Then why didn't the agent simply tell Arrington to do so? She should be far more familiar with the paperwork and process than he is. His suggestion was not unreasonable, but the agent's response sure as hell was.
Personally, "pulling troops out" sounds like evacuate completely, but politicians count on their supporters to jump through mental hoops (like you just did) to justify the vague things they say with what they actually do. Bush's supporters did the same. And like I said, there's still plenty more things he has been dishonest about.
Having grown up in the Bible Belt, I can tell you certain religious groups DO have objections to IDs with numbers on them. Specifically, one of the things they mentioned was that such things would be used to justify applying even more numbers to us, exactly as you are arguing here. I haven't checked, but I'm going to guess there was a lawsuit at some point in time (maybe multiple ones, since driver's licenses are state-issued) about the numbers on a driver's license, and it was probably shot down because the license is voluntary. (For the record, I am not religious, and I think the "mark of the beast" is pure quackery, but I equally find it delusional when someone pretends to to know the mind of another.)
There are ways of moving to some new ideas without leaving your entire user base asking "WTF?".
FTFY. The point is, some things are just so new that they simply require learning a new skill. That seems to be the case here. People decried touch screens for years - now they are common. The Kinect is an entirely new input device. So was the Nintendo Wii. I heard all these same complaints then, too. Perhaps they are right this time, and Metro (which is not Windows 8) sucks - but perhaps not. Incremental changes are fine, but sometimes starting from scratch and coming up with something new is also useful. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, and time tells. Anything beyond an individual stating whether or not they like it (such as the original rant) is mere hubris.
Now, I swear I've heard that complaint before. Where was it... ah, yes! Of course, how silly of me. That's the exact same complaint I heard from people when I tried to convince them to use Linux!
The simple fact is anything new has a learning curve, and there's nothing wrong with that. Microsoft is attempting something new. Whether or not it works out is still up in the air, they are learning. I can't fault them for that. Perhaps, like the ranter in the article, it just isn't right for him. Perhaps it is the desktop version of the Nintendo Wii - not targeted at hardcore users, but rather at grandma, grandpa, baby brother, and others who are largely computer illiterate (let's face it, Slashdot has never been Microsoft Window's target audience). Perhaps it is truly a horrible interface. Perhaps they are banking on desktop touch screens becoming the next big thing (I was surprised to learn my neighbor had just purchased one). All I know for certain is that the computer industry changes too fast and too rapidly for anyone to actually be able to predict how good or bad something is, and I certainly can't understand the hubris from one ranting computer user on the Internet mentioned in the article declaring a product should be recalled. By all means, the individual should return the product and get your money back, and if enough do so, then the product may be worth declaring a recall.
Ah, so now it comes out. Given how violent you are, its no wonder you don't want people to have guns - it levels the playing field for people without my training against people like you. That was also a rather pathetic attempt at a straw man argument, given that I never said I would run a fiefdom with my bare hands (if you were truly a martial artist, you'd know they trained with non-firearm weapons). And seriously, "make my day"? Real martial artists bow out of respect to one another before the first punch/kick/whatever is thrown. Your ignorance is showing, you might want to get that checked.
No, you re-read it. The context is very clear - ban guns, and we don't have to worry about deaths from nutcases. The Akihabara incident clearly shows that to be false. So, my original statement stands, you've made a straw man.
To quote Penn and Teller, "You can stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. It's insane!"
No one is saying you can't kill people without guns. It's just harder to do so. Even in the Akhihabara incident, if he had a gun, you really don't believe there would be more than just the 7 dead?
Yes, actually, someone said exactly that, making your statement a straw man. I refuted the claim that no one had died in a mass murder without a gun. But if we are going to imagine things, then imagine what could have happened had there been one trained individual there with a gun - perhaps the body count would have been one (the attacker) rather than seven? We can engage in what-if scenarios all day long - the point is getting rid of guns doesn't stop mass murder (the school was a "gun free zone", as was Virginia Tech), but identifying and helping crazy people will.
Once 3D printing of a gun becomes a reality (and that isn't far off, I suspect I'll live to see the day), what then? Or perhaps, rather than waste time with ineffective laws, we might actually try to identify and help people so that it doesn't matter whether they have access to a gun?
7 dead, Imagine what could have happened if assault rifles had been readily available?
If we are going to imagine things, then imagine what could have happened had there been one trained individual there with a gun - perhaps the body count would have been one (the attacker) rather than seven? We can engage in what-if scenarios all day long - the point is getting rid of guns doesn't stop mass murder (this was a "gun free zone", as was Virginia Tech), but identifying and helping crazy people will.
To quote Penn and Teller, "You can stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. It's insane!"
You don't need to stop all the lunatics, if you make it a little harder, the lazy pot smoking relatively stupid lunatics, will either give up, or conduct their attack with a less dangerous weapon.
Sure, you can kill people with a knife, but it hard work:)
Perhaps you should spend a bit more time looking into the individuals that did these things, as none of them seem very lazy (in fact, several have shown high levels of motivation, intelligence, and higher education). You are trying to judge a crazy person by rational standards - that's crazy!:)
As a martial artist, I can tell you that's not true. Given that the attackers may be armed with some sort of weapon (not just a gun), the actual result of such defense is very questionable. When we train, our instructors constantly tell us we will get hit. Add in weapons, and the possibility for serious injury or death rises rapidly. Martial arts also takes serious time and training before a person ever becomes effective at it. To train someone in the use of a gun takes a few weeks max to hit a human-sized target - which creates this quandary. Guns make it easier for people to kill, so it levels the playing field between someone like me, at 6'3", 250 lbs. with two second-degree black belts and, well, damn near anyone else.
Straw man much? I never said everyone should have an arsenal, or that everyone should be armed (and no where did I mention toasters). I merely pointed out that knife attacks can, and do, result in many people dying, just like gun attacks. The problem is not the existence of guns, or even that crazy people can get them. It's that crazy people need to be helped *before* they go nuts.
Also, this is apparently a news flash for you, but staying out of arms reach does not provide defense against knives. It is rather easy to throw a knife. You also ignore the fact that their are trained civilians who use weapons - trained by, of all people, the police and army (not to mention former police and army officers that are now civilians).
Why is it so hard for you to understand that guns have uses other than crazies shooting up a school? Yes, a gun's intended purpose is to kill. Here's what you aren't saying - killing is in fact entirely legal in certain situations. We have stand your ground laws, the castle doctrine, and self-defense laws which all acknowledge it is legal to kill in certain situations. If you take guns out of people's hand, you are basically ensuring that I, who stand at 6'3", weigh 250 lbs, and holds two second degree black belts will be able to do absolutely anything in the world I want. So go ahead, take all the guns away from the citizens, I'd love to rule a small fiefdom. You can be my court fool. Or perhaps you can realize that having some way to defend yourself that doesn't require you to spend ten plus years studying fighting (while still being at a reach disadvantage from my height) is perhaps a good thing.
That doesn't fit with the description at all. The device that was developed sounds like something that is fixed in place - not something that will lugged around with the military. Even if it could, a car filled with explosives is not exactly something we need to analyze at a parts-per-billion level. This device is used to detect something trying to be hidden, but the false positive rate sounds like it is going to be way too high to be of any use.
How many people will set this off because they inadvertently picked up trace elements of an explosive vapor - will car exhaust fumes set this off? In what context do we really care about the existence of parts per billion amounts of explosive vapors? This might be an impressive technical achievement, but the commercial uses of this seem like a solution in search of a problem.
No, that isn't a problem at all, because you are taking my statements out of context. To add it back in, everyone can't be Bill Gates/Warren Buffet rich. However, everyone who works hard can make good life for themselves. If you can be satisfied with a roof over your head, food on the table, clothes on your back, a car, and cable TV, then those qualities are all you need. If you want to drive around in a Ferrari wearing Armani and dating a supermodel, then you need to have something more. The expectations people have for applying themselves are simply unrealistic.
Actually, what is going to happen is they will only be capable of doing menial, low-pay jobs, but because their letter grades will be equivalent to the more successful white and Asian students, what will actually happen is they will sue and claim racism when companies (reasonably) start hiring less and less of the other races.
The question that really needs to be answered here is: what do we want grades (letter and number) to reflect? A general level of competence in a subject? A comparison of people of the same (broadly defined) race class? Effort put in to learning the subject? Something else entirely?
[sarcasm]Right, I mean, it isn't like a mixed-race child from a broken family could ever become anything significant in this fucked-up country we live in! Oh, wait a minute...[/sarcasm]
I can't tell which depresses me more, the delusional state you live in, or that enough people live in your delusional state to have voted you insightful. America has long been, and still is, a country where anyone has a chance to make something of themselves. Yes, it isn't a big chance, but that's because not everyone gets to be Bill Gates/Warren Buffet wealthy. Yes, some groups of people have it harder than others, but it isn't impossible for any group. Hell, even a poor man in America has it massively better than damn near everywhere else on the planet. That is why we have such a problem with illegal immigrants sneaking in to the country - they know it is true.
It is hardly reductio ad absurdum - there is nothing false, untenable, or absurd about that result, and if you feel there is, go ahead and prove it. I think you don't understand that reductio ad absurdum can be a valid argument, in addition to a logical fallacy. It is up to the opponent to prove it is logically fallacious, not simply label it. I've provided a link, feel free to peruse them at you leisure. I will say it is fairly telling that you followed it up with an ad hominem attack - something that is always logically fallacious.
Which then quickly leads to another problem - why would the public pay to keep all these people with terminal illnesses alive? This leads to a push to have people utilize assisted suicide, because the public won't want to pay for those that refuse it. This is why its best if the government and public tax dollars just stay the hell out of health care.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why didn't the agent simply tell Arrington to do so? She should be far more familiar with the paperwork and process than he is. His suggestion was not unreasonable, but the agent's response sure as hell was.
Personally, "pulling troops out" sounds like evacuate completely, but politicians count on their supporters to jump through mental hoops (like you just did) to justify the vague things they say with what they actually do. Bush's supporters did the same. And like I said, there's still plenty more things he has been dishonest about.
Let's see, we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo is still open, gas prices are still high... need I go on?
I don't suppose you have any evidence to back that up? Because I've got evidence against those claims.
Having grown up in the Bible Belt, I can tell you certain religious groups DO have objections to IDs with numbers on them. Specifically, one of the things they mentioned was that such things would be used to justify applying even more numbers to us, exactly as you are arguing here. I haven't checked, but I'm going to guess there was a lawsuit at some point in time (maybe multiple ones, since driver's licenses are state-issued) about the numbers on a driver's license, and it was probably shot down because the license is voluntary. (For the record, I am not religious, and I think the "mark of the beast" is pure quackery, but I equally find it delusional when someone pretends to to know the mind of another.)
There are ways of moving to some new ideas without leaving your entire user base asking "WTF?".
FTFY. The point is, some things are just so new that they simply require learning a new skill. That seems to be the case here. People decried touch screens for years - now they are common. The Kinect is an entirely new input device. So was the Nintendo Wii. I heard all these same complaints then, too. Perhaps they are right this time, and Metro (which is not Windows 8) sucks - but perhaps not. Incremental changes are fine, but sometimes starting from scratch and coming up with something new is also useful. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, and time tells. Anything beyond an individual stating whether or not they like it (such as the original rant) is mere hubris.
WIndows 8 simply has too steep a learning curve.
Now, I swear I've heard that complaint before. Where was it... ah, yes! Of course, how silly of me. That's the exact same complaint I heard from people when I tried to convince them to use Linux!
The simple fact is anything new has a learning curve, and there's nothing wrong with that. Microsoft is attempting something new. Whether or not it works out is still up in the air, they are learning. I can't fault them for that. Perhaps, like the ranter in the article, it just isn't right for him. Perhaps it is the desktop version of the Nintendo Wii - not targeted at hardcore users, but rather at grandma, grandpa, baby brother, and others who are largely computer illiterate (let's face it, Slashdot has never been Microsoft Window's target audience). Perhaps it is truly a horrible interface. Perhaps they are banking on desktop touch screens becoming the next big thing (I was surprised to learn my neighbor had just purchased one). All I know for certain is that the computer industry changes too fast and too rapidly for anyone to actually be able to predict how good or bad something is, and I certainly can't understand the hubris from one ranting computer user on the Internet mentioned in the article declaring a product should be recalled. By all means, the individual should return the product and get your money back, and if enough do so, then the product may be worth declaring a recall.
Ah, so now it comes out. Given how violent you are, its no wonder you don't want people to have guns - it levels the playing field for people without my training against people like you. That was also a rather pathetic attempt at a straw man argument, given that I never said I would run a fiefdom with my bare hands (if you were truly a martial artist, you'd know they trained with non-firearm weapons). And seriously, "make my day"? Real martial artists bow out of respect to one another before the first punch/kick/whatever is thrown. Your ignorance is showing, you might want to get that checked.
No, you re-read it. The context is very clear - ban guns, and we don't have to worry about deaths from nutcases. The Akihabara incident clearly shows that to be false. So, my original statement stands, you've made a straw man.
Perhaps you should consider the Akihabara massacre.
To quote Penn and Teller, "You can stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. It's insane!"
No one is saying you can't kill people without guns. It's just harder to do so. Even in the Akhihabara incident, if he had a gun, you really don't believe there would be more than just the 7 dead?
Yes, actually, someone said exactly that, making your statement a straw man. I refuted the claim that no one had died in a mass murder without a gun. But if we are going to imagine things, then imagine what could have happened had there been one trained individual there with a gun - perhaps the body count would have been one (the attacker) rather than seven? We can engage in what-if scenarios all day long - the point is getting rid of guns doesn't stop mass murder (the school was a "gun free zone", as was Virginia Tech), but identifying and helping crazy people will.
Once 3D printing of a gun becomes a reality (and that isn't far off, I suspect I'll live to see the day), what then? Or perhaps, rather than waste time with ineffective laws, we might actually try to identify and help people so that it doesn't matter whether they have access to a gun?
Perhaps you should consider the Akihabara massacre.
7 dead, Imagine what could have happened if assault rifles had been readily available?
If we are going to imagine things, then imagine what could have happened had there been one trained individual there with a gun - perhaps the body count would have been one (the attacker) rather than seven? We can engage in what-if scenarios all day long - the point is getting rid of guns doesn't stop mass murder (this was a "gun free zone", as was Virginia Tech), but identifying and helping crazy people will.
To quote Penn and Teller, "You can stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. It's insane!"
You don't need to stop all the lunatics, if you make it a little harder, the lazy pot smoking relatively stupid lunatics, will either give up, or conduct their attack with a less dangerous weapon. Sure, you can kill people with a knife, but it hard work :)
Perhaps you should spend a bit more time looking into the individuals that did these things, as none of them seem very lazy (in fact, several have shown high levels of motivation, intelligence, and higher education). You are trying to judge a crazy person by rational standards - that's crazy! :)
Plus, there is zero defense until authorities arrive well after the fact.
A friend of mine (who was a police officer, no less), liked to tell people, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!"
Apparently you've never heard of the slippery slope fallacy...
As a martial artist, I can tell you that's not true. Given that the attackers may be armed with some sort of weapon (not just a gun), the actual result of such defense is very questionable. When we train, our instructors constantly tell us we will get hit. Add in weapons, and the possibility for serious injury or death rises rapidly. Martial arts also takes serious time and training before a person ever becomes effective at it. To train someone in the use of a gun takes a few weeks max to hit a human-sized target - which creates this quandary. Guns make it easier for people to kill, so it levels the playing field between someone like me, at 6'3", 250 lbs. with two second-degree black belts and, well, damn near anyone else.
Straw man much? I never said everyone should have an arsenal, or that everyone should be armed (and no where did I mention toasters). I merely pointed out that knife attacks can, and do, result in many people dying, just like gun attacks. The problem is not the existence of guns, or even that crazy people can get them. It's that crazy people need to be helped *before* they go nuts.
Also, this is apparently a news flash for you, but staying out of arms reach does not provide defense against knives. It is rather easy to throw a knife. You also ignore the fact that their are trained civilians who use weapons - trained by, of all people, the police and army (not to mention former police and army officers that are now civilians).
Why is it so hard for you to understand that guns have uses other than crazies shooting up a school? Yes, a gun's intended purpose is to kill. Here's what you aren't saying - killing is in fact entirely legal in certain situations. We have stand your ground laws, the castle doctrine, and self-defense laws which all acknowledge it is legal to kill in certain situations. If you take guns out of people's hand, you are basically ensuring that I, who stand at 6'3", weigh 250 lbs, and holds two second degree black belts will be able to do absolutely anything in the world I want. So go ahead, take all the guns away from the citizens, I'd love to rule a small fiefdom. You can be my court fool. Or perhaps you can realize that having some way to defend yourself that doesn't require you to spend ten plus years studying fighting (while still being at a reach disadvantage from my height) is perhaps a good thing.
Perhaps you should consider the Akihabara massacre.
To quote Penn and Teller, "You can stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. It's insane!"
That doesn't fit with the description at all. The device that was developed sounds like something that is fixed in place - not something that will lugged around with the military. Even if it could, a car filled with explosives is not exactly something we need to analyze at a parts-per-billion level. This device is used to detect something trying to be hidden, but the false positive rate sounds like it is going to be way too high to be of any use.
How many people will set this off because they inadvertently picked up trace elements of an explosive vapor - will car exhaust fumes set this off? In what context do we really care about the existence of parts per billion amounts of explosive vapors? This might be an impressive technical achievement, but the commercial uses of this seem like a solution in search of a problem.
No, it absolutely requires explanation. Are you using a consistent definition of "child"? What are your sources?
No, that isn't a problem at all, because you are taking my statements out of context. To add it back in, everyone can't be Bill Gates/Warren Buffet rich. However, everyone who works hard can make good life for themselves. If you can be satisfied with a roof over your head, food on the table, clothes on your back, a car, and cable TV, then those qualities are all you need. If you want to drive around in a Ferrari wearing Armani and dating a supermodel, then you need to have something more. The expectations people have for applying themselves are simply unrealistic.
Actually, what is going to happen is they will only be capable of doing menial, low-pay jobs, but because their letter grades will be equivalent to the more successful white and Asian students, what will actually happen is they will sue and claim racism when companies (reasonably) start hiring less and less of the other races.
The question that really needs to be answered here is: what do we want grades (letter and number) to reflect? A general level of competence in a subject? A comparison of people of the same (broadly defined) race class? Effort put in to learning the subject? Something else entirely?
[sarcasm]Right, I mean, it isn't like a mixed-race child from a broken family could ever become anything significant in this fucked-up country we live in! Oh, wait a minute...[/sarcasm]
I can't tell which depresses me more, the delusional state you live in, or that enough people live in your delusional state to have voted you insightful. America has long been, and still is, a country where anyone has a chance to make something of themselves. Yes, it isn't a big chance, but that's because not everyone gets to be Bill Gates/Warren Buffet wealthy. Yes, some groups of people have it harder than others, but it isn't impossible for any group. Hell, even a poor man in America has it massively better than damn near everywhere else on the planet. That is why we have such a problem with illegal immigrants sneaking in to the country - they know it is true.
It is hardly reductio ad absurdum - there is nothing false, untenable, or absurd about that result, and if you feel there is, go ahead and prove it. I think you don't understand that reductio ad absurdum can be a valid argument, in addition to a logical fallacy. It is up to the opponent to prove it is logically fallacious, not simply label it. I've provided a link, feel free to peruse them at you leisure. I will say it is fairly telling that you followed it up with an ad hominem attack - something that is always logically fallacious.
Which then quickly leads to another problem - why would the public pay to keep all these people with terminal illnesses alive? This leads to a push to have people utilize assisted suicide, because the public won't want to pay for those that refuse it. This is why its best if the government and public tax dollars just stay the hell out of health care.