heck, my boss already gave me Friday off.
But the cluster is up, and mysql01 and mysql02 are all updated. Amazing what changes in the year and a half since they were rebooted
YMMV obviously, I suppose a week is a little early to expect a game with the latest directX and an already demonstrated glitchy implementation on its native platform to work well.
If none of them do, you'd probably be best off just doing no wrong, as that generally leads to the most pleasant sort of life for the most people.
;-)
None of them do, and that's basically what I do.
Occasionally, I even try to do some right.
You could also try being a completely selfish bastard, but evidence seems to suggest that leads to a high probability of long term loneliness.
Tried it, it just didn't work for me. In part for the reasons you gave
Hmmm.... I'm feeling a Fight Club moment...I don't remember registering your account..Tyler?
Last I checked, NWN or Doom3 or Heretic II were not included in any RPM/DPKG repository, at least not any configured by default on any of the mainstream distributions.
...done!
...done!
Hmmm.. I wonder....
# emerge doom3
Calculating dependencies
>>> emerge (1 of 1) games-fps/doom3-1.3.1302 to /
# emerge heretic2
Calculating dependencies
emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "heretic2".
# emerge nwn
Calculating dependencies
>>> emerge (1 of 1) games-rpg/nwn-1.66 to /
Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
Add in Soldier of Fortune, Tribes2 and a bunch of others as well.
Neat.
I'm wondering if Civilization 4 will be playable with it.
It sure as hell isn't playable under Windows for a metric assload of people.
It's not MSs fault, just poor programming released too early, but maybe the memory leaks won't kill performance after only a couple turns.
I'll have to try it when I get home.. Well, if I get home....stupid PERC cards.