So what? The most interesting part of your comment is that you don't seem to notice that it is just a logical fallacy. Or are you seriously arguing that a decision cannot be a poor one if other people also make the same decision? You make no point, and so what if you think "companies" "can afford" to hand you money? That has nothing to do with what their employment offer to you is. They could have more money, or less money, and their offer to you is the exact same offer, and the analysis of if it is an offer that would meet your needs is unchanged.
That's nice that you think whatever you think. You probably don't even realize that I agree that people should be able to work 40 hours a week and have food. Actually, you should really re-read what you responded to because you missed the point by 180 degrees. You think it would be nice of they got those things as a handout; I say they should absolutely demand it, and if it isn't part of an offer, they should reject the offer. How are you going to hand out a living wage without requiring anything in return from the worker, even ethics? If they're not demanding fair pay, their ethics are too weak for them to even be able to claim that they'll do fair work. It is symmetrical; a good work ethic offers quality work for quality pay, it doesn't simply demand pay because the other party makes more or less profit.
When the "Golden Eagle" is your go-to example, your argument might be self-refuting; see also: "the exception that proves the rule."
Also note that for most of recorded history, coins haven't had an abstract numerical "face value," generally the price of some basic necessity was declared by the government in the context of a named coin, thereby setting the value of the coin, and the value of already-issued coins would change with that spot-price based on the current politics of the realm.
For most of recorded history, gold was not generally used as currency. Even famous examples of historical gold coins that were currency, if you look at trade in the period you'll find out that gold was not the standard currency by any stretch, and it would not even be spendable for most transactions that would have been taking place. This should be immediately obvious just by the large size of historical gold coins, and the complete lack of pinhead sized ones.
Armchair historians need a solid interest in reading lots of history, or they'll fall right out of the chair.
And consider also; gold coins are still being made, even now that they are not currency. And they often still have an absurdist "cash value" on them, so you could make a technical argument that are currency, but in practice they are not. And yet, a wealthy person could probably pay a debt with them. Lacking ledger-based financial transactions, it would instantly stand out as a way for wealthy people and businesses to move large sums. As such, it would command a privileged place in literature and would receive lots of poetic references including the word "currency."
Just because you can "power regional empires" on a commodity, such as some sort of mineral wealth like gold or iron, doesn't automatically make them "currency." If you hire a guard to protect your pile of gold, what coins do you use to pay them? Those are the "currency" that are actually in use.;) Historically the one that stands out the most is copper, and the next is silver.
What if all those people have strong spines, they just disagree with you about what the laws should be and how the government should be run? What then?
You seem to understand exactly one half of the statement, "Citizens comprise the government." You go off the rails when you wave your hands about the citizens making "demands." They would do that by voting, or by filing a lawsuit if they believe the law already supports their position. Understanding of the first half of your comment renders the second half moot.
Some countries require payments be made with a recognized currency, most do not.
Your statement is silly, because it totally ignores the needs of the person using the currency. Maybe you don't care about the gubermint, but that doesn't tell you how to predict the results of your actions.
Here in the US, anything you use as a currency is already recognized by the government. There is no whitelist or approval needed, but simply using something as currency invokes various laws such as anti-counterfeiting laws to protect the people using it.
And if a coupon has cash value, counterfeiting it could be a federal offense.
As an aside, the summary makes an amusing misuse of the term "legal tender." No, but the article does discuss that the proposal applies to things convertible to legal tender such as bitcoin which has dollar-denominated exchanges. Presumably there is overlapping ignorance about the meaning of the term "legal tender" and governments' limited involvement in private currencies.
You seem to be claiming that all American trials are equally fair. As that is demonstrably not the case, you need to revisit your argument to explain that away.
That is a really wild and crazy presumption.
Lets examine your logic:
Most blargs are fair. Therefore no blargs are unfair. T/F?
Now, I ask you a counter-question: did you intentionally misrepresent both the words of my statement, and also the "gist" within the context? Or are you simply not capable of discussion unless a person already agrees with all your conclusions?
Oh, right, just a totally off-topic link that had nothing to do with your comment. That's why we don't click video links here; you're not half as clever as you thought.
If you had any idea the history of bait-and-switch tactics on slashdot links, you'd understand that nobody here clicks links unless it is something like wikipedia.
You seem to have brought some baggage, I'm not the baggage guy. You'll have to carry it yourself, but you can store it wherever you keep your presumptions.
They don't just call it "algebra," they call it "college algebra," it refers to a very specific class. There are also a whole bunch of classes called "algebra" at these schools, but the term "college algebra" in American English refers to what our Universities call Math 111, and it is the (only and highest) algebra class that math majors would take, though obviously higher level classes delve into specific topics that are within the category "algebra." There is no general algebra above it that would be called "algebra."
Maybe you went to a school without a strong math or engineering department, or you were in a time and State that didn't require "college algebra" for those degrees. Many 2 year degrees don't require anything above Math 064, which technically is "college prep."
Typically, students who already took a Math 111-equivalent in HS will actually still need to take Math 094 (algebra refresher) before taking Math 111, because passing the test and remembering it a couple years later are different things.
When people say "college algebra" they are not just saying the two words next to each other, it is a very specific class. If you're wondering about the material, here is a random quiz example that covers all the material they teach: http://www.pnc.edu/wp-content/...
Math 004 is indeed where many students who took "regular HS math" will have to start; it is a remedial class that prepares students for remedial algebra prep. I don't know if that is the same as your "Math 4" but it certainly carries forwards the same "2+2" jokes. And yes, it is a full 2 years of math from there to Math 094, at which point they'll be ready to attempt Math 111. That's if they take 5 credits of math every term and pass every class. It will use up all their electives and probably guarantee 5 years to get their bachelors.
If you think you can tell which side somebody fights on purely by if they give analysis that includes the perspective of the other side, then you'll never be able to understand anybody other than the grunt following orders. You won't understand any of the results of the battles.
Do you presume the 1% are too stupid to think of defending themselves? It seems pretty relevant when idiots are implying violence to consider if the people they would be attacking can defend themselves.
If you've read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut, then I'll clarify that I sympathize with the revolution in that story; they re-learn how to live before they die, and that is something more than they had left themselves with prior. Of course they could never win, or present any significant challenge to the forces that be; it is just a way for them to die feeling alive. Is that all the poor want to leave themselves with now? Pitchforks don't win against gun turrets, and gun turrets are easy to build if society breaks down to the point where the police are not able to protect the rich. The poor have some clever people, but they won't have ammunition or food supplies.
If considering the perspective of the enemy causes somebody to appear to you as the enemy, it stands to reason that you would never know your enemy, or have any chance of knowing your enemy. You do not talk a good fight.
There are a bunch of implied things there are blatant falsehoods, though.
Snowden didn't attempt use of any channels. Read the actual emails people point to that he sent to his immediate supervisor; all he did was tell his supervisor that something might not be legal, he was told that it was legal, and that was the end of it. He never made a formal complaint, he never made an informal complaint other than to his supervisor, and he did not contact his Senator or Congressional Representative. Nor did he contact anybody at the Department of Justice, or even one of the military lawyers assigned to liaise with his organization.
There is no credible accusation of anybody using any of those channels to make a complaint and being "attacked." That was probably actually just a TV show or movie. In movies, it happens every time, granted.;)
No, that isn't "moving the goalposts." I'll leave it up to you to do the counter-analysis. Just presume that my defense consists of only low-hanging fruit. It may be that people don't always repeat themselves word for word, but instead say additional words and that you're intended to take all of them as things that were said.;)
I meant all the things I said; I moved no goalposts by making additional comments. No comment I made was intended to refute, replace, or supersede my prior comments on the matter, nor did I make any statement that offered to scale back or revise prior comments.
It is a logic test. I take out the loaded words whose context confuse people, and replace them with neutral words like Blarg and Blorg. It is a way to reduce these messes of logical fallacy to a truth table.
Thanks for asking, it didn't occur to me that it would be a surprising communication form.
You make an odd reference to some sort of "court interpretation" though. Would you mind linking to a mainstream source of what "interpretation" was made of what, by which court? Preferably a wikipedia or legal industry link, please.
If you think the rhetorical phrase, "what kind of idiot" is an attempt to " presume that nearly *anyone* blah blah" then you simply don't read English.
You're welcome to ask about specific words if you want to ask in a constructive manner, but I'm not going to read past the part that intentionally and explicitly takes my comments out of the context and extends them to "*anyone*." That is just daft. You didn't try to understand what was said, so how can your comments possibly be a response to it?
That's rather disingenuous, as it names specific organizations that still exist in the world.
You thought al Qaida were all killed, but that isn't true, and you could easily discover that if only you had access to the interwebs.
Not only that, but the Taliban still exist, and Mullah Omar was never found or confirmed dead.
It is part of the inherent nature of declaring war against non-State groups; it can't end unless they get around to declaring the war won in exactly the correct sort of formal way; specifically, one that refers to the War Powers Act authorization for the war ending.
In the case of the Taliban, we're at war the political organization that was in control of Afghanistan, not Afghanistan the nation, so that is pretty open-ended.
Oh, so that's how white people get away with murdering black people in the Deep South, as a non-American I always wondered how a qualified judge could possibly let that pass in the 21st century.
No, that isn't how.
How they do it is the local police just arrest a random black guy and he gets convicted of the crime and it is a solved case.
The "thing" where a juror has to make that final determination according to their conscience and can take into consideration if it is Just to apply the law in the instant case, well that is a real thing. And it is sometimes called "jury nullification," but rarely.
The thing that is usually called jury nullification is where a juror, generally at the urging of the defense lawyer, decide before that moment of final determination that they will weigh the law instead of the guilt of the defendant. That is indeed a "thing," but it is a banned thing. And yes, the legal system dislikes it.
You can tell which it is because the one that is allowed isn't talked about as a goal, it is just part of the juror "voting their conscience" and is done of their own accord.
Brazil and the EU are in no way enemies, so those couldn't be treason or aiding an enemy. Merely espionage punishable by death, or up to 20 years in prison.
Nope. 20 year limit, or 30 years, depending on if the judge decides that the crime was in the context of a "time of war" or not.
They could instead ask for the death penalty under the statute, but they wouldn't get it because the sentencing guidelines don't call for it, and it isn't used for espionage cases in modern times.
In France they don't even have jury trials unless the sentence would be at least 15 years.
Accused of a crime and facing 10 years in prison? You'll be tried by a panel of professional judges, and they don't even need a unanimous verdict. Think about that... one of the professionals assigned to judge you isn't convinced you're guilty, that's not good enough!
No, you're being willfully ignorant of the differences in the positions, and attempting to wordsmith a position that you probably don't actually hold as a rhetorical device.
If you don't think a law should exist, then voting "not guilty" achieves the end of not applying the law. In your fabricated scenario, you're creating a completely different result than you intend, just out of protect, out of belief in some theoretical public backlash. But people nullifying bad laws are not trying to protest; they're trying to achieve their goal of not applying the law to the defendant.
Also, not applying the law is in the same direction as the action not being illegal; it is less severe of a punishment than for being guilty. In your scenario, you apply a less severe punishment out of a belief that a more serious punishment is preferred. Your fake position on murder doesn't even achieve your fake ends! Instead, you bring in completely unrelated subjects like prison funding, that are clearly not part of a juror's purview.
No, actually in Europe it was found to be pretty horrible to have people of the same religion controlling government, and the English Civil War was fought over that, at least to the extent that both sides were "Christian."
Freedom of religion was about protecting Christians (and everybody else, incidentally) from other Christians in power. The pro-separation-of-Church-and-State side was the Puritan side!!!
I'll bet you could walk down the street and find a few in the first couple blocks.
Only a small percent of people even watch the news, much less pay attention to news stories.
And being tainted by media reports doesn't mean "ever heard about the case." Any large crime the local community heard about the case. They're not tainted unless they formed beliefs about the guilt of the defendant that can't be dispelled by having their lawyer explain the truth during the trial.
You generally need the media to have sensationalized the case with false reports to get a juror removed simply for having heard the reports, in combination with a one-sided public vilification. In Snowden's case, there is active public debate, so no reason to think that having heard a news story would leave a person biased.
Slashdot Mirror
So what? The most interesting part of your comment is that you don't seem to notice that it is just a logical fallacy. Or are you seriously arguing that a decision cannot be a poor one if other people also make the same decision? You make no point, and so what if you think "companies" "can afford" to hand you money? That has nothing to do with what their employment offer to you is. They could have more money, or less money, and their offer to you is the exact same offer, and the analysis of if it is an offer that would meet your needs is unchanged.
That's nice that you think whatever you think. You probably don't even realize that I agree that people should be able to work 40 hours a week and have food. Actually, you should really re-read what you responded to because you missed the point by 180 degrees. You think it would be nice of they got those things as a handout; I say they should absolutely demand it, and if it isn't part of an offer, they should reject the offer. How are you going to hand out a living wage without requiring anything in return from the worker, even ethics? If they're not demanding fair pay, their ethics are too weak for them to even be able to claim that they'll do fair work. It is symmetrical; a good work ethic offers quality work for quality pay, it doesn't simply demand pay because the other party makes more or less profit.
When the "Golden Eagle" is your go-to example, your argument might be self-refuting; see also: "the exception that proves the rule."
Also note that for most of recorded history, coins haven't had an abstract numerical "face value," generally the price of some basic necessity was declared by the government in the context of a named coin, thereby setting the value of the coin, and the value of already-issued coins would change with that spot-price based on the current politics of the realm.
For most of recorded history, gold was not generally used as currency. Even famous examples of historical gold coins that were currency, if you look at trade in the period you'll find out that gold was not the standard currency by any stretch, and it would not even be spendable for most transactions that would have been taking place. This should be immediately obvious just by the large size of historical gold coins, and the complete lack of pinhead sized ones.
Armchair historians need a solid interest in reading lots of history, or they'll fall right out of the chair.
And consider also; gold coins are still being made, even now that they are not currency. And they often still have an absurdist "cash value" on them, so you could make a technical argument that are currency, but in practice they are not. And yet, a wealthy person could probably pay a debt with them. Lacking ledger-based financial transactions, it would instantly stand out as a way for wealthy people and businesses to move large sums. As such, it would command a privileged place in literature and would receive lots of poetic references including the word "currency."
Just because you can "power regional empires" on a commodity, such as some sort of mineral wealth like gold or iron, doesn't automatically make them "currency." If you hire a guard to protect your pile of gold, what coins do you use to pay them? Those are the "currency" that are actually in use. ;) Historically the one that stands out the most is copper, and the next is silver.
What if all those people have strong spines, they just disagree with you about what the laws should be and how the government should be run? What then?
You seem to understand exactly one half of the statement, "Citizens comprise the government." You go off the rails when you wave your hands about the citizens making "demands." They would do that by voting, or by filing a lawsuit if they believe the law already supports their position. Understanding of the first half of your comment renders the second half moot.
Some countries require payments be made with a recognized currency, most do not.
Your statement is silly, because it totally ignores the needs of the person using the currency. Maybe you don't care about the gubermint, but that doesn't tell you how to predict the results of your actions.
Here in the US, anything you use as a currency is already recognized by the government. There is no whitelist or approval needed, but simply using something as currency invokes various laws such as anti-counterfeiting laws to protect the people using it.
And if a coupon has cash value, counterfeiting it could be a federal offense.
As an aside, the summary makes an amusing misuse of the term "legal tender." No, but the article does discuss that the proposal applies to things convertible to legal tender such as bitcoin which has dollar-denominated exchanges. Presumably there is overlapping ignorance about the meaning of the term "legal tender" and governments' limited involvement in private currencies.
You seem to be claiming that all American trials are equally fair. As that is demonstrably not the case, you need to revisit your argument to explain that away.
That is a really wild and crazy presumption.
Lets examine your logic:
Most blargs are fair. Therefore no blargs are unfair. T/F?
Now, I ask you a counter-question: did you intentionally misrepresent both the words of my statement, and also the "gist" within the context? Or are you simply not capable of discussion unless a person already agrees with all your conclusions?
Oh, right, just a totally off-topic link that had nothing to do with your comment. That's why we don't click video links here; you're not half as clever as you thought.
If you had any idea the history of bait-and-switch tactics on slashdot links, you'd understand that nobody here clicks links unless it is something like wikipedia.
You seem to have brought some baggage, I'm not the baggage guy. You'll have to carry it yourself, but you can store it wherever you keep your presumptions.
They don't just call it "algebra," they call it "college algebra," it refers to a very specific class. There are also a whole bunch of classes called "algebra" at these schools, but the term "college algebra" in American English refers to what our Universities call Math 111, and it is the (only and highest) algebra class that math majors would take, though obviously higher level classes delve into specific topics that are within the category "algebra." There is no general algebra above it that would be called "algebra."
Maybe you went to a school without a strong math or engineering department, or you were in a time and State that didn't require "college algebra" for those degrees. Many 2 year degrees don't require anything above Math 064, which technically is "college prep."
Typically, students who already took a Math 111-equivalent in HS will actually still need to take Math 094 (algebra refresher) before taking Math 111, because passing the test and remembering it a couple years later are different things.
When people say "college algebra" they are not just saying the two words next to each other, it is a very specific class. If you're wondering about the material, here is a random quiz example that covers all the material they teach: http://www.pnc.edu/wp-content/...
Math 004 is indeed where many students who took "regular HS math" will have to start; it is a remedial class that prepares students for remedial algebra prep. I don't know if that is the same as your "Math 4" but it certainly carries forwards the same "2+2" jokes. And yes, it is a full 2 years of math from there to Math 094, at which point they'll be ready to attempt Math 111. That's if they take 5 credits of math every term and pass every class. It will use up all their electives and probably guarantee 5 years to get their bachelors.
That's what happens when you try to bully somebody, you naturally make an ass of yourself.
Count user-id digits, and then try again.
No, GET OFF MY LAWN, you can count from the sidewalk, and you can do it on one hand.
If you think you can tell which side somebody fights on purely by if they give analysis that includes the perspective of the other side, then you'll never be able to understand anybody other than the grunt following orders. You won't understand any of the results of the battles.
Do you presume the 1% are too stupid to think of defending themselves? It seems pretty relevant when idiots are implying violence to consider if the people they would be attacking can defend themselves.
If you've read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut, then I'll clarify that I sympathize with the revolution in that story; they re-learn how to live before they die, and that is something more than they had left themselves with prior. Of course they could never win, or present any significant challenge to the forces that be; it is just a way for them to die feeling alive. Is that all the poor want to leave themselves with now? Pitchforks don't win against gun turrets, and gun turrets are easy to build if society breaks down to the point where the police are not able to protect the rich. The poor have some clever people, but they won't have ammunition or food supplies.
If considering the perspective of the enemy causes somebody to appear to you as the enemy, it stands to reason that you would never know your enemy, or have any chance of knowing your enemy. You do not talk a good fight.
There are a bunch of implied things there are blatant falsehoods, though.
Snowden didn't attempt use of any channels. Read the actual emails people point to that he sent to his immediate supervisor; all he did was tell his supervisor that something might not be legal, he was told that it was legal, and that was the end of it. He never made a formal complaint, he never made an informal complaint other than to his supervisor, and he did not contact his Senator or Congressional Representative. Nor did he contact anybody at the Department of Justice, or even one of the military lawyers assigned to liaise with his organization.
There is no credible accusation of anybody using any of those channels to make a complaint and being "attacked." That was probably actually just a TV show or movie. In movies, it happens every time, granted. ;)
No, that isn't "moving the goalposts." I'll leave it up to you to do the counter-analysis. Just presume that my defense consists of only low-hanging fruit. It may be that people don't always repeat themselves word for word, but instead say additional words and that you're intended to take all of them as things that were said. ;)
I meant all the things I said; I moved no goalposts by making additional comments. No comment I made was intended to refute, replace, or supersede my prior comments on the matter, nor did I make any statement that offered to scale back or revise prior comments.
It is a logic test. I take out the loaded words whose context confuse people, and replace them with neutral words like Blarg and Blorg. It is a way to reduce these messes of logical fallacy to a truth table.
Thanks for asking, it didn't occur to me that it would be a surprising communication form.
You make an odd reference to some sort of "court interpretation" though. Would you mind linking to a mainstream source of what "interpretation" was made of what, by which court? Preferably a wikipedia or legal industry link, please.
If you think the rhetorical phrase, "what kind of idiot" is an attempt to " presume that nearly *anyone* blah blah" then you simply don't read English.
You're welcome to ask about specific words if you want to ask in a constructive manner, but I'm not going to read past the part that intentionally and explicitly takes my comments out of the context and extends them to "*anyone*." That is just daft. You didn't try to understand what was said, so how can your comments possibly be a response to it?
That's rather disingenuous, as it names specific organizations that still exist in the world.
You thought al Qaida were all killed, but that isn't true, and you could easily discover that if only you had access to the interwebs.
Not only that, but the Taliban still exist, and Mullah Omar was never found or confirmed dead.
It is part of the inherent nature of declaring war against non-State groups; it can't end unless they get around to declaring the war won in exactly the correct sort of formal way; specifically, one that refers to the War Powers Act authorization for the war ending.
In the case of the Taliban, we're at war the political organization that was in control of Afghanistan, not Afghanistan the nation, so that is pretty open-ended.
Words matter, even ones in war declaration forms.
Oh, so that's how white people get away with murdering black people in the Deep South, as a non-American I always wondered how a qualified judge could possibly let that pass in the 21st century.
No, that isn't how.
How they do it is the local police just arrest a random black guy and he gets convicted of the crime and it is a solved case.
The "thing" where a juror has to make that final determination according to their conscience and can take into consideration if it is Just to apply the law in the instant case, well that is a real thing. And it is sometimes called "jury nullification," but rarely.
The thing that is usually called jury nullification is where a juror, generally at the urging of the defense lawyer, decide before that moment of final determination that they will weigh the law instead of the guilt of the defendant. That is indeed a "thing," but it is a banned thing. And yes, the legal system dislikes it.
You can tell which it is because the one that is allowed isn't talked about as a goal, it is just part of the juror "voting their conscience" and is done of their own accord.
Brazil and the EU are in no way enemies, so those couldn't be treason or aiding an enemy. Merely espionage punishable by death, or up to 20 years in prison.
AQ is a real enemy, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nope. 20 year limit, or 30 years, depending on if the judge decides that the crime was in the context of a "time of war" or not.
They could instead ask for the death penalty under the statute, but they wouldn't get it because the sentencing guidelines don't call for it, and it isn't used for espionage cases in modern times.
In France they don't even have jury trials unless the sentence would be at least 15 years.
Accused of a crime and facing 10 years in prison? You'll be tried by a panel of professional judges, and they don't even need a unanimous verdict. Think about that... one of the professionals assigned to judge you isn't convinced you're guilty, that's not good enough!
No, you're being willfully ignorant of the differences in the positions, and attempting to wordsmith a position that you probably don't actually hold as a rhetorical device.
If you don't think a law should exist, then voting "not guilty" achieves the end of not applying the law. In your fabricated scenario, you're creating a completely different result than you intend, just out of protect, out of belief in some theoretical public backlash. But people nullifying bad laws are not trying to protest; they're trying to achieve their goal of not applying the law to the defendant.
Also, not applying the law is in the same direction as the action not being illegal; it is less severe of a punishment than for being guilty. In your scenario, you apply a less severe punishment out of a belief that a more serious punishment is preferred. Your fake position on murder doesn't even achieve your fake ends! Instead, you bring in completely unrelated subjects like prison funding, that are clearly not part of a juror's purview.
No, actually in Europe it was found to be pretty horrible to have people of the same religion controlling government, and the English Civil War was fought over that, at least to the extent that both sides were "Christian."
Freedom of religion was about protecting Christians (and everybody else, incidentally) from other Christians in power. The pro-separation-of-Church-and-State side was the Puritan side!!!
Trump is real? I thought it was only make-believe monster tales created by the American media.
Signed,
a Canadian.
You're mistaking the man for his hair.
I'll bet you could walk down the street and find a few in the first couple blocks.
Only a small percent of people even watch the news, much less pay attention to news stories.
And being tainted by media reports doesn't mean "ever heard about the case." Any large crime the local community heard about the case. They're not tainted unless they formed beliefs about the guilt of the defendant that can't be dispelled by having their lawyer explain the truth during the trial.
You generally need the media to have sensationalized the case with false reports to get a juror removed simply for having heard the reports, in combination with a one-sided public vilification. In Snowden's case, there is active public debate, so no reason to think that having heard a news story would leave a person biased.