you should not make the schoolboy error of confusing peer reviewed journal articles with unassailable holy anointed universal truth, as many seem to do these days.
Only someone truly ignorant of the scientific process would make such a comment. A peer reviewed article is the minimum standard of evidence. It's rather how a drivers license is the minimum standard for operating a vehicle on public roads - it doesn't mean you're going to be a good driver, but there's no fucking way we're going to trust you if you haven't even managed to complete that one step.
Actually, he's right; we know for a fact that a certain percentage of the populace will have a severe reaction to any given vaccine. Of course, we don't know that this was the case with the cheerleader, so his evidence sucks. Also, the number of people who have those reactions is so low with most vaccines that it's easily eclipsed by the benefit of vaccination, so you can't really use it as an argument against mandatory vaccination.
Look to BBC Website comments on every single stupid technical change they propose. British start the sentence with "I am paying my license fee."
Yep, they're a bunch of self-important jerkoffs, just like you.
Of course, enjoy your passive, slashdot comment mocking, that is what they trust while making an exclusive for a single brand's closed platform.
Yes They are in league with Them to brainwash the sheeple! I bet this app won't track the Chemtrail missions, and the CIA mind-control satellites! The Truth Is Out There....
When you try to smear me with the 'conspiracy theorist' label, then that's a textbook ad hominem: you even make it out to be the character flaw that makes people point out that some conspiracy theories are, in fact, mainstream. That's what an ad hominem is.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise[1]. [emphasis mine]
To dumb it down for you: in order for a comment to be an ad-hominem attack, it must be used as the basis for the dismissal of a dissenting viewpoint/argument. Here's an example:
"Only morons think that grass is purple"
- ad hominem
"Grass isn't purple, here's a spectroscopic analysis, and, by the way, you're a moron"
- not ad hominem
There, now you can say you learned something new today!
Of course, it's a strawman as well.
Oh boy. I'd LOVE to see your definition of that one! Let me guess - you think a strawman is something along the lines of "when you're a big meanie who disagrees with me!"
And knowing what words mean instead of only how to use them in moronic conversation is hardly a failure to "comprehend the nuances of the English language".
Ah, see, now THERE is an actual logical fallacy - a false dichotomy! You're suggesting that there are only two categories which people can fall into when it comes to English comprehension:
1. Knowing what words mean. 2. Only knowing how to make moronic conversation.
In fact, there are multiple other possibilities, such as:
3. Knowing what words mean, AND how to make moronic conversation. 4. Not knowing either what words mean or how to engage in moronic conversation. 5. Knowing what words mean, and being able to apply them in any conversation. 6..... well, you get the drift.
Of course, you clearly fall into category 2, anyway: you only understand one specific definition for a handful of words without understanding their proper usage, but are more than happy to get in moronic discussions (and START them, too!).
You rather remind me of a trained monkey; you hear the word "banana"... your ears perk up... you get all excited... the Pavlovian response kicks in and you start to salivate... and then start screaming and throwing feces because, sadly, it turns out the lab assistants were discussing the upcoming sale at Banana Republic.
And no, that was neither an ad-hominem, a straw-man, or any other sort of logical fallacy. It was, rather, an apt summation of your verbal/literary shortcomings. So, before you start formulating another gormless response, consider the phrase "Banana Republic", and then tell me what kind of definition you come up with by relying on your much-vaunted "knowing what words mean" method.
If by "silly sort of wordplay whose sole purpose is to mislead the naive" you mean using words in accordance with their actual meaning, then I guess you've got a point.
Ok, then I guess you have no problem with being called a gay/queer man who likes to bum fags.
What do you mean you're offended? You certainly seem like a happy and quirky individual. Your habit of borrowing cigarettes might be a point of dispute, but it's certainly nothing to get uppity about...
My purpose is certainly not to "legitimize [my] personal delusions", though, as I fully believe Atta & Co were responsible, so you're obviously just a simpleton who can't argue without using the ad hominem.
So you're just a twit who doesn't really comprehend the nuances of the English language. Not only do you not realize that words and phrases can have different meanings depending on how they're used, but the meaning of "ad hominen" seems to have completely eluded you. No biggie. I'd be more than happy to tutor you, so long as you remain civil.
You do realise that the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks is a conspiracy theory, don't you? Atta et al = conspirators.
No - you simply do not understand the meaning of the phrase "conspiracy theory". Allow me to enlighten you:
Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators.[1] ...
In the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media, and "evidence suggests that a broad cross section of Americans todaygives credence to at least some conspiracy theories."[4] This has contributed to conspiracism emerging as a cultural phenomenon and the possible replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind. Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.[5]
Conspiracy theorists like to try and legitimize their personal delusions by claiming that the factually supported narratives are also conspiracy theories. This is, of course, foolish. It's a silly sort of wordplay whose sole purpose is to mislead the naive.
Yes, the classic version of that story ends with the military designing suicide-missiles, crewed by human beings. The rationale being that new computers (for guidance) are very complex and cost a lot to make, but a human being with a pencil and paper is a very low-cost solution. The story ends with the commanders envisioning a new arms-race, where the determining factor is no longer resources but rather how quickly new missile-drivers can be taught math.
I just wish I could remember what book that's from.
No, but trying to be an honest company among a bunch of poopyhead competitors that aren't afraid to roll up their sleeves and play dirty isn't all that easy.
Welcome to Earth! Did you have a nice trip? I'd like to introduce you to the predominant species: a partly-evolved tribe of primates who call themselves "Humans". Slimy lot of bastards they are. Stab their own mothers in the back given the chance, and some incentive.
In other words, he's suggesting that the government invests in its populace in the form of free education and recoups that outlay in the increased economic benefit that a more educated populace would provide. Doesn't seem like a horrible idea to me.
What sort of economic benefit is someone with a degree in Womens Studies going to provide?
The only way I'd agree to your scheme is if it was geared only towards productive degrees. Fund the sciences, engineering, and medicine. Maybe history, too, although that one is more dubious. If we're going to pay to educate people, I want to know we're getting our moneys worth. I don't want to see taxpayer dollars being wasted so some hippie kid can spend 4 years of his life high as a kite "working" on a completely useless degree.
As someone from Brown put it bluntly, "If we didn't charge so much, people would not think it was worth anything."
The problem is that employers are already realizing that it's not worth anything. If you get a degree in the physical sciences, then yeah, you've got your moneys worth. Anything else and you'll be cleaning tables at McDonalds until you can either find an entry-level position which you could have gotten with a GED, or you go back to school to get a worthwhile degree. Quite a few of my friends learned this lesson the hard way.
Maybe, but good acting sure is. People who are are about to become millionaires due to a frivolous lawsuit find that they are "incapable" of doing day-to-day things.
Your problem appears to be that you think the handbrake is suitable for use while moving. It was designed to prevent the car from starting to move in the first place.
Citation?
I know you Americans don't use the damn thing anyway
I know you whatever-you-are obviously don't read sigs.
What part of PRIVATE EMAIL accounts do you not get?
You know that slashdot is going downhill when we have users on here who have never heard of a packet sniffer.
Clear enough?
Yep, it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Tell ya what, let's bet: $100 on the case being thrown out of court or dropped before going to trial. I can pretty much guarantee that it's being brought by the wrong plaintiff, against the wrong defendant, without a shred of evidence. If you have a paypal account, it should be easy to transfer the winnings at the conclusion of the case.
You missed a big point in 4 - Foreman believed something nefarious was going on, because among the emails shown to him by the Metron SVP were emails from and to Hanni from parties other than Foreman/Metron, as in:
No, they were e-mails to Foreman from parties other than Hanni. Big difference.
Sounds more like Foreman is a dumbass who used the Delta network to send e-mails to people who hate Delta. According to TFA, the e-mails were of exchanges between HIM and other people, not between Hanni and others.
Not very surprising that Delta would intercept such communications, and it certainly isn't illegal. Of questionable morality, maybe, but not illegal. Moreover, this lawsuit appears to have been brought by the wrong plaintiff.
You contradict yourself. Applying the parking brake at sufficient speed will cause you to lose control. It isn't in any use case, therefore it should be disabled while the car is in motion.
Notice the words "damn near". Of course, if you're a complete twit you can kill yourself with just about anything. I'm sure someone somewhere has managed to die by sticking a pencil too far up his nose.
I'm also rather baffled by what you were trying to say with "it isn't in any use case".
In any event, I wouldn't be opposed to an emergency brake which takes the vehicles speed into account and applies a proportional force. It's actually a really good idea. You should patent that before someone from a major car company sees your comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Only a jackass would reject modern medicine based on anecdotes.
There are dozens of articles, full stop
Gene Ray has dozens of articles, too.
you should not make the schoolboy error of confusing peer reviewed journal articles with unassailable holy anointed universal truth, as many seem to do these days.
Only someone truly ignorant of the scientific process would make such a comment. A peer reviewed article is the minimum standard of evidence. It's rather how a drivers license is the minimum standard for operating a vehicle on public roads - it doesn't mean you're going to be a good driver, but there's no fucking way we're going to trust you if you haven't even managed to complete that one step.
Actually, he's right; we know for a fact that a certain percentage of the populace will have a severe reaction to any given vaccine. Of course, we don't know that this was the case with the cheerleader, so his evidence sucks. Also, the number of people who have those reactions is so low with most vaccines that it's easily eclipsed by the benefit of vaccination, so you can't really use it as an argument against mandatory vaccination.
And we hate you.
Look to BBC Website comments on every single stupid technical change they propose. British start the sentence with "I am paying my license fee."
Yep, they're a bunch of self-important jerkoffs, just like you.
Of course, enjoy your passive, slashdot comment mocking, that is what they trust while making an exclusive for a single brand's closed platform.
Yes They are in league with Them to brainwash the sheeple! I bet this app won't track the Chemtrail missions, and the CIA mind-control satellites! The Truth Is Out There ....
I'm sure they're real worried about your real questions. Why, the thought of getting angry e-mails surely has them shaking in their boots.
When you try to smear me with the 'conspiracy theorist' label, then that's a textbook ad hominem: you even make it out to be the character flaw that makes people point out that some conspiracy theories are, in fact, mainstream. That's what an ad hominem is.
Nope.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise[1]. [emphasis mine]
To dumb it down for you: in order for a comment to be an ad-hominem attack, it must be used as the basis for the dismissal of a dissenting viewpoint/argument. Here's an example:
"Only morons think that grass is purple"
- ad hominem
"Grass isn't purple, here's a spectroscopic analysis, and, by the way, you're a moron"
- not ad hominem
There, now you can say you learned something new today!
Of course, it's a strawman as well.
Oh boy. I'd LOVE to see your definition of that one! Let me guess - you think a strawman is something along the lines of "when you're a big meanie who disagrees with me!"
And knowing what words mean instead of only how to use them in moronic conversation is hardly a failure to "comprehend the nuances of the English language".
Ah, see, now THERE is an actual logical fallacy - a false dichotomy! You're suggesting that there are only two categories which people can fall into when it comes to English comprehension:
1. Knowing what words mean.
2. Only knowing how to make moronic conversation.
In fact, there are multiple other possibilities, such as:
3. Knowing what words mean, AND how to make moronic conversation. .... well, you get the drift.
4. Not knowing either what words mean or how to engage in moronic conversation.
5. Knowing what words mean, and being able to apply them in any conversation.
6.
Of course, you clearly fall into category 2, anyway: you only understand one specific definition for a handful of words without understanding their proper usage, but are more than happy to get in moronic discussions (and START them, too!).
You rather remind me of a trained monkey; you hear the word "banana" ... your ears perk up ... you get all excited ... the Pavlovian response kicks in and you start to salivate ... and then start screaming and throwing feces because, sadly, it turns out the lab assistants were discussing the upcoming sale at Banana Republic.
And no, that was neither an ad-hominem, a straw-man, or any other sort of logical fallacy. It was, rather, an apt summation of your verbal/literary shortcomings. So, before you start formulating another gormless response, consider the phrase "Banana Republic", and then tell me what kind of definition you come up with by relying on your much-vaunted "knowing what words mean" method.
If by "silly sort of wordplay whose sole purpose is to mislead the naive" you mean using words in accordance with their actual meaning, then I guess you've got a point.
Ok, then I guess you have no problem with being called a gay/queer man who likes to bum fags.
What do you mean you're offended? You certainly seem like a happy and quirky individual. Your habit of borrowing cigarettes might be a point of dispute, but it's certainly nothing to get uppity about ...
My purpose is certainly not to "legitimize [my] personal delusions", though, as I fully believe Atta & Co were responsible, so you're obviously just a simpleton who can't argue without using the ad hominem.
So you're just a twit who doesn't really comprehend the nuances of the English language. Not only do you not realize that words and phrases can have different meanings depending on how they're used, but the meaning of "ad hominen" seems to have completely eluded you. No biggie. I'd be more than happy to tutor you, so long as you remain civil.
Now please go fuck yourself.
.... well so much for that.
You do realise that the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks is a conspiracy theory, don't you? Atta et al = conspirators.
No - you simply do not understand the meaning of the phrase "conspiracy theory". Allow me to enlighten you:
Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators.[1]
...
In the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media, and "evidence suggests that a broad cross section of Americans todaygives credence to at least some conspiracy theories."[4] This has contributed to conspiracism emerging as a cultural phenomenon and the possible replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind. Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.[5]
Source here.
Conspiracy theorists like to try and legitimize their personal delusions by claiming that the factually supported narratives are also conspiracy theories. This is, of course, foolish. It's a silly sort of wordplay whose sole purpose is to mislead the naive.
That's it! Thanks!
Yes, the classic version of that story ends with the military designing suicide-missiles, crewed by human beings. The rationale being that new computers (for guidance) are very complex and cost a lot to make, but a human being with a pencil and paper is a very low-cost solution. The story ends with the commanders envisioning a new arms-race, where the determining factor is no longer resources but rather how quickly new missile-drivers can be taught math.
I just wish I could remember what book that's from.
No, but trying to be an honest company among a bunch of poopyhead competitors that aren't afraid to roll up their sleeves and play dirty isn't all that easy.
Welcome to Earth! Did you have a nice trip? I'd like to introduce you to the predominant species: a partly-evolved tribe of primates who call themselves "Humans". Slimy lot of bastards they are. Stab their own mothers in the back given the chance, and some incentive.
In other words, he's suggesting that the government invests in its populace in the form of free education and recoups that outlay in the increased economic benefit that a more educated populace would provide. Doesn't seem like a horrible idea to me.
What sort of economic benefit is someone with a degree in Womens Studies going to provide?
The only way I'd agree to your scheme is if it was geared only towards productive degrees. Fund the sciences, engineering, and medicine. Maybe history, too, although that one is more dubious. If we're going to pay to educate people, I want to know we're getting our moneys worth. I don't want to see taxpayer dollars being wasted so some hippie kid can spend 4 years of his life high as a kite "working" on a completely useless degree.
As someone from Brown put it bluntly, "If we didn't charge so much, people would not think it was worth anything."
The problem is that employers are already realizing that it's not worth anything. If you get a degree in the physical sciences, then yeah, you've got your moneys worth. Anything else and you'll be cleaning tables at McDonalds until you can either find an entry-level position which you could have gotten with a GED, or you go back to school to get a worthwhile degree. Quite a few of my friends learned this lesson the hard way.
I find they mostly have their heads in a much darker place ....
Somehow I doubt that's an issue. They're more likely to die from the shock of realizing that "she" has a penis.
Because might make right was such a good system?
Anything which prepares kids to deal with the real world is a good system.
Maybe, but good acting sure is. People who are are about to become millionaires due to a frivolous lawsuit find that they are "incapable" of doing day-to-day things.
There, fixed that for you.
Your problem appears to be that you think the handbrake is suitable for use while moving. It was designed to prevent the car from starting to move in the first place.
Citation?
I know you Americans don't use the damn thing anyway
I know you whatever-you-are obviously don't read sigs.
What part of PRIVATE EMAIL accounts do you not get?
You know that slashdot is going downhill when we have users on here who have never heard of a packet sniffer.
Clear enough?
Yep, it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Tell ya what, let's bet: $100 on the case being thrown out of court or dropped before going to trial. I can pretty much guarantee that it's being brought by the wrong plaintiff, against the wrong defendant, without a shred of evidence. If you have a paypal account, it should be easy to transfer the winnings at the conclusion of the case.
Deal?
Were should have stopped 10 beers ago.
I just tried to think about negative mass, thanks for the headache.
Think of the marketing potential!
"Loose 50lbs without dieting, overnight! Just try our patented NegaBelt for the low low cost of only 40 payments of $19.99!"
We could make billions!
You missed a big point in 4 - Foreman believed something nefarious was going on, because among the emails shown to him by the Metron SVP were emails from and to Hanni from parties other than Foreman/Metron, as in:
No, they were e-mails to Foreman from parties other than Hanni. Big difference.
Sounds more like Foreman is a dumbass who used the Delta network to send e-mails to people who hate Delta. According to TFA, the e-mails were of exchanges between HIM and other people, not between Hanni and others.
Not very surprising that Delta would intercept such communications, and it certainly isn't illegal. Of questionable morality, maybe, but not illegal. Moreover, this lawsuit appears to have been brought by the wrong plaintiff.
You contradict yourself. Applying the parking brake at sufficient speed will cause you to lose control. It isn't in any use case, therefore it should be disabled while the car is in motion.
Notice the words "damn near". Of course, if you're a complete twit you can kill yourself with just about anything. I'm sure someone somewhere has managed to die by sticking a pencil too far up his nose.
I'm also rather baffled by what you were trying to say with "it isn't in any use case".
In any event, I wouldn't be opposed to an emergency brake which takes the vehicles speed into account and applies a proportional force. It's actually a really good idea. You should patent that before someone from a major car company sees your comment.