That's incorrect. To qualify as a false dilemma, the argument simply needs to assume there are only two options when there are in fact more. In this case a third option, doing both, is still arguably possible. The fact that both endeavours require non-zero resources does not necessarily constrain the solution to only doing one of them. It is only if the amount of resources required to do both of them is larger than the amount of available resources that the choice becomes constrained. Until you can demonstrate that this is the case, restricting the argument to doing one or the other is a false dilemma.
I agree - if you look at the comment threads on newspaper websites or youtube, you quickly realise that the slashdot moderation system does a hell of a job (albeit imperfect, as with everything in the world) of increasing the signal to noise ratio in a discussion.
What do you mean improved? Improved from the perspective of who or what, and by what metric? What do you mean by "in nature"? Everything is "in nature".
Being a charity doesn't mean you give your money away to other people - it just means you accept donations for a specified purpose. In the case of a church, that purpose is to pay for the infrastructure of the organisation.
Correct, it is statistically insignificant. You can't use your 6 data point anecdote to determine the likelihood of becoming a zombie after death. You have to use other evidence, like an absence of any records of anyone ever becoming a zombie after death anywhere in the world ever, and a lack of a known mechanism by which this might occur.
I don't know anything about WoW players, and don't care to know, but your beef with his logic is not valid.
Whether or not your position is correct, the argument that anecdotes are weak evidence is valid.
You're Godwinning yourself a bit there. The Neo-Nazi movement is openly pushing the policies of the original Nazi party. The current labour party has no policies of homosexual persecution, and as such carries no "guilt by having the same name" that you argue is significant. Even so, it was the Conservative party in power at the time of Turings persecution, so that argument fails even on its own terms.
Whatever way you cut it, you are culpable for your own actions, not the action of your ancestors. If someone started a party today called the Nazi party and had policies of tolerance, inclusiveness and equality, they would have a grossly ill-chosen name, but would still carry no burden of responsibility for the actions of the third reich.
You're the second person i've seen to comment on this story by starting your post with the one word sentence "This.". Am I missing some kind of reference? The "This." doesn't seem to follow on from the previous post...
Complying with a standard is the barest beginning of achieving interoperability. MS are trying to wriggle out of what they are obliged to do by equivocating compliance with interoperability, and say "we followed the standard so we've done what we have to", when they know damn well that this doesn't even scratch the surface of interoperability.
There are a vast array of multiple interpretations of even the most painstakingly defined spec. Being interoperable is not about making your own fresh interpretation, it's about catering to the interpretations made by the software that you're trying to interoperate with.
In the case of the missing definition in ODF 1.0, MS should have looked at how all the other implementations handled it, and picked the options that would have worked with the largest number of existing implementations.
i never said we couldnt survive being outnumbered by predators, so that's kind of irrelevant. so how many animals per capita do humans kill then, per day for example?
I'm an omnivore, but that wasn't my point. My point was that humans for the most part aren't "blood thirsty". There's a difference between possesing an inherent urge to injure and kill animals every day, and a simple dietary preference. Also, a lion only eats meat - as you point out, humans are omnivorous and can exist on a purely non-meat diet.
You could argue that humans have a choice, but still eat meat, so therefore they are more culpable than a Lion, but again that isn't my point. I'm talking about individual behaviour, and the likelihood of a human desiring to perform a violent act. I think it's rather telling that people will eat meat, but the vast majority aren't prepared to kill anything for meat. I know the idea of having to kill a chicken makes me shudder, yet i'll happily guzzle a nice chicken curry without a second thought.
If you had a choice of being put in a cage with a lion or a human, which choice do you think is most likely to result in you being violently assaulted?
If the world were populated by 7 billion lions and a few tens of thousands of humans, the lions would have massacred more creatures than us. On individual terms, there are far more bloodthirsty animals than humans. The fact that we have numbers on our side, and an ability to behave more efficiently through forward planning, does not make us any more bloodthirsty. Most humans are fairly docile, harmless creatures.
So let me get this straight, you think that if i search for "firepond" on google, i'll be threatened and intimidated into not buying their software? What a pathetically ill thought-out analogy.
1. (rare in US) A burning or smouldering piece of firewood.
2. (British only) A bundle of sticks tied together.
3. (British only) A meatball made from pork.
4. (pejorative, US, slang) A male homosexual.
5. (obsolete, US) The cast off end of a smoked cigarette.
nothing in that definition about being worn out is there? so "faggotry" can have nothing to do with that definition you posted, can it?
Unless perhaps the OP meant it was something to do with smouldering firewood, tying sticks together or making meatballs, which are all so likely is MUST be true.
Slashdot Mirror
That's incorrect. To qualify as a false dilemma, the argument simply needs to assume there are only two options when there are in fact more. In this case a third option, doing both, is still arguably possible. The fact that both endeavours require non-zero resources does not necessarily constrain the solution to only doing one of them. It is only if the amount of resources required to do both of them is larger than the amount of available resources that the choice becomes constrained. Until you can demonstrate that this is the case, restricting the argument to doing one or the other is a false dilemma.
very true
Mario 64 is still better then mario galaxy
according to ballmer, bing is named after chandler bing
you pay monthly - i would imagine when you purchase the game you get a month or two free which covers the price you paid for the software.
I agree - if you look at the comment threads on newspaper websites or youtube, you quickly realise that the slashdot moderation system does a hell of a job (albeit imperfect, as with everything in the world) of increasing the signal to noise ratio in a discussion.
What do you mean improved? Improved from the perspective of who or what, and by what metric? What do you mean by "in nature"? Everything is "in nature".
Depends how you define wrong, and the specific baggage brought in with whatever "wizard" you are imagining he might be referring to.
I particularly begrudge paying these gouging extortionists for the privilege of playing music in a shop that sells their fucking music.
Being a charity doesn't mean you give your money away to other people - it just means you accept donations for a specified purpose. In the case of a church, that purpose is to pay for the infrastructure of the organisation.
don't forget skeptoid, skepticality and the skeptic zone
So if I work for a company who tell me to rob a bank or be fired, I'm not legally responsible for my actions when I rob the bank? Awesome!
Correct, it is statistically insignificant. You can't use your 6 data point anecdote to determine the likelihood of becoming a zombie after death. You have to use other evidence, like an absence of any records of anyone ever becoming a zombie after death anywhere in the world ever, and a lack of a known mechanism by which this might occur.
I don't know anything about WoW players, and don't care to know, but your beef with his logic is not valid.
Whether or not your position is correct, the argument that anecdotes are weak evidence is valid.
You're Godwinning yourself a bit there. The Neo-Nazi movement is openly pushing the policies of the original Nazi party. The current labour party has no policies of homosexual persecution, and as such carries no "guilt by having the same name" that you argue is significant. Even so, it was the Conservative party in power at the time of Turings persecution, so that argument fails even on its own terms.
Whatever way you cut it, you are culpable for your own actions, not the action of your ancestors. If someone started a party today called the Nazi party and had policies of tolerance, inclusiveness and equality, they would have a grossly ill-chosen name, but would still carry no burden of responsibility for the actions of the third reich.
You're the second person i've seen to comment on this story by starting your post with the one word sentence "This.". Am I missing some kind of reference? The "This." doesn't seem to follow on from the previous post...
That's what ballmer said.
according to an OASIS committee member and chief architect of ODF at IBM, it's impossible to write a foolproof spec - if someone wants to be compliant, but not interoperable with other implementations, they can always find a way.
Complying with a standard is the barest beginning of achieving interoperability. MS are trying to wriggle out of what they are obliged to do by equivocating compliance with interoperability, and say "we followed the standard so we've done what we have to", when they know damn well that this doesn't even scratch the surface of interoperability.
There are a vast array of multiple interpretations of even the most painstakingly defined spec. Being interoperable is not about making your own fresh interpretation, it's about catering to the interpretations made by the software that you're trying to interoperate with.
In the case of the missing definition in ODF 1.0, MS should have looked at how all the other implementations handled it, and picked the options that would have worked with the largest number of existing implementations.
They did the opposite.
i couldn't hear the swooshing over the sound of no one laughing
i never said we couldnt survive being outnumbered by predators, so that's kind of irrelevant. so how many animals per capita do humans kill then, per day for example?
I'm an omnivore, but that wasn't my point. My point was that humans for the most part aren't "blood thirsty". There's a difference between possesing an inherent urge to injure and kill animals every day, and a simple dietary preference. Also, a lion only eats meat - as you point out, humans are omnivorous and can exist on a purely non-meat diet.
You could argue that humans have a choice, but still eat meat, so therefore they are more culpable than a Lion, but again that isn't my point. I'm talking about individual behaviour, and the likelihood of a human desiring to perform a violent act. I think it's rather telling that people will eat meat, but the vast majority aren't prepared to kill anything for meat. I know the idea of having to kill a chicken makes me shudder, yet i'll happily guzzle a nice chicken curry without a second thought.
If you had a choice of being put in a cage with a lion or a human, which choice do you think is most likely to result in you being violently assaulted?
If the world were populated by 7 billion lions and a few tens of thousands of humans, the lions would have massacred more creatures than us. On individual terms, there are far more bloodthirsty animals than humans. The fact that we have numbers on our side, and an ability to behave more efficiently through forward planning, does not make us any more bloodthirsty. Most humans are fairly docile, harmless creatures.
So let me get this straight, you think that if i search for "firepond" on google, i'll be threatened and intimidated into not buying their software? What a pathetically ill thought-out analogy.
Noun
Singular
faggot
Plural
faggots
faggot (plural faggots)
1. (rare in US) A burning or smouldering piece of firewood.
2. (British only) A bundle of sticks tied together.
3. (British only) A meatball made from pork.
4. (pejorative, US, slang) A male homosexual.
5. (obsolete, US) The cast off end of a smoked cigarette.
nothing in that definition about being worn out is there? so "faggotry" can have nothing to do with that definition you posted, can it?
Unless perhaps the OP meant it was something to do with smouldering firewood, tying sticks together or making meatballs, which are all so likely is MUST be true.
Neither was riding at the front of the bus.
OMFG this thing is Johnny 5! iNPuT INPUT inputinput InpUTT!!