I was thinking the same thing. I remember an episode of This American Life, or maybe it was Radiolab, that talked about using software to predict whether somebody was likely to re-offend. It seemed pretty clear that "trained" humans were about as good as a coin flip (ugh, I wish I could find the study, now all the Google hits are for this latest news). I suspect it's because some of the training overrules some common sense things that the unwashed masses might be subconsciously considering. We might be in the interesting situation where people trained are less accurate than an average assessment by untrained people.
I wouldn't call you a racist for mentioning indisputable facts. On the other hand, claiming things are indisputable facts and then not citing any sources probably means you are full of shit. I can't find a citation for that, so it's just an opinion. I would call you a racist for using faulty logic and made-up statistics to perpetuate racist myths.
Also, your arguments aren't just "controversial to the SJW's," they are controversial to anybody who doesn't believe that any particular group of people are "likely to be criminals." That doesn't even make sense. It implies that a majority of people in that group are criminal. You could argue that a majority of criminals who get caught and convicted fall within a certain IQ range, but that is not the same as saying that people in that IQ bracket are likely to be criminals based solely on their IQ.
Unless the SWAT officer left the station "OH BOY I GET TO KILL SOMEONE TODAY!!!!" it's not premeditation.
Even leaving the station telling people that wouldn't be sufficient. Not for a cop. They can literally say, "I'm gonna kill this motherfucker" and still get acquitted, as long as the victim is black.
I think this should work. There are a lot of reviews for this place, and nearly any time there's a negative, the owner or manager has reached out to apologize (if it's a food issue), or explain why the complainer is wrong (if it's a "I didn't want to wait in line like everybody else" issue).
Your logic is flawed in several places. It's almost like you went to the Wikipedia article on fallacies and tried to figure out how to work as many different ones in as you could.
Obviously, somebody's beliefs on whether the police provide them adequate protection is not indicative of cannabis use. I am a counterexample, and there are several others. This is a case of hasty generalization and appeal to motive.
"Regular Americans disagree with you." That's argumentum ad populum, and a little bit "no true Scotsman."
"The cops are on our side, and always have been." Begging the question, ipse dixit, and appeal to tradition.
"You're a weird minority." Ad hominem and pejorative language
The fourth amendment says the security of your person and things against unreasonable search and seizure shall not be violated, and that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. It does not say that all searches without a warrant are unreasonable. You are reading too much into it, and evidence from reasonable searches, even without a warrant, is allowed to be entered into a case. You are essentially denying the antecedent: if warrant, then reasonable; not warrant, therefore not reasonable.
"Judges in this country are liberal." Thought terminating cliche.
"The warrants that get issued are statistically going to be pretty good." Inductive fallacy, and appeal to probability.
I wanted to put some context around Mr Scaccia's review.
First, no disputting it, I'm fat. I take issue with the rude and slob parts. I shower every day. I say please and thank you. But, fat, unfortunately I can't dispute that.
OK, let's talk about our interaction yesterday.
It goes on from there to explain to this bozo how a line in a Texas BBQ joint works. You place your order, then you sit down. It's common courtesy.
I don't know anybody who still uses Yelp. There have been so many of these stories over the years that the ratings just seem meaningless. Sort of like the BBB. Google Maps just seems more trustworthy, and I get very fast responses from owners if I leave negative feedback. Also, there are a lot more people using Google to leave reviews now, so people must see some value in expressing their opinion there.
I've wondered why they don't just tax the behavior they're trying to prevent and subsidize the behavior they want. Both parties say they want to see middle class wage growth, but nobody on either side of the aisle has proposed tying corporate tax rates to their wage growth. They say they want to stimulate the economy, but nobody proposes taxing savings to encourage spending. Am I missing some obvious reason why neither of those tactics have been tried? They seem much simpler than a lot of the existing loopholes and anti-loopholes (AMT).
Do you have any idea how many really useful regulations are not actually written into law per se? That's the only way the federal government can function. The congress is sooooo dysfunctional that they relegate the execution of the law to the *gasp* executive branch. If the congress had to agree on changing the decibel level at which hearing protection was required, do you think we would ever get anything done? If it were left to the states, we'd end up with a race to the bottom. I'm all for the 10th amendment, but the states have proven just as corruptible as the federal government.
While I really love the sarcasm, the answer is not as clear cut as you think it is. A simple Google search simply cannot reveal all the answers, especially with something as byzantine as copyright law. Specifically, I was talking about somebody who is not a teacher (so 110(1) doesn't apply) at a PTO fundraiser (so not educational). 110(4)B might apply, which is crazy because apparently the impetus is on the copyright owner in this case to notify the performer. (Interestingly, this would seem to apply to most church choirs, but many of them get license agreements anyway. Maybe because so many of them stream services or upload to Youtube these days)
You shouldn't have to be a copyright lawyer to know whether you're breaking the law.
You need to revisit the definition of shill. People who are deeply enthusiastic about something and share their opinions are not shills. You can call them activists, proponents, meat-puppets, or annoying relatives. They are only shills if they do not honestly hold the opinions they espouse, and are expressing them in order to get some remuneration from an interested party. It's possible there are people on both sides who are paid shills, but it's more likely that there are just a lot of Americans who don't want the Internet to turn into yet another bastion of unadulterated, pay-for-every-fucking-thing capitalism. (see airlines and healthcare)
It's a "for fun" book. He burns through about 100 books a year. A lot of peer pressure in this school to read. It's fascinating to watch. We hit the local library during the summer, otherwise he gets twitchy. His little sister is picking up the same reading habits. I count myself lucky.
Are you implying that a 10 year old should be technically and legally savvy enough to be able to read Apple's terms of service and agree to those terms?
Ah, so you subscribe to the illegal=wrong belief system. I can see a certain simplicity in that logic, but in this case it is not clear that downloading an illegal PDF is in itself illegal. To me, scaring a 10 year old out of $7 is wrong, even though it's legal. Did you know that reading a book out loud to a classroom full of kids is a public performance of the work, and is technically a violation of copyright law? Does that make it immoral?
This is the funniest part of the story. He won the Kindle in a raffle. The little bugger has never entered a raffle where he didn't win at least something. I should take him to Vegas!
My best advice to you is that you have your strongest voice as a citizen in local government, which includes your school. Teach your child to engage in a productive way with government by example. Don't simply accept what the government is telling you to do. That's not how our system is supposed to work. The solution here is to get your school to change their rules. Start with a teacher, then the principle, then up from there.
He's actually on his student council. (They have student council in 5th grade!) Also, in April, he went to Austin to deliver testimony on a bill that was important to him. So he doesn't mind (even relishes) being active. I think it's just the "breaking the rules" thing is hard for him. He nags me when I go 67 in a 65. Maybe I should count my blessings. Thank you for the insight.
Ah. Lead by example. I guess I have been too good/lazy of a consumer for him to witness anything else. I used to rip and make copies as needed whenever it suited me, but ever since having kids, I haven't had time. LOL. This probably is the root cause of the problem. Very insightful. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking the same thing. I remember an episode of This American Life, or maybe it was Radiolab, that talked about using software to predict whether somebody was likely to re-offend. It seemed pretty clear that "trained" humans were about as good as a coin flip (ugh, I wish I could find the study, now all the Google hits are for this latest news). I suspect it's because some of the training overrules some common sense things that the unwashed masses might be subconsciously considering. We might be in the interesting situation where people trained are less accurate than an average assessment by untrained people.
I wouldn't call you a racist for mentioning indisputable facts. On the other hand, claiming things are indisputable facts and then not citing any sources probably means you are full of shit. I can't find a citation for that, so it's just an opinion. I would call you a racist for using faulty logic and made-up statistics to perpetuate racist myths.
Also, your arguments aren't just "controversial to the SJW's," they are controversial to anybody who doesn't believe that any particular group of people are "likely to be criminals." That doesn't even make sense. It implies that a majority of people in that group are criminal. You could argue that a majority of criminals who get caught and convicted fall within a certain IQ range, but that is not the same as saying that people in that IQ bracket are likely to be criminals based solely on their IQ.
Unless the SWAT officer left the station "OH BOY I GET TO KILL SOMEONE TODAY!!!!" it's not premeditation.
Even leaving the station telling people that wouldn't be sufficient. Not for a cop. They can literally say, "I'm gonna kill this motherfucker" and still get acquitted, as long as the victim is black.
I think this should work. There are a lot of reviews for this place, and nearly any time there's a negative, the owner or manager has reached out to apologize (if it's a food issue), or explain why the complainer is wrong (if it's a "I didn't want to wait in line like everybody else" issue).
I forgot to mention. I think the GP is completely wrong. Just not for the reasons you said.
Your logic is flawed in several places. It's almost like you went to the Wikipedia article on fallacies and tried to figure out how to work as many different ones in as you could.
Obviously, somebody's beliefs on whether the police provide them adequate protection is not indicative of cannabis use. I am a counterexample, and there are several others. This is a case of hasty generalization and appeal to motive.
"Regular Americans disagree with you." That's argumentum ad populum, and a little bit "no true Scotsman."
"The cops are on our side, and always have been." Begging the question, ipse dixit, and appeal to tradition.
"You're a weird minority." Ad hominem and pejorative language
The fourth amendment says the security of your person and things against unreasonable search and seizure shall not be violated, and that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. It does not say that all searches without a warrant are unreasonable. You are reading too much into it, and evidence from reasonable searches, even without a warrant, is allowed to be entered into a case. You are essentially denying the antecedent: if warrant, then reasonable; not warrant, therefore not reasonable.
"Judges in this country are liberal." Thought terminating cliche.
"The warrants that get issued are statistically going to be pretty good." Inductive fallacy, and appeal to probability.
Shell was never Standard Oil, AFAIK. I almost said BP, but it looks like they ingested Sohio. What an interesting family tree of companies that is.
Just check out this gem from Google Maps:
Response from the owner 4 years ago:
This is the fat slob.
I wanted to put some context around Mr Scaccia's review.
First, no disputting it, I'm fat. I take issue with the rude and slob parts. I shower every day. I say please and thank you. But, fat, unfortunately I can't dispute that.
OK, let's talk about our interaction yesterday.
It goes on from there to explain to this bozo how a line in a Texas BBQ joint works. You place your order, then you sit down. It's common courtesy.
I don't know anybody who still uses Yelp. There have been so many of these stories over the years that the ratings just seem meaningless. Sort of like the BBB. Google Maps just seems more trustworthy, and I get very fast responses from owners if I leave negative feedback. Also, there are a lot more people using Google to leave reviews now, so people must see some value in expressing their opinion there.
I've wondered why they don't just tax the behavior they're trying to prevent and subsidize the behavior they want. Both parties say they want to see middle class wage growth, but nobody on either side of the aisle has proposed tying corporate tax rates to their wage growth. They say they want to stimulate the economy, but nobody proposes taxing savings to encourage spending. Am I missing some obvious reason why neither of those tactics have been tried? They seem much simpler than a lot of the existing loopholes and anti-loopholes (AMT).
Do you have any idea how many really useful regulations are not actually written into law per se? That's the only way the federal government can function. The congress is sooooo dysfunctional that they relegate the execution of the law to the *gasp* executive branch. If the congress had to agree on changing the decibel level at which hearing protection was required, do you think we would ever get anything done? If it were left to the states, we'd end up with a race to the bottom. I'm all for the 10th amendment, but the states have proven just as corruptible as the federal government.
While I really love the sarcasm, the answer is not as clear cut as you think it is. A simple Google search simply cannot reveal all the answers, especially with something as byzantine as copyright law. Specifically, I was talking about somebody who is not a teacher (so 110(1) doesn't apply) at a PTO fundraiser (so not educational). 110(4)B might apply, which is crazy because apparently the impetus is on the copyright owner in this case to notify the performer. (Interestingly, this would seem to apply to most church choirs, but many of them get license agreements anyway. Maybe because so many of them stream services or upload to Youtube these days)
You shouldn't have to be a copyright lawyer to know whether you're breaking the law.
You need to revisit the definition of shill. People who are deeply enthusiastic about something and share their opinions are not shills. You can call them activists, proponents, meat-puppets, or annoying relatives. They are only shills if they do not honestly hold the opinions they espouse, and are expressing them in order to get some remuneration from an interested party. It's possible there are people on both sides who are paid shills, but it's more likely that there are just a lot of Americans who don't want the Internet to turn into yet another bastion of unadulterated, pay-for-every-fucking-thing capitalism. (see airlines and healthcare)
The only people who have time to argue against the welfare state are those who make enough money at their first job to not need a second. Or third.
I had forgotten the name of that story. I read it many years ago. Thanks.
Worst. Soviet Russia joke. EVAR!
It's a "for fun" book. He burns through about 100 books a year. A lot of peer pressure in this school to read. It's fascinating to watch. We hit the local library during the summer, otherwise he gets twitchy. His little sister is picking up the same reading habits. I count myself lucky.
Are you implying that a 10 year old should be technically and legally savvy enough to be able to read Apple's terms of service and agree to those terms?
Ah, so you subscribe to the illegal=wrong belief system. I can see a certain simplicity in that logic, but in this case it is not clear that downloading an illegal PDF is in itself illegal. To me, scaring a 10 year old out of $7 is wrong, even though it's legal. Did you know that reading a book out loud to a classroom full of kids is a public performance of the work, and is technically a violation of copyright law? Does that make it immoral?
Actually, that's in PD now.
This is the funniest part of the story. He won the Kindle in a raffle. The little bugger has never entered a raffle where he didn't win at least something. I should take him to Vegas!
My best advice to you is that you have your strongest voice as a citizen in local government, which includes your school. Teach your child to engage in a productive way with government by example. Don't simply accept what the government is telling you to do. That's not how our system is supposed to work. The solution here is to get your school to change their rules. Start with a teacher, then the principle, then up from there.
He's actually on his student council. (They have student council in 5th grade!) Also, in April, he went to Austin to deliver testimony on a bill that was important to him. So he doesn't mind (even relishes) being active. I think it's just the "breaking the rules" thing is hard for him. He nags me when I go 67 in a 65. Maybe I should count my blessings. Thank you for the insight.
I think that's what bothers me most. He bought a DRM'd format from a Disney-owned author. It's like the worst of the worst for a copyleft guy like me
LOLOL!!! Thank you!
Ah. Lead by example. I guess I have been too good/lazy of a consumer for him to witness anything else. I used to rip and make copies as needed whenever it suited me, but ever since having kids, I haven't had time. LOL. This probably is the root cause of the problem. Very insightful. Thank you.