"You can't discourage somebody from entering your store based on their age"
What the hell are you talking about, of course you can.
Now, here's the part I find funny. While ranting about all the things you think you're entitled you, you never once asked why the shopowner should be forced to serve you.
Do you realize that's what you're doing? Placing your "right" to be a customer over his "right" to conduct business in the (legal) manner of his choosing.
"I find the public's callous attitudes towards teenagers to be disgusting. Sure, teenagers are stupid, boring to talk to and nearly everything they do is pointless, but this also applies to people who are mentally handicapped."
"Teens have rights too, you can't discriminate on the basis of age."
I wonder if you'd be spouting the same line if we were about to sentence your 4 year old as an adult.
As soon as a child is willing to accept adult responsibility, then they've earned adult treatment. But as long as mommy and daddy still clean up your messes, you have nothing to bitch about.
"Well, I read your ambiguous.sig's meaning wrong. But then, it just pointed at a fact mentioned by hardly anyone but Republicans - your.sig is just part of the chorus of rightwingers who scream that the government spends any money, on the NEA, on art, on anything. So you fooled me, I admit - by being indistinguishable from a rightwinger."
No, you made an assumption because your biases rule your decision making process.
Since you've shown NO evidence of making any attempt to actually listen to me, but rather just spun more garbage and insults, I'll end this discussion.
Think about that. Your post was insulting and derogatory, while mine was not.
Why do you have to resort to such tactics if your position is so strong, especially when you're not being attacked in the first place?
"Then please explain to me, precisely, why you feel you have the "right" to force an unwilling person to support it."
Because taxes are the price we pay for civilization.
I am of the opinion that providing universal internet access is an investment that will pay dividends. I really feel the next step for US society depends on our citizens access to information.
Isn't the cliche "information is power"? When it comes to most things I tend to side against government interference.
But, really some things are too important. I think this is one of them.
"When wars occur over the usual squabbles over limited resources advanced civilizations usually overcome less advanced civilizations."
Then why did the Allies defeat the Germans?
Well? Since you'll probably get it wrong, here's why. All of the things you claim ar enecessary for advancement
"availability of scientists, raw materials, pre-cursor technologies and excess wealth"
were forced into use during the war. This led to immense technological advancement, pretty much on demand (or as close as you can get in science) despite your erroneous claims to the contrary.
War causes increased spending and requires dedication of resources. Why you fail to see it I can't imagine, but why you fail to ADMIT it is plainly obvious.
"If you weren't a Republican apologist who ignores the facts about Reagan/Bush crimes,"
I'm a Democrat, and it doesn't surprise me one bit that in response to genuine criticism you rely on an ad hominem attack.
Just more of the same from you.
And conveniently, you ignored the most important part, your utter lack of credibility.
The other guys get it right sometimes. Your failure to admit it illustrates how biased you are, and how worthless your opinion is.
While I may come down on the Republican's side from time to time, I do the same for the Democrats.
"How about that NEA, huh? At 0.00005% of Bush's budget, it's apparently destroying the entire culture, right?"
Perfect example. I put that there because it's a travesty that so little is spent. Read that again. It's a travesty, and it stunned me that the entire budget for art is so small. More importantly, it's a tool to gauge the biases of people who respond. Look how YOU responded.
What does it say about you that you assumed you knew why I put it there, and attacked me based on that?
Of course, there will be no admission from you that you made a mistake. You'll make up some excuse, then find a way to blame me.
You know, if it wasn't for the fact that your first link points to nothing but speculation (and very poor speculation at that), and that your entire post relies on inflammatory language and hyperbole, I might pay attention.
As it is, this is just more Doc Ruby bashes one side, which happens to be the side he disagrees with.
When all you ever do is bash one side, you have no credibility Doc.
You forgot the most important part, which is "... however, all of this hoop jumping is unnecessary, because there are established criteria for determing the credibility of studies such as this. Those standards are far more effective than any other known method, so whenever possible, use them first."
"Or you can do something original with the material. Personally, I'm hoping for a "Smallville," 20 years on,"
No editing required, you really did type that. So what part of retelling the story of Smallville (which is AMAZINGLY original:P) 20 years later is original? How is telling a cliched teen-angst drama over and over original?
Your comment is as insightful as Smallville is original.
I'm going to say one last thing on this, which will shut you and all your ignorant friends up.
If the study is flawed, you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominems. Examining the study using traditional criteria is more than sufficient to gauge its accuracy.
So, why do you insist on being allowed to use fallacies and lazy thinking to make your point, when rigorous examination does a better job?
Slashdot Mirror
So what? The only reason this would happen is if the person was an organ donor.
It's a little silly to cite ethical concerns when everyone involved has to be a willing party beofre moving forward.
"I didn't say it wasn't a failure of those people."
Yes you did, right here.
"This isn't a failure of store owners, or of SOCIETY"
That's EVERYONE my man, so whether you meant it or not, you certainly did say it.
"You can't discourage somebody from entering your store based on their age"
What the hell are you talking about, of course you can.
Now, here's the part I find funny. While ranting about all the things you think you're entitled you, you never once asked why the shopowner should be forced to serve you.
Do you realize that's what you're doing? Placing your "right" to be a customer over his "right" to conduct business in the (legal) manner of his choosing.
This is where nuance is important.
You can refuse to serve anyone you want, you just need to avoid giving a reason.
"I find the public's callous attitudes towards teenagers to be disgusting. Sure, teenagers are stupid, boring to talk to and nearly everything they do is pointless, but this also applies to people who are mentally handicapped."
I agree. Teenagers do act retarded.
"Teens have rights too, you can't discriminate on the basis of age."
I wonder if you'd be spouting the same line if we were about to sentence your 4 year old as an adult.
As soon as a child is willing to accept adult responsibility, then they've earned adult treatment. But as long as mommy and daddy still clean up your messes, you have nothing to bitch about.
"This isn't a failure of store owners, or of society, or the law. It's a failure of police"
No, it's a failure of the teens to control themselves and by extension the parents.
Put the blame where it belongs.
"Well, I read your ambiguous .sig's meaning wrong. But then, it just pointed at a fact mentioned by hardly anyone but Republicans - your .sig is just part of the chorus of rightwingers who scream that the government spends any money, on the NEA, on art, on anything. So you fooled me, I admit - by being indistinguishable from a rightwinger."
No, you made an assumption because your biases rule your decision making process.
Since you've shown NO evidence of making any attempt to actually listen to me, but rather just spun more garbage and insults, I'll end this discussion.
Think about that. Your post was insulting and derogatory, while mine was not.
Why do you have to resort to such tactics if your position is so strong, especially when you're not being attacked in the first place?
"Then please explain to me, precisely, why you feel you have the "right" to force an unwilling person to support it."
Because taxes are the price we pay for civilization.
I am of the opinion that providing universal internet access is an investment that will pay dividends. I really feel the next step for US society depends on our citizens access to information.
Isn't the cliche "information is power"? When it comes to most things I tend to side against government interference.
But, really some things are too important. I think this is one of them.
I didn't claim they did provide universal access in libraries, and if you READ in context, you'll realize I acknowledged they don't.
"I WOULD BE proud to pay taxes for".
Do you understand now why you're wrong?
"It's something only the most arrogant, progressive sort of nerd could advocate."
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA. "progressive" he says.
Then why am I doing it? Read my post history sir, and then stop relying on flawed arguments and ad hominems to try and persuade.
As long as I consider the Library a government responsibility, I have to say the same about internet access.
There is no fundamental difference to me, and universal access to information is the kind of thing I would be proud to pay taxes for.
"When wars occur over the usual squabbles over limited resources advanced civilizations usually overcome less advanced civilizations."
Then why did the Allies defeat the Germans?
Well? Since you'll probably get it wrong, here's why. All of the things you claim ar enecessary for advancement
"availability of scientists, raw materials, pre-cursor technologies and excess wealth"
were forced into use during the war. This led to immense technological advancement, pretty much on demand (or as close as you can get in science) despite your erroneous claims to the contrary.
War causes increased spending and requires dedication of resources. Why you fail to see it I can't imagine, but why you fail to ADMIT it is plainly obvious.
This is exactly what you always do Dic.
Someone posts a link to information you dispute, and yet somehow you turn somehting with "Deregulation" into reregulation.
It's amazing to watch someone twist reality so much and still try to pretend they're right.
And you still haven't owned up to what you did. Hiding Dic?
Suspect is a weasel word which means "it's wrong, but we're too afriad to say it outright".
"However, it is perfectly reasonable to substitute
3. Therefore claim X is suspect"
Nope, wrong, incorrect. It's the same fallacy, cloaked in slightly more weasly words.
Nice try though, maybe you'll get smarter and come back for another round.
"You're as wrong about me as you are about Republicans and war - and everything else you just make up to suit your demented version of history."
As soon as you admit you screwed up and made assumptions about me, then you can call others out for mistakes.
But you haven't, so stop being a hypocrite.
"If you weren't a Republican apologist who ignores the facts about Reagan/Bush crimes,"
I'm a Democrat, and it doesn't surprise me one bit that in response to genuine criticism you rely on an ad hominem attack.
Just more of the same from you.
And conveniently, you ignored the most important part, your utter lack of credibility.
The other guys get it right sometimes. Your failure to admit it illustrates how biased you are, and how worthless your opinion is.
While I may come down on the Republican's side from time to time, I do the same for the Democrats.
"How about that NEA, huh? At 0.00005% of Bush's budget, it's apparently destroying the entire culture, right?"
Perfect example. I put that there because it's a travesty that so little is spent. Read that again. It's a travesty, and it stunned me that the entire budget for art is so small. More importantly, it's a tool to gauge the biases of people who respond. Look how YOU responded.
What does it say about you that you assumed you knew why I put it there, and attacked me based on that?
Of course, there will be no admission from you that you made a mistake. You'll make up some excuse, then find a way to blame me.
You know, if it wasn't for the fact that your first link points to nothing but speculation (and very poor speculation at that), and that your entire post relies on inflammatory language and hyperbole, I might pay attention.
As it is, this is just more Doc Ruby bashes one side, which happens to be the side he disagrees with.
When all you ever do is bash one side, you have no credibility Doc.
How does that involve MS?
You see, any problem you claim is related to MS will ALSO be a flaw in the design of the study, and will damage the study's credibility.
Or, do you not understand how research is done? In all honesty, I assumed you did
but I suppose I could have been jumping to conclusions.
Is that the problem? You're ignorant to how research is conducted?
I built my last PC, piece by piece, with no so called "MS tax" involved.
Interesting that on a site where most people would build their own boxes, you ignore such a possibility.
Most likely, you realized your point wouldn't hold up and were hoping no one would mention it.
You CAN choose not to use MS, AND you can choose not to pay them.
You forgot the most important part, which is "... however, all of this hoop jumping is unnecessary, because there are established criteria for determing the credibility of studies such as this. Those standards are far more effective than any other known method, so whenever possible, use them first."
Because the point of research is to find new knowledge, not draw conclusions.
You knew that, I hope.
It's "whiny" and I'm "pantomiming" the correct spelling for you right now.
PS, how many times do I have to point out where you look like an idiot before you'll shut up? Just so I have a goal, you know?
"Or you can do something original with the material. Personally, I'm hoping for a "Smallville," 20 years on,"
:P) 20 years later is original? How is telling a cliched teen-angst drama over and over original?
No editing required, you really did type that. So what part of retelling the story of Smallville (which is AMAZINGLY original
Your comment is as insightful as Smallville is original.
I'm going to say one last thing on this, which will shut you and all your ignorant friends up.
If the study is flawed, you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominems. Examining the study using traditional criteria is more than sufficient to gauge its accuracy.
So, why do you insist on being allowed to use fallacies and lazy thinking to make your point, when rigorous examination does a better job?