It simply conjures up images of kids playing FPS's and thinking that it's somehow even remotely close to the real thing.
One of the interesting effects of video games is the change in the basic skillset of todays soldiers. I have it on good authority (I worked for the Air Force) that since the "video game" generation has entered flight school in the Air Force and Navy, they have been shattering all kinds of records in the hand-eye and spatial intelligence tests given. The basic "tests" that are given to find if people can combine multiple complex data streams, make rapid reflexive decisions, and translate that into a complicated control system effectively is essentially what makes a natural pilot, and, obviously, a skilled video game player. The current generation are, quite simply, superior in this regard.
My bos doesn't agree at all. I tried including this feature in several of my builds. My company is so regressive, we have alot to learn from the leaders like Firefox.
Just because you can say it doesn't mean there aren't consequenses from saying it!
This is such a god damm strawman argument and I am so sick and tired of it. People who say that freedom of speech and of the press are important values (like the GP) aren't saying that speech should be free from consequences. However consequences is defined in a very particular way. When people, correctly, say that there are "consequences" to speech, they aren't talking about bombings, riots, murder, and all that bullshit. Stop equating some doofus at some university for getting himself kicked out because he posts stuff on the internet (a legal consequence), with people who riot in the streets, burn buildings, cause violence, kill each other, and threaten to kill the people who said stuff they disagree with half a world away.
Muslims, including many moderates, feel that a paper should not be allowed to insult their religion. That is the very definition of a violation of free speech. Threatening to kill Danish citizens is not a "consequence" of freedom of speech. Pissing someone off doesn't give them the right to burn shit, and kill people. That is not a valid "consequence" of speech.
The problem here, fundamentally, is too many science-types go to unending lengths using bad science and bad use of statistics to prove themselves right. This conversation constantly degenrates into two uninformed groups of people spouting completely false nonsense at each other based entirely on a misuse of statistics. Even in this slashdot thread you will see people getting modded up for citing (incorrectly) correlative evidence as causitive evidence.
The fundamental issue here is correlation. Good climatologists are at war with correlation implying causality. They are unable to produce proper control experiments, so no matter how convincing their results, it's able to be dismissed by others. No good science should look at correlative evidence (as you have stated plenty) and draw conclusions. Guess what, since 1980, Jupiter has seen a HUGE increase in the number of comet strikes of the previous decades. But we can't pin that on global warming.
The fundamental question is how much has humanity effected the global warming of this planet. Just showing that it is warming is completely and totally irrelevant. The important scientific question, and the one most difficult to answer, is how much humans have contributed. The methods whereby CO2 heats up a planet are fairly well understood, and no one with a sane state of mind can deny that humanity has made things worse. The scientific debate remains to what degree. Slashdot karma-whores can continually abuse the general lack of statistical know-how by stating "look how much warmer it is now!" and get modded up. The fact of the matter is using the metric of "difference in temperature in time" is completely and utterly meaningless in a debate about humanity's contribution to global warming.
And we don't even need to get into the ridiciously horrible statistical fallacies possible when one begins using "extremes" and "records" as a basis for drawing conclusions.
Re:The e-mail I sent to the editor was ignored.
on
No Time Travel, Sorry
·
· Score: 1
This guy is a pseudo-scientific moonbat. Please don't waste your time with the not-so-FA.
He can't hold a candle to Archimedes Plutonium. He is the 10-year frequenter of sci.math and sci.physics with a 1200 page online book about how the universe is a giant plutonium atom. He believes he is Archimedes reincarnated and he is a supergenius because he has a plutonium atom in his brain. His website and his ramblings are truly the most bizzare thing I've ever seen. His "one page proofs" of the greatest mathematics problems of all time (4CT, FLT, Riemmann, etc) are among the strangest things you will ever read. He explains all of physics, biology, and everything else, too.
It should be required reading to any student of internet phenomonen as to what happens when that smart-but-crazy gene expresses itself a wee bit too much.
This dude's score is off the charts. I highlighted some of the good ones:
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
Sorry, but people who trample on other people's rights aren't as important to me as the people whom they trampled on. There isn't some magical line you draw in the sand and say "At this point, he is cured, and the victim is happy, and everyone is happy". That's non-worldly theoretics.
Surely any just society needs to consider all people's rights as being equally important?
No, they aren't. Not only am I saying that exactly, but that's exactly how the justice is currently set up. They commited a crime, and they lose their rights. That's the nature of the system. You cannot play by the rules, you lose some of your rights, temporarily. The system already tells criminals they are not worthy of all of their "rights". I'm not advocating anything new. I'm sayaing that you theoretical idealism of "revenge" equating with "justice for the victim" is nonsense and completely incorrect.
You still aren't dealing with the fact that the psychological impact on the victim of knowing their victimizer is behind bars is critical in the healing process. It's not -revenge-. It's a safety issue. What if said person gets out, and moves into the house next to them? Do you tell the women to suck it up and deal with it...? Or, as you say "never going to come in contact with any of their erstwhile victims"? But wait.. I thought once they paid their debt.. they had the same rights as everyone else... Are you implying, now, that they in fact do not have the right to move to the house next door? Isn't that a violation of their intrinsic rights?
"Faux news" isn't the one telling me what jihad means. That would be Osama Bin Ladin et al. You really need to start blaming the correct people for the poor interpretation of the religion of Islam. Fox News isn't the one who killed 16 people over a fake Newsweek story about a Quran. Fox news isn't the one killing 10+ people and burning multiple embassies over a partially faked political cartoon in a Danish newspaper. Fox news isn't the one who flew planes into buildings, bombed a nightclub in Bali, or two seperate train stations in two of the most historic cities in the world.
Let's blame the people who are really giving Islam a bad name, and stop pretending the problem exists only inside of Rupert Murdoch's hallowed halls.
I completely disagree. If a women is violently raped, and she has not "healed" (whatever that means), and her accuser is let out of prison, it severely and profoundly can have a negative impact on her state of mind, and life. The victims healing process, especially in cases like rape, is helped tremendously by the person being locked away and unable to harm them. It's not about revenge, at all. Such a women may never "truely" heal, but consideration must be paid to her healing as it is just as important (well, more important) as the criminals healing. You are, quite literally, removing the victim from the entire process. You are saying that the needs of the victim are irrelevant. Most societies correctly err on the side of the women, because, quite frankly, she didn't put herself in that position.
A very similar arguement is made for victims of child molestation whom, though they will never heal, depend very very very heavily on feeling "safe" as part of their recovery. Quite simply, the "rights" of the criminal are very overrated. I have no sympathy for murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. Trampling on their rights to give their victims peace of mind is fine by me. It's not about "revenge".
The thing that really bothers me is the irrationality of the blame. They are blaming the Danish government, the Danish people, and even more hilariously, the entirity of the West (EU and the US). They simply do not comprehend the concept of freedom. What pains me the most is that here, in the US, the media (and even the government) has largely criticized the Danish paper for being insensitive. Fuck that. Seriously, fuck that. I'm reverse boycotting Danish goods right now. I have no idea what Danish goods they sell in this country, but I do love danishes... mmmm... Anyways, the ridiculous cowardice of most of the newspapers who refuse to print these cartoons bothers me more then anyhting else.
I stand in solidarity with the Danes on this one. To prove it, I submit to the entire Muslim world my drawing of Mohammad:
They get angry over a cartoon but when they burn an American Flag it is OK.
Nonono, you misunderstand. Only their symbology is sacred. Nothing says "Respect our symbols" like burning yours (and your embassasies, and, for that matter, killing each other).
This is contrary to countries were sentences are not ment to correct ones behaviour but to ease the blood thirsty angry mob.
This is one of the great shortsighted positions in all of politics. I love it. So what you are saying is, hypothetically, no matter what you do, if you are able to convince the justice system that you will never do it again, then you have served your sentence and should be let free. So lets say you serially raped 150 girls, and before the trial you castrated yourself... Does that mean, since you are no longer capable of ever doing it again, that you shouldn't go to jail? Clearly the behavior has been corrected, so obviously there is no need for "rehabilitation".
Equating "punishment" with appeasing the "blood thirsty angry mob" is a classic example of $emotion-mongering and is half the reason why politics, in any country, is paralyzed and lacking in any reasonable progress. We can't get passed people pawning off under-thought-through ideas that rely entirely on emotional language and rhetoric. Punishment, along with rehabilitation, should be part and parcel of any crime, for a multitude of reasons.
You cannot commit a logical fallacy unless you assert something. He has asserting nothing, therefore has commited no fallacy. Furthermore, there is nothing fallacious about saying "The judge ruled in his own self-interest (as to make his own actions legal)". The fallacy would be, in fact, to say "the judges decision is meaningless becuse the judge has commited this crime before." There is a distinct difference in the two asserations... and the GP could have meant either, and asserted neither.. therefore no fallacy has occured.
You realize that somewhere, right now, there is a lawyer at blizzard having a meeting with a bunch of people discussing the possible legal ramifications of this. You know who is paying for those man hours? The politics are in your game, and you are paying for it. The backlash if this goes much further is going to be horrible.
So far, the balance of the comments seem to be in favour, or at least neutral to the idea of implementing Linux within a device that will no doubt end up killing a good few people.
No, I think you've completely misconstrued the "average" opinion. It has nothing to do with killing people, and "killing people" isn't the metric by which the "freedom" of software is judged... that is an arbitrary line you've drawn because of your own personal political agenda. The linux kernel is about a good, free, operating system. Spiting the freedom, which is the core of the entire project, to promote your personal political agenda is short-sighted. Believing in the true benefits of _free_ software means dealing with the fact that it may be used for things for which you are otherwise opposed. This is pretty similar to defending the right to free speach for those with whom you disagree. The entire benefit of linux is in the inherent freedom, and how that freedom breeds better software. I fail to see how comprimising that for the sake of an unrelated political agenda helps the cause in any meaningful way.
IMHO researchers should not stop researching altogether, but be more sensitive and think about possible missuse beforehand.
I call bullshit. Your view of the world is too simplisitic. Researchers should do research and leave the politics to the politicians. Life is never as simple as you make it out to be. Every single invention of the last 3000 years can be misused in the wrong hands. Working metal created weapons as easily as it created farming tools.
You are so dead on. Wish I had mod points. Did you steal the religion line from someone, because I like it. Consider it stolen (uh, I mean, GPL'd)
Anyways, it's hilarious that the slashdot groupthink has grown to the levels that people actually think that -everyone- who participates in the Linux process and believes in the open-source concept also, then, must share some supposed common anti-war pacifism or some other such nonsense. Someone please explain to me how being pro-war (whatever that means) is against the "linux ideal". Or, did the submitted actually mean, "I wonder how the people who read slashdot and are generally anti-war but also generally pro-linux are going to react to this". I guess that doesn't roll the same way off the tongue, so a little leeway of poetic liscense is necessary. Even still, I don't remember only agreeing to a strict anti-war anti-republican anti-wiretapping oath of allegience before muddling around in the memory management code... but that's just me.. I might have missed it. For some reason I thought the open-source software movement was about quality code... and not about war.. I didn't realize what exactly I was signing up for when I installed Gentoo.
Its just a thought, and I'll probably be modded down as flamebait or worse, but after all the money that the US government has spent on anti-terrorism, and trying to find Bin Laden, perhaps this is just a result of the Republican Party telling groups they have some control over (no wanting to start that as an argument) that they better show some kind of progress for all the money spent...
Do you actually think about the things you say before you say them? I mean... you do realize they were indicted by a Grand Jury, don't you? They weren't indicted by Slappy McOilTycoon from Texas and Yale class of 68. Are you actually suggesting that the Republican party somehow told this grand jury that they better indict them...
And where in the world is the logic behind assuming that every single thing the government does somehow is funded by the "war on terror"? How exactly can you justify saying ridiculous things like that? Do you actually have evidence that an anti-terror taskforce, and/or any other form of anti-terror money, was used in this case? Or are you just making insane generalization based on zero evidence. It might be fun, let me try: The road outside my house just got repaired... I guess I'm finally getting something on all that money we've spent on finding Bin Laden....
When you decide to talk logic with someone who has studied it, try not to use no less then 6 named logical fallacies. I draw your attention to:
1. fallacy of definition - your definition of anti-women is very definitely lacking, being both over-narrow and over-broad
2. the fallacy of anecdotal evidence - "Most of the anti-abortion folks I know"
3. inductive generalization fallacy - Since you know so many anti-abortion people, let's generalize
4. the appeal to emotion - "the -fundamental- right"
5. the fallacy of misleading vividness ("and are perfectly happy to have folks in other parts of the world bombed into oblivion for no good reason.").
6. false presmise (calling something a fact, when it very clearly isn't)
And for fun, I will throw in "correlation implies causality", even though you only flirted with it, because you said "though many people in the conservative, right-wing, religious party seem to think that rhetoric is all that matters", somehow attempting to link a causul relationship where none exists. I posit, and source you as an example, that vapid rhetoric is a weapon of both parties, thereby religion, social values, nor political idealogy have any bearing on ones personal use and value of a vapid and poor rhetoric.
Slashdot Mirror
It simply conjures up images of kids playing FPS's and thinking that it's somehow even remotely close to the real thing.
One of the interesting effects of video games is the change in the basic skillset of todays soldiers. I have it on good authority (I worked for the Air Force) that since the "video game" generation has entered flight school in the Air Force and Navy, they have been shattering all kinds of records in the hand-eye and spatial intelligence tests given. The basic "tests" that are given to find if people can combine multiple complex data streams, make rapid reflexive decisions, and translate that into a complicated control system effectively is essentially what makes a natural pilot, and, obviously, a skilled video game player. The current generation are, quite simply, superior in this regard.
My bos doesn't agree at all. I tried including this feature in several of my builds. My company is so regressive, we have alot to learn from the leaders like Firefox.
One of those countries is being hypocritical in their remarks. The other is in Asia.
Moderators are making like a Chinese official and censoring the crap out of you. The meteoric rise and fall in your karma has satisified me.
Just because you can say it doesn't mean there aren't consequenses from saying it!
This is such a god damm strawman argument and I am so sick and tired of it. People who say that freedom of speech and of the press are important values (like the GP) aren't saying that speech should be free from consequences. However consequences is defined in a very particular way. When people, correctly, say that there are "consequences" to speech, they aren't talking about bombings, riots, murder, and all that bullshit. Stop equating some doofus at some university for getting himself kicked out because he posts stuff on the internet (a legal consequence), with people who riot in the streets, burn buildings, cause violence, kill each other, and threaten to kill the people who said stuff they disagree with half a world away.
Muslims, including many moderates, feel that a paper should not be allowed to insult their religion. That is the very definition of a violation of free speech. Threatening to kill Danish citizens is not a "consequence" of freedom of speech. Pissing someone off doesn't give them the right to burn shit, and kill people. That is not a valid "consequence" of speech.
Man, all these jokes about the difficulty in detecting sarcasm are so funny!
"/unlooted/ ...Until now.
Yea, it was bullshit. I was grouped with him, and rolled a 99, but he ninja'd.
The problem here, fundamentally, is too many science-types go to unending lengths using bad science and bad use of statistics to prove themselves right. This conversation constantly degenrates into two uninformed groups of people spouting completely false nonsense at each other based entirely on a misuse of statistics. Even in this slashdot thread you will see people getting modded up for citing (incorrectly) correlative evidence as causitive evidence.
The fundamental issue here is correlation. Good climatologists are at war with correlation implying causality. They are unable to produce proper control experiments, so no matter how convincing their results, it's able to be dismissed by others. No good science should look at correlative evidence (as you have stated plenty) and draw conclusions. Guess what, since 1980, Jupiter has seen a HUGE increase in the number of comet strikes of the previous decades. But we can't pin that on global warming.
The fundamental question is how much has humanity effected the global warming of this planet. Just showing that it is warming is completely and totally irrelevant. The important scientific question, and the one most difficult to answer, is how much humans have contributed. The methods whereby CO2 heats up a planet are fairly well understood, and no one with a sane state of mind can deny that humanity has made things worse. The scientific debate remains to what degree. Slashdot karma-whores can continually abuse the general lack of statistical know-how by stating "look how much warmer it is now!" and get modded up. The fact of the matter is using the metric of "difference in temperature in time" is completely and utterly meaningless in a debate about humanity's contribution to global warming.
And we don't even need to get into the ridiciously horrible statistical fallacies possible when one begins using "extremes" and "records" as a basis for drawing conclusions.
This guy is a pseudo-scientific moonbat. Please don't waste your time with the not-so-FA.
He can't hold a candle to Archimedes Plutonium. He is the 10-year frequenter of sci.math and sci.physics with a 1200 page online book about how the universe is a giant plutonium atom. He believes he is Archimedes reincarnated and he is a supergenius because he has a plutonium atom in his brain. His website and his ramblings are truly the most bizzare thing I've ever seen. His "one page proofs" of the greatest mathematics problems of all time (4CT, FLT, Riemmann, etc) are among the strangest things you will ever read. He explains all of physics, biology, and everything else, too.
It should be required reading to any student of internet phenomonen as to what happens when that smart-but-crazy gene expresses itself a wee bit too much.
This dude's score is off the charts. I highlighted some of the good ones:
Sorry, but people who trample on other people's rights aren't as important to me as the people whom they trampled on. There isn't some magical line you draw in the sand and say "At this point, he is cured, and the victim is happy, and everyone is happy". That's non-worldly theoretics.
Surely any just society needs to consider all people's rights as being equally important?
No, they aren't. Not only am I saying that exactly, but that's exactly how the justice is currently set up. They commited a crime, and they lose their rights. That's the nature of the system. You cannot play by the rules, you lose some of your rights, temporarily. The system already tells criminals they are not worthy of all of their "rights". I'm not advocating anything new. I'm sayaing that you theoretical idealism of "revenge" equating with "justice for the victim" is nonsense and completely incorrect.
You still aren't dealing with the fact that the psychological impact on the victim of knowing their victimizer is behind bars is critical in the healing process. It's not -revenge-. It's a safety issue. What if said person gets out, and moves into the house next to them? Do you tell the women to suck it up and deal with it...? Or, as you say "never going to come in contact with any of their erstwhile victims"? But wait.. I thought once they paid their debt.. they had the same rights as everyone else... Are you implying, now, that they in fact do not have the right to move to the house next door? Isn't that a violation of their intrinsic rights?
Stop forgetting who the victims are.
"Faux news" isn't the one telling me what jihad means. That would be Osama Bin Ladin et al. You really need to start blaming the correct people for the poor interpretation of the religion of Islam. Fox News isn't the one who killed 16 people over a fake Newsweek story about a Quran. Fox news isn't the one killing 10+ people and burning multiple embassies over a partially faked political cartoon in a Danish newspaper. Fox news isn't the one who flew planes into buildings, bombed a nightclub in Bali, or two seperate train stations in two of the most historic cities in the world.
Let's blame the people who are really giving Islam a bad name, and stop pretending the problem exists only inside of Rupert Murdoch's hallowed halls.
I completely disagree. If a women is violently raped, and she has not "healed" (whatever that means), and her accuser is let out of prison, it severely and profoundly can have a negative impact on her state of mind, and life. The victims healing process, especially in cases like rape, is helped tremendously by the person being locked away and unable to harm them. It's not about revenge, at all. Such a women may never "truely" heal, but consideration must be paid to her healing as it is just as important (well, more important) as the criminals healing. You are, quite literally, removing the victim from the entire process. You are saying that the needs of the victim are irrelevant. Most societies correctly err on the side of the women, because, quite frankly, she didn't put herself in that position.
A very similar arguement is made for victims of child molestation whom, though they will never heal, depend very very very heavily on feeling "safe" as part of their recovery. Quite simply, the "rights" of the criminal are very overrated. I have no sympathy for murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. Trampling on their rights to give their victims peace of mind is fine by me. It's not about "revenge".
The thing that really bothers me is the irrationality of the blame. They are blaming the Danish government, the Danish people, and even more hilariously, the entirity of the West (EU and the US). They simply do not comprehend the concept of freedom. What pains me the most is that here, in the US, the media (and even the government) has largely criticized the Danish paper for being insensitive. Fuck that. Seriously, fuck that. I'm reverse boycotting Danish goods right now. I have no idea what Danish goods they sell in this country, but I do love danishes... mmmm... Anyways, the ridiculous cowardice of most of the newspapers who refuse to print these cartoons bothers me more then anyhting else.
I stand in solidarity with the Danes on this one. To prove it, I submit to the entire Muslim world my drawing of Mohammad:
@o<-<
Come bomb me.
They get angry over a cartoon but when they burn an American Flag it is OK.
Nonono, you misunderstand. Only their symbology is sacred. Nothing says "Respect our symbols" like burning yours (and your embassasies, and, for that matter, killing each other).
This is contrary to countries were sentences are not ment to correct ones behaviour but to ease the blood thirsty angry mob.
This is one of the great shortsighted positions in all of politics. I love it. So what you are saying is, hypothetically, no matter what you do, if you are able to convince the justice system that you will never do it again, then you have served your sentence and should be let free. So lets say you serially raped 150 girls, and before the trial you castrated yourself... Does that mean, since you are no longer capable of ever doing it again, that you shouldn't go to jail? Clearly the behavior has been corrected, so obviously there is no need for "rehabilitation".
Equating "punishment" with appeasing the "blood thirsty angry mob" is a classic example of $emotion-mongering and is half the reason why politics, in any country, is paralyzed and lacking in any reasonable progress. We can't get passed people pawning off under-thought-through ideas that rely entirely on emotional language and rhetoric. Punishment, along with rehabilitation, should be part and parcel of any crime, for a multitude of reasons.
You cannot commit a logical fallacy unless you assert something. He has asserting nothing, therefore has commited no fallacy. Furthermore, there is nothing fallacious about saying "The judge ruled in his own self-interest (as to make his own actions legal)". The fallacy would be, in fact, to say "the judges decision is meaningless becuse the judge has commited this crime before." There is a distinct difference in the two asserations... and the GP could have meant either, and asserted neither.. therefore no fallacy has occured.
You realize that somewhere, right now, there is a lawyer at blizzard having a meeting with a bunch of people discussing the possible legal ramifications of this. You know who is paying for those man hours? The politics are in your game, and you are paying for it. The backlash if this goes much further is going to be horrible.
In other news, check out my drawing of mohammad: @o<-<
Just wanted to get the number up to 5. Five being the number of religions currently sending me to hell.
Article summary provided by the Department of Obviousness Department
First post provided by the Department of Constant Confusion between Obviousness and Redundancy.
So far, the balance of the comments seem to be in favour, or at least neutral to the idea of implementing Linux within a device that will no doubt end up killing a good few people.
No, I think you've completely misconstrued the "average" opinion. It has nothing to do with killing people, and "killing people" isn't the metric by which the "freedom" of software is judged... that is an arbitrary line you've drawn because of your own personal political agenda. The linux kernel is about a good, free, operating system. Spiting the freedom, which is the core of the entire project, to promote your personal political agenda is short-sighted. Believing in the true benefits of _free_ software means dealing with the fact that it may be used for things for which you are otherwise opposed. This is pretty similar to defending the right to free speach for those with whom you disagree. The entire benefit of linux is in the inherent freedom, and how that freedom breeds better software. I fail to see how comprimising that for the sake of an unrelated political agenda helps the cause in any meaningful way.
IMHO researchers should not stop researching altogether, but be more sensitive and think about possible missuse beforehand.
I call bullshit. Your view of the world is too simplisitic. Researchers should do research and leave the politics to the politicians. Life is never as simple as you make it out to be. Every single invention of the last 3000 years can be misused in the wrong hands. Working metal created weapons as easily as it created farming tools.
You are so dead on. Wish I had mod points. Did you steal the religion line from someone, because I like it. Consider it stolen (uh, I mean, GPL'd)
Anyways, it's hilarious that the slashdot groupthink has grown to the levels that people actually think that -everyone- who participates in the Linux process and believes in the open-source concept also, then, must share some supposed common anti-war pacifism or some other such nonsense. Someone please explain to me how being pro-war (whatever that means) is against the "linux ideal". Or, did the submitted actually mean, "I wonder how the people who read slashdot and are generally anti-war but also generally pro-linux are going to react to this". I guess that doesn't roll the same way off the tongue, so a little leeway of poetic liscense is necessary. Even still, I don't remember only agreeing to a strict anti-war anti-republican anti-wiretapping oath of allegience before muddling around in the memory management code... but that's just me.. I might have missed it. For some reason I thought the open-source software movement was about quality code... and not about war.. I didn't realize what exactly I was signing up for when I installed Gentoo.
Its just a thought, and I'll probably be modded down as flamebait or worse, but after all the money that the US government has spent on anti-terrorism, and trying to find Bin Laden, perhaps this is just a result of the Republican Party telling groups they have some control over (no wanting to start that as an argument) that they better show some kind of progress for all the money spent...
Do you actually think about the things you say before you say them? I mean... you do realize they were indicted by a Grand Jury, don't you? They weren't indicted by Slappy McOilTycoon from Texas and Yale class of 68. Are you actually suggesting that the Republican party somehow told this grand jury that they better indict them...
And where in the world is the logic behind assuming that every single thing the government does somehow is funded by the "war on terror"? How exactly can you justify saying ridiculous things like that? Do you actually have evidence that an anti-terror taskforce, and/or any other form of anti-terror money, was used in this case? Or are you just making insane generalization based on zero evidence. It might be fun, let me try: The road outside my house just got repaired... I guess I'm finally getting something on all that money we've spent on finding Bin Laden....
I'll file it after the sarcastic "buddy" and right before the unnecessary "ridiculous".
When you decide to talk logic with someone who has studied it, try not to use no less then 6 named logical fallacies. I draw your attention to:
1. fallacy of definition - your definition of anti-women is very definitely lacking, being both over-narrow and over-broad
2. the fallacy of anecdotal evidence - "Most of the anti-abortion folks I know"
3. inductive generalization fallacy - Since you know so many anti-abortion people, let's generalize
4. the appeal to emotion - "the -fundamental- right"
5. the fallacy of misleading vividness ("and are perfectly happy to have folks in other parts of the world bombed into oblivion for no good reason.").
6. false presmise (calling something a fact, when it very clearly isn't)
And for fun, I will throw in "correlation implies causality", even though you only flirted with it, because you said "though many people in the conservative, right-wing, religious party seem to think that rhetoric is all that matters", somehow attempting to link a causul relationship where none exists. I posit, and source you as an example, that vapid rhetoric is a weapon of both parties, thereby religion, social values, nor political idealogy have any bearing on ones personal use and value of a vapid and poor rhetoric.