How? How do I tolerate this evil deed any more than you do? I have spoken out of it, and I am not a part of what these people are doing, and I will denounce it at every turn as evil and unChristian, and in fact evil by any coherent standards of morality.
What am I doing or not doing that makes you say I tolerate this?
A good question that deserves a good answer (or, at least, the best that I can give). Let's separate it into parts:
How? How do I tolerate this evil deed
By not stopping it.
Simplistic, I know, but think about it for a moment. What is the amount of inconvenience that you are willing to endure in order to stop "this evil deed"? How much of your time do you dedicate to the task, to the exclusion of other activities? How about social stigmas? Financial hardship? Risks to your freedom, physical well being, life?
See, "speaking out of it, not being a part of it and denouncing it" can only be considered "not tolerating" if it either effects the desired change or has better chances of effecting it than any other actions. Have your words and actions achieved the goal you profess to seek? Are they the best possible way of achieving it?
You may resent the state of affairs, but you still tolerate it.
How do I tolerate this evil deed any more than you do?
I have never set myself up as a shining example. So as much as I abhor "evil", I must admit that I too tolerate it to some degree. The point is that, while I am not proud of it, I do realize that it is the case. Why compare yourself to me? I am not a standard to be measured against. I am no Spartacus, Mordechai Anielewicz, Rosa Parks or Mohamed Bouazizi. I am just a random/. poster, nothing more.
You say you are a Christian, that means you believe that there is an absolute standard of virtue. Well, that standard is what you should be measuring yourself by, not me or my behaviour.
What am I doing or not doing that makes you say I tolerate this?
Tolerance is not a binary proposition, there are degrees of tolerance. If you are not doing everything in your power to oppose this, then in some way you tolerate it.
The short version is that you do tolerate "evil". We all do (with a miniscule number of exceptions, but I doubt they read/.)
If you realize it, it may drive you to do a little more, so you will tolerate "evil" a little less.
If you outlaw inconvenient speech as "hate speech", you have no free speech.
Freedom of offensive speech is the only free speech.
A sane definition of "hate speech" is a call to violence. It is not outlawed because it is "offensive", but because it presents a real *physical* danger. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater led to people being trampled.
I am a Christian. I am not Orthodox, but I have enjoyed reading about their church and traditions online, and I have a lot of respect for them as compared to a lot of Protestantism.
And yet, we all know that "terrorism", similar to "child porn", is a bogeyman used to justify stripping the populace of whatever rights they still hold.
Pirate Party my ass, he's a totalitarian scumbag just like the rest of them, and should suffer the same fate as the marketing division of Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
I truly believe that once the NDP gets to head a minority government (*) for 4 years, both the Libs and the Cons will clean their act faster than you can say "general elections".
(*) No Canadian party (**), present or future, should ever be given a majority government.
Just read about a guy in an Elmo costume yelling anti-Semitic rants being arrested in New York. Would he really have been arrested if he was yelling about his hatred for the NY Yankees?
According to the reportage, most probably.
Here's the blurb:
The man, Adam Sandler, 48, who in June was removed from Central Park in an ambulance after going on a rant, was arrested in front of the Toys “R” Us store in Times Square shortly after 3 p.m., the police said. He was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Mr. Sandler was shouting and drawing a crowd that was blocking traffic, and he refused to leave, the police said.
Mr. Sandler pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct at his arraignment on Wednesday and was sentenced to two days of community service, the Manhattan district attorney’s office said. -- source
I was once asked (on a formal test, the last hoop) in a job interview for a big box store whether I would turn my mother in if I caught her stealing. I was entirely unsure of what answer they were looking for. On one hand you would think they would want employees to be that dedicated to protecting their assets. But lets be real, is ruining your family worth your part time job, over a petty theft? Bitch at them and return the item to the store, yes... I can't imagine anyone (who is 100% sane) would. This would indicate that anyone who answers yes is either a damned liar or not mentally stable. But by saying "no" means you may be immoral (yet, honest?).... so... which was correct? I answered "no" for the sake of honesty. And did not get the job. Not sure if that is why or not, but still wonder.
If I found myself in a similar position, and wasn't completely desperate for that job, I would reply by saying "that's an interesting question, would you?". If the interviewer says no, I would say "neither would I, as there are better ways of dealing with the situation" and elaborate if asked to do so. If the interviewer says yes, he would have proved himself to be a sociopath, and I wouldn't want to work there. There's a good chance that I would not be able to resist asking him whether his mother is aware of his attitude, which would blacklist me forever. If he declines to answer but still insists that I do, I would point out that the interview is a two-way process...
There may be other ways of handling such a question with a live and moderately competent and intelligent interviewer, like pointing out that it is a complex situation and suggesting alternatives (e.g., "I will confront her, get the reason for her actions, return the item(s) and offer additional compensation to the rightful owner, and make sure said mother got needed help and counseling so this will not happen again"), or even claiming that such an event is totally impossible (e.g., "my mother would never steal, she would rather die of starvation, so the question makes no sense. It's like asking: would you hit a newborn if it tried to kill your children with a chainsaw? The question is completely absurd and so is any possible answer").
However, if the expectation is that there is a "correct" Yes/No answer that you should provide, their hiring process is messed up.
The Conservative MP Costas Menegakis represents a tad more than 88K electors in the Richmond Hill riding. Granted, this is on a federal level but the numbers are similar to yours. Unfortunately, trying to reason with Mr. Menegakis on several issues proved that he does not give a flying tackle about his constituents. YMMV.
Canadian banks just snuck in an update to the banking agreements--customer is now 100%responsible for losses with chip and pin cards, no doubt due to the ironclad security.
That is why we need major patent reform. The current system seems to favor the big dogs. The little guys can't spend resources defending their patents and the big dogs can use patents to fight each other and squish little guys.
Be careful of what you wish for.
The only people in a position to institute a reform are the "big dogs". And I highly doubt that the reformed system will be better for the "little guys" in any way.
When you speed, you put other lives at risk, not just your own.
That depends on the definition of "speeding".
If it means "driving faster than is safe for the combination of { road condition, traffic conditions, vehicle condition, driver condition } then I fully agree with your assertion. However, if you take it to mean "driving faster than an arbitrarily set number" then you're spouting a fallacy.
This is similar to the "Evolution is just a theory" argument.
"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"
True, but that takes into account the length of your nose. As far as I know, the state has not mandated that all noses shall begin at a set distance from their owners' faces.
most of us are driving 70-80mph anyways when the limits are 55-65mph...and arbitrarily enforced. Why not just make the limits 85mph...
The safety freaks will say people will start going 95-105mph if you raise the speed limit to 85, and people listen to them.
I recently came back from a trip to Slovenia.
We did a lot of driving on the highways there and what I noticed is that even though the posted speed limit was 130Km/h (about 80mph), most people drove slower than that.
Compare that to Ontario, where the speed limit is 100Km/h and the traffic usually flows at about 120Km/h if there are no obstructions.
I think the terms you are looking for are frontlit and thick. Still, I'm a bit disappointed that the DX is such an ugly stepchild. Certainly there's a market for a reasonably priced larger format e-reader.
I was contemplating getting the Onyx Boox M92 for my parents but the almost $400 price seems steep. Unfortunately the models without the bells and whistles (M92S, M92SM) seem to only be available in Russia (and cost about the same as the full-featured M92 in the west).
Slashdot Mirror
Yet you tolerate it.
How? How do I tolerate this evil deed any more than you do? I have spoken out of it, and I am not a part of what these people are doing, and I will denounce it at every turn as evil and unChristian, and in fact evil by any coherent standards of morality.
What am I doing or not doing that makes you say I tolerate this?
A good question that deserves a good answer (or, at least, the best that I can give). Let's separate it into parts:
How? How do I tolerate this evil deed
By not stopping it.
Simplistic, I know, but think about it for a moment.
What is the amount of inconvenience that you are willing to endure in order to stop "this evil deed"?
How much of your time do you dedicate to the task, to the exclusion of other activities?
How about social stigmas? Financial hardship? Risks to your freedom, physical well being, life?
See, "speaking out of it, not being a part of it and denouncing it" can only be considered "not tolerating" if it either effects the desired change or has better chances of effecting it than any other actions.
Have your words and actions achieved the goal you profess to seek?
Are they the best possible way of achieving it?
You may resent the state of affairs, but you still tolerate it.
How do I tolerate this evil deed any more than you do?
I have never set myself up as a shining example. So as much as I abhor "evil", I must admit that I too tolerate it to some degree. The point is that, while I am not proud of it, I do realize that it is the case. Why compare yourself to me? I am not a standard to be measured against. I am no Spartacus, Mordechai Anielewicz, Rosa Parks or Mohamed Bouazizi. I am just a random /. poster, nothing more.
You say you are a Christian, that means you believe that there is an absolute standard of virtue. Well, that standard is what you should be measuring yourself by, not me or my behaviour.
What am I doing or not doing that makes you say I tolerate this?
Tolerance is not a binary proposition, there are degrees of tolerance.
If you are not doing everything in your power to oppose this, then in some way you tolerate it.
The short version is that you do tolerate "evil". We all do (with a miniscule number of exceptions, but I doubt they read /.)
If you realize it, it may drive you to do a little more, so you will tolerate "evil" a little less.
A sane definition of "hate speech" is a call to violence.
No, that;'s not the defintion of "hate speech" anywhere, in practice, that has hate speech laws.
Which just proves that there are no sane places left on this planet.
If you outlaw inconvenient speech as "hate speech", you have no free speech.
Freedom of offensive speech is the only free speech.
A sane definition of "hate speech" is a call to violence. It is not outlawed because it is "offensive", but because it presents a real *physical* danger.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater led to people being trampled.
I am a Christian. I am not Orthodox, but I have enjoyed reading about their church and traditions online, and I have a lot of respect for them as compared to a lot of Protestantism.
But this is intolerable.
Yet you tolerate it.
The title says "I am anti-terrorism ..."
And yet, we all know that "terrorism", similar to "child porn", is a bogeyman used to justify stripping the populace of whatever rights they still hold.
Pirate Party my ass, he's a totalitarian scumbag just like the rest of them, and should suffer the same fate as the marketing division of Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
Same as everybody else.
I truly believe that once the NDP gets to head a minority government (*) for 4 years, both the Libs and the Cons will clean their act faster than you can say "general elections".
(*) No Canadian party (**), present or future, should ever be given a majority government.
(**) That should hold for other nations as well.
Just read about a guy in an Elmo costume yelling anti-Semitic rants being arrested in New York. Would he really have been arrested if he was yelling about his hatred for the NY Yankees?
According to the reportage, most probably.
Here's the blurb:
The man, Adam Sandler, 48, who in June was removed from Central Park in an ambulance after going on a rant, was arrested in front of the Toys “R” Us store in Times Square shortly after 3 p.m., the police said. He was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Mr. Sandler was shouting and drawing a crowd that was blocking traffic, and he refused to leave, the police said.
Mr. Sandler pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct at his arraignment on Wednesday and was sentenced to two days of community service, the Manhattan district attorney’s office said.
-- source
Vegetarians. You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
murderers?
The Liberal MP before him wasn't much better.
Both major players are bad, that's why I vote for neither.
I was once asked (on a formal test, the last hoop) in a job interview for a big box store whether I would turn my mother in if I caught her stealing.
I was entirely unsure of what answer they were looking for. On one hand you would think they would want employees to be that dedicated to protecting their assets. But lets be real, is ruining your family worth your part time job, over a petty theft? Bitch at them and return the item to the store, yes...
I can't imagine anyone (who is 100% sane) would. This would indicate that anyone who answers yes is either a damned liar or not mentally stable. But by saying "no" means you may be immoral (yet, honest?).... so... which was correct? I answered "no" for the sake of honesty. And did not get the job. Not sure if that is why or not, but still wonder.
If I found myself in a similar position, and wasn't completely desperate for that job, I would reply by saying "that's an interesting question, would you ?".
If the interviewer says no, I would say "neither would I, as there are better ways of dealing with the situation" and elaborate if asked to do so.
If the interviewer says yes, he would have proved himself to be a sociopath, and I wouldn't want to work there. There's a good chance that I would not be able to resist asking him whether his mother is aware of his attitude, which would blacklist me forever.
If he declines to answer but still insists that I do, I would point out that the interview is a two-way process...
There may be other ways of handling such a question with a live and moderately competent and intelligent interviewer, like pointing out that it is a complex situation and suggesting alternatives (e.g., "I will confront her, get the reason for her actions, return the item(s) and offer additional compensation to the rightful owner, and make sure said mother got needed help and counseling so this will not happen again"), or even claiming that such an event is totally impossible (e.g., "my mother would never steal, she would rather die of starvation, so the question makes no sense. It's like asking: would you hit a newborn if it tried to kill your children with a chainsaw? The question is completely absurd and so is any possible answer").
However, if the expectation is that there is a "correct" Yes/No answer that you should provide, their hiring process is messed up.
Here's how it works North of the border:
The Conservative MP Costas Menegakis represents a tad more than 88K electors in the Richmond Hill riding. Granted, this is on a federal level but the numbers are similar to yours. Unfortunately, trying to reason with Mr. Menegakis on several issues proved that he does not give a flying tackle about his constituents. YMMV.
Identify the cretins, remove them, shame them publicly
... crush them, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women.
I was under the impression that "impossibility" was a Boolean state.
I would happily throw 90% of the human race under a bus for a working warp drive.
Calculating the required dimensions, mass and velocity of the bus is left as an exercise to the reader.
Apple Wins Again
Nobody wins. We all lose.
Except the lawyers.
Canadian banks just snuck in an update to the banking agreements--customer is now 100%responsible for losses with chip and pin cards, no doubt due to the ironclad security.
Citation please.
You can say anything you want about Jesus and no Christian will kill you.
Don't be so sure
sounds like you wasted your life remembering all that crap.
Or 5 minutes googling it.
If you don't like it, lobby your lawmakers.
And who will "your" lawmakers listen to, you or these guys?
Lobbyists
Interest groups
PACs
That is why we need major patent reform. The current system seems to favor the big dogs. The little guys can't spend resources defending their patents and the big dogs can use patents to fight each other and squish little guys.
Be careful of what you wish for.
The only people in a position to institute a reform are the "big dogs".
And I highly doubt that the reformed system will be better for the "little guys" in any way.
I'm not sure they really want to mess with a Parkour girl...
When you speed, you put other lives at risk, not just your own.
That depends on the definition of "speeding".
If it means "driving faster than is safe for the combination of { road condition, traffic conditions, vehicle condition, driver condition } then I fully agree with your assertion.
However, if you take it to mean "driving faster than an arbitrarily set number" then you're spouting a fallacy.
This is similar to the "Evolution is just a theory" argument.
"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"
True, but that takes into account the length of your nose.
As far as I know, the state has not mandated that all noses shall begin at a set distance from their owners' faces.
most of us are driving 70-80mph anyways when the limits are 55-65mph...and arbitrarily enforced. Why not just make the limits 85mph...
The safety freaks will say people will start going 95-105mph if you raise the speed limit to 85, and people listen to them.
I recently came back from a trip to Slovenia.
We did a lot of driving on the highways there and what I noticed is that even though the posted speed limit was 130Km/h (about 80mph), most people drove slower than that.
Compare that to Ontario, where the speed limit is 100Km/h and the traffic usually flows at about 120Km/h if there are no obstructions.
I think the terms you are looking for are frontlit and thick. Still, I'm a bit disappointed that the DX is such an ugly stepchild. Certainly there's a market for a reasonably priced larger format e-reader.
I was contemplating getting the Onyx Boox M92 for my parents but the almost $400 price seems steep.
Unfortunately the models without the bells and whistles (M92S, M92SM) seem to only be available in Russia (and cost about the same as the full-featured M92 in the west).
So, will 2012 be remembered in history as the year we finally kissed innovation goodbye?
"Innovation" is a monopoly of the rich and powerful (specifically: corporations) and has been for some time.