That's daft. Programmers, engineers and pretty much anyone else who works in an office environment don't kill people.
Yeah, and?
Come to think of it, there was a related example in WWII. Some German office workers killed Jews by filling in forms. I guess you respect those people.
I have just as much respect for them as I do for the Nazi soldiers who carried out the executions - which is to say, none. If you're trying to tell me that you do respect those soldiers, then I think you're a despicable human being.
Which part of the process you take part in is irrelevant. It's completely illogical to withhold or grant respect based on what tools are used.
I find it fascinating that, even after Cassius' phenomenal demolition of your "logic", you still seem completely incapable of understanding how ridiculous your argument is. How did you come to be so indoctrinated? Is it part of your political leanings, or were you raised in an environment so steeped in anti-American rhetoric that you are unable to even consider alternate viewpoints or new information? I'm not trying to be insulting, I really am curious.
War is a profitable business for arms manufacturers, which is why new ruses for war are constantly being invented.
Talk about being completely ass-backwards. Hey, the agriculture industry is very profitable too, so clearly the only reason human beings need food is so farmers can bring in huge profits!
If you accept that, then the next logical question is which side do we want to win?
It's not really a valid comparison, though. You may as well argue that police and criminals both want an end to theft - the police want to end it by arresting the criminals, and the criminals want to end it by having you give them stuff willingly.
You think wars are just fought by people who want money? Not all of them. Some are fought because people are hungry.
So people who are hungry.... don't want money?
Wait, run that by me one more time?
Some are fought because people are desperate -- they're afraid their culture will disappear, their natural resources will be used up... And it's hard to be civil when your neighbor next door has giant refineries and everyone has a car, and an education, and wears clean clothes.
Yeah, nature's a cruel bitch. How do you think the human race evolved? How do you think we managed to achieve our current status?
Whether you like it or not, living systems thrive on competition. While I abhor suffering and would love to see everyone on the planet living in peace and prosperity, the fact of the matter is that not all systems are equal, and not all are good. Some beliefs deserve to be abandoned. Some societies deserve to die out. If your belief systems and your culture are unable to sustain you in the modern world, the answer isn't to go out and murder the civilian population of nations who are better off than you - the answer is to change. You don't improve your lot in life by pulling everyone else down to your level.
Those people aren't assholes. They're human beings.
That's like saying "these apples aren't green, they're apples".
AFAIK almost every Mid-East country from which terrorists come has very specific historical gripes with US foreign policy.
When Cuban citizens start flying airliners into American buildings, I'll start taking that argument seriously. Until then, as far as I'm concerned you're just creating excuses for a bunch of theistic fascists.
I have very little respect for bombers and pilots who kill enemies while sipping Mountain Dew from the comfort of their chair and air conditioning.
That's retarded. By that logic you should have "very little respect" for programmers, engineers, and pretty much anyone else who works in an office environment.
Cowards should not be held up as heroes.
Yeah brave keyboard warriors such as yourself are clearly much more heroic than anyone operating an armed drone. Keep Fighting The Good Fight!
You obviously have no clue what fallacies are. You also apparently don't know how to read your own source material. Please click on your second link, and scroll down to the sections titled "Incorrectly classifying an analogy false".
Absolutely, that's a valid point. In that sense - and, given the right statistics to back it - I'd be willing to accept that a large percentage of American children make use of subsidized or free food programs. However, the original commenter (and the subsequent response) suggested that these children would go hungry without the availability of such services, and that claim has not been substantiated.
It's the same as saying that people in Canada rely on government-funded health care. It's not that we / they can't afford to do without it, it's just that most people will make use of free services when they're provided.
(yeah, ok, not a perfect analogy - in Canada we have to use the "free" health care because no private option exists - but it's close enough)
lol. "at the risk of being hungry"? I'M at the risk of being hungry... if I forget to pickup the groceries! What the hell does that even mean??
Anyway, you're not quoting the 1990 census, you're quoting heartsandminds.org, which automatically makes me skeptical of the claims. Let's try to find a non-biased source of info, shall we?
The stats do show that around 20% of American children live in "poverty", but the western definition of poverty is rather loose. According to wikipedia:
In 2007, 46% of poor households in the US owned their own homes, 30% had two or more cars, and 63% received cable or satellite TV.
When a "poor" family owns two cars, a TV, and all manner of electronics, it's ludicrous to claim that they can't feed their children. You're either saying that these people have a truly fucked up sense of priorities, or your claims make no sense, and these children are in fact getting plenty of food.
That's all well and good, but... well, look, the original guy said:
"School officials might avoid child porn charges if they prove they didn't see any lewd images"
and you responded with:
"The AP is reporting that they allegedly did see lewd images"
So if all you're saying is that "these guys say they're probably guilty", I guess my question would be how is your response in the least bit relevant to his statement?
Judging by the +5 mod you got, I'm guessing that many people read your comment as I did - as stating that the plaintiffs possess solid evidence of these images having been created. That's the only interpretation that makes sense in the context of the comment you were responding to.
You're right - their guilt or innocence is going to be determined in court... but that's what the first guy was saying, too, so your response to him was redundant at best.
The lawsuit does, as the AP stated, allege that the webcams captured these compromising images. As you quoted, it is "averred", meaning "it is asserted as a fact of the case". Of course they haven't proven it. That's for the trial. But they are certainly alleging that it happened.
Fair enough, but your comment, in context, seemed to be making a much stronger claim. If I said that I believed the moon was made of green cheese, I doubt you'd be on here saying:
"c6gunner is reporting that the moon allegedly is made of green cheese!"
As to whether or not anyone saw those images, that is immaterial.
It's not immaterial when the claim you were making is that "they allegedly did see lewd images". It's mostly immaterial to the case, sure, but if it's so unimportant then why did you say it in the first place?
The AP is reporting that they allegedly did see lewd images.
The AP may be reporting that, but it's not what the lawsuit claims. Here's what the lawsuit actually says:
"it is believed, and therefore averred, that many of the webcam images captured and/or intercepted consist of minors and/or their parents in compromising or embarrassing positions, including, but not limited to, in various stages of dress or undress."
They're saying "we think this probably happened", not "we have evidence that this happened". Since they don't have evidence that such images were created, they certainly can't prove that anyone actually viewed them.
That is exactly what everyone who had a hand in setting this up, or who KNEW that this had been set up, should be charged with ASAP. Conspiracy to create child pornography, because they set up a situation almost CERTAIN TO PRODUCE IT!
Just to play devils advocate - nude pictures of children aren't necessarily considered child-pornography. Go google "nudism" and you're bound to run into several sites which feature underage children in the nude, all of them perfectly legal. So while this setup was certain to violate numerous laws, and would almost definitely produce nude photos of children, it wouldn't necessarily produce child pornography.
I would have been tempted to take you seriously if you hadn't included the phrase "war on drugs". As it is, it's obvious you care more about getting high than you do about the environment. Hemp is already legal. If you want to start growing hemp, you're more than welcome to. Marijuana proponents always use the "hemp is MAGIC!" argument to try and legalize weed, but for some reason there seem to be very few of them actually making anything useful out of the stuff.
Grow your hair long and think for yourself. Question authority.
I like my hair short, and I question everyone. That's the difference between us - you seem to think that questioning authority automatically means you're thinking for yourself, while I realize that those who question authority can be every bit as brainwashed and deluded as those who blindly accept it.
Naw, filling your tank with arabs doesn't work at all. The amount of electricity needed to run the blender/juicer is pretty close to what you get by burning the resultant fuel. It's not a long-term sustainable solution.
The food, and more generally, resource shortage is a MYTH.... There is only a resource shortage if every country needed to consume resources at the rate as the United States. If countries could be more frugal with their resources then we'd all be fine and dandy. All 6 billion of us, and our kids.
Ok, so you admit that there's a shortage. What exactly are you trying to say, then?
Instead, life expectancy is pretty far down the list, health care is a joke compared even to Cuba, depression, suicide and mental health issues are epidemic, and the rest of the world hates you.
Ohhhh, I see. You're one of those ideology-trumps-reality guys. Wow, that sucks. Is there anything I can do to help?
If he has a 12-gallon tank, and can travel 300 miles on it, then at $2.969 per gallon, it costs him $35.63 to fill up the tank, and by extension, costs him 11.876 to drive a mile in his car.
You know, I've had a few beers, but even in my inebriated state I can tell that there's something horribly wrong with your math. Unless he's driving the Exxon Valdez, I'm pretty sure that he gets more than 0.25 miles per gallon.
Slashdot Mirror
That's daft. Programmers, engineers and pretty much anyone else who works in an office environment don't kill people.
Yeah, and?
Come to think of it, there was a related example in WWII. Some German office workers killed Jews by filling in forms. I guess you respect those people.
I have just as much respect for them as I do for the Nazi soldiers who carried out the executions - which is to say, none. If you're trying to tell me that you do respect those soldiers, then I think you're a despicable human being.
Which part of the process you take part in is irrelevant. It's completely illogical to withhold or grant respect based on what tools are used.
I find it fascinating that, even after Cassius' phenomenal demolition of your "logic", you still seem completely incapable of understanding how ridiculous your argument is. How did you come to be so indoctrinated? Is it part of your political leanings, or were you raised in an environment so steeped in anti-American rhetoric that you are unable to even consider alternate viewpoints or new information? I'm not trying to be insulting, I really am curious.
War is a profitable business for arms manufacturers, which is why new ruses for war are constantly being invented.
Talk about being completely ass-backwards. Hey, the agriculture industry is very profitable too, so clearly the only reason human beings need food is so farmers can bring in huge profits!
If you accept that, then the next logical question is which side do we want to win?
It's not really a valid comparison, though. You may as well argue that police and criminals both want an end to theft - the police want to end it by arresting the criminals, and the criminals want to end it by having you give them stuff willingly.
Idiot. They have specific historical gripes and they deal with them differently.
Which was exactly the point. Thanks for coming out!
You think wars are just fought by people who want money? Not all of them. Some are fought because people are hungry.
So people who are hungry .... don't want money?
Wait, run that by me one more time?
Some are fought because people are desperate -- they're afraid their culture will disappear, their natural resources will be used up... And it's hard to be civil when your neighbor next door has giant refineries and everyone has a car, and an education, and wears clean clothes.
Yeah, nature's a cruel bitch. How do you think the human race evolved? How do you think we managed to achieve our current status?
Whether you like it or not, living systems thrive on competition. While I abhor suffering and would love to see everyone on the planet living in peace and prosperity, the fact of the matter is that not all systems are equal, and not all are good. Some beliefs deserve to be abandoned. Some societies deserve to die out. If your belief systems and your culture are unable to sustain you in the modern world, the answer isn't to go out and murder the civilian population of nations who are better off than you - the answer is to change. You don't improve your lot in life by pulling everyone else down to your level.
Those people aren't assholes. They're human beings.
That's like saying "these apples aren't green, they're apples".
AFAIK almost every Mid-East country from which terrorists come has very specific historical gripes with US foreign policy.
When Cuban citizens start flying airliners into American buildings, I'll start taking that argument seriously. Until then, as far as I'm concerned you're just creating excuses for a bunch of theistic fascists.
I have very little respect for bombers and pilots who kill enemies while sipping Mountain Dew from the comfort of their chair and air conditioning.
That's retarded. By that logic you should have "very little respect" for programmers, engineers, and pretty much anyone else who works in an office environment.
Cowards should not be held up as heroes.
Yeah brave keyboard warriors such as yourself are clearly much more heroic than anyone operating an armed drone. Keep Fighting The Good Fight!
You obviously have no clue what fallacies are. You also apparently don't know how to read your own source material. Please click on your second link, and scroll down to the sections titled "Incorrectly classifying an analogy false".
Absolutely, that's a valid point. In that sense - and, given the right statistics to back it - I'd be willing to accept that a large percentage of American children make use of subsidized or free food programs. However, the original commenter (and the subsequent response) suggested that these children would go hungry without the availability of such services, and that claim has not been substantiated.
It's the same as saying that people in Canada rely on government-funded health care. It's not that we / they can't afford to do without it, it's just that most people will make use of free services when they're provided.
(yeah, ok, not a perfect analogy - in Canada we have to use the "free" health care because no private option exists - but it's close enough)
Are you sure? Just about every Asian I know can do it that quickly, and they make up about 30% of the world's population.
That's because in China they use The People's Cube
lol. "at the risk of being hungry"? I'M at the risk of being hungry ... if I forget to pickup the groceries! What the hell does that even mean??
Anyway, you're not quoting the 1990 census, you're quoting heartsandminds.org, which automatically makes me skeptical of the claims. Let's try to find a non-biased source of info, shall we?
The stats do show that around 20% of American children live in "poverty", but the western definition of poverty is rather loose. According to wikipedia:
In 2007, 46% of poor households in the US owned their own homes, 30% had two or more cars, and 63% received cable or satellite TV.
When a "poor" family owns two cars, a TV, and all manner of electronics, it's ludicrous to claim that they can't feed their children. You're either saying that these people have a truly fucked up sense of priorities, or your claims make no sense, and these children are in fact getting plenty of food.
That's all well and good, but ... well, look, the original guy said:
"School officials might avoid child porn charges if they prove they didn't see any lewd images"
and you responded with:
"The AP is reporting that they allegedly did see lewd images"
So if all you're saying is that "these guys say they're probably guilty", I guess my question would be how is your response in the least bit relevant to his statement?
Judging by the +5 mod you got, I'm guessing that many people read your comment as I did - as stating that the plaintiffs possess solid evidence of these images having been created. That's the only interpretation that makes sense in the context of the comment you were responding to.
You're right - their guilt or innocence is going to be determined in court ... but that's what the first guy was saying, too, so your response to him was redundant at best.
The lawsuit does, as the AP stated, allege that the webcams captured these compromising images. As you quoted, it is "averred", meaning "it is asserted as a fact of the case". Of course they haven't proven it. That's for the trial. But they are certainly alleging that it happened.
Fair enough, but your comment, in context, seemed to be making a much stronger claim. If I said that I believed the moon was made of green cheese, I doubt you'd be on here saying:
"c6gunner is reporting that the moon allegedly is made of green cheese!"
As to whether or not anyone saw those images, that is immaterial.
It's not immaterial when the claim you were making is that "they allegedly did see lewd images". It's mostly immaterial to the case, sure, but if it's so unimportant then why did you say it in the first place?
Well, something like 1/4 kids nationwide is on government food aide.
Huh? Where do you live? Zimbabwe?
The AP is reporting that they allegedly did see lewd images.
The AP may be reporting that, but it's not what the lawsuit claims. Here's what the lawsuit actually says:
"it is believed, and therefore averred, that many of the webcam images captured and/or intercepted consist of minors and/or their parents in compromising or embarrassing positions, including, but not limited to, in various stages of dress or undress."
They're saying "we think this probably happened", not "we have evidence that this happened". Since they don't have evidence that such images were created, they certainly can't prove that anyone actually viewed them.
That is exactly what everyone who had a hand in setting this up, or who KNEW that this had been set up, should be charged with ASAP. Conspiracy to create child pornography, because they set up a situation almost CERTAIN TO PRODUCE IT!
Just to play devils advocate - nude pictures of children aren't necessarily considered child-pornography. Go google "nudism" and you're bound to run into several sites which feature underage children in the nude, all of them perfectly legal. So while this setup was certain to violate numerous laws, and would almost definitely produce nude photos of children, it wouldn't necessarily produce child pornography.
Rick Rolling is so last year....
gee ...
"Microsoft has revealed that it RickRolled users that were killing its TechEd conference WiFi network last year ....
Look on the bright side - at least you didn't make a total ass of yourself by saying:
What did you expect? This is Microsoft we're talking about here. They're always behind by a full year or five when it comes to internet memes.
I would have been tempted to take you seriously if you hadn't included the phrase "war on drugs". As it is, it's obvious you care more about getting high than you do about the environment. Hemp is already legal. If you want to start growing hemp, you're more than welcome to. Marijuana proponents always use the "hemp is MAGIC!" argument to try and legalize weed, but for some reason there seem to be very few of them actually making anything useful out of the stuff.
Grow your hair long and think for yourself. Question authority.
I like my hair short, and I question everyone. That's the difference between us - you seem to think that questioning authority automatically means you're thinking for yourself, while I realize that those who question authority can be every bit as brainwashed and deluded as those who blindly accept it.
I really thought pitch black was an awesome movie, even if loosely based on the Asimov novel Nightfall.
Huh? How do you figure? As far as I can tell, Pitch Black is as related to Nightfall as Finding Nemo is to Jaws.
90% of the time that the arena is in use, you will not have tens of thousands of fans inside.
Naw, filling your tank with arabs doesn't work at all. The amount of electricity needed to run the blender/juicer is pretty close to what you get by burning the resultant fuel. It's not a long-term sustainable solution.
The food, and more generally, resource shortage is a MYTH .... There is only a resource shortage if every country needed to consume resources at the rate as the United States. If countries could be more frugal with their resources then we'd all be fine and dandy. All 6 billion of us, and our kids.
Ok, so you admit that there's a shortage. What exactly are you trying to say, then?
Instead, life expectancy is pretty far down the list, health care is a joke compared even to Cuba, depression, suicide and mental health issues are epidemic, and the rest of the world hates you.
Ohhhh, I see. You're one of those ideology-trumps-reality guys. Wow, that sucks. Is there anything I can do to help?
If he has a 12-gallon tank, and can travel 300 miles on it, then at $2.969 per gallon, it costs him $35.63 to fill up the tank, and by extension, costs him 11.876 to drive a mile in his car.
You know, I've had a few beers, but even in my inebriated state I can tell that there's something horribly wrong with your math. Unless he's driving the Exxon Valdez, I'm pretty sure that he gets more than 0.25 miles per gallon.
Gee - how about addressing what I said instead of demolishing your own strawmen?