I second the Netflix idea. Though, Mythbox is useful if you have a large digital repository of videos already, otherwise you probably won't need it with a streaming video service.
I did read the whole article. You keep falsely claiming that I am a racist, apparently associating me with that 'third party' guy, in an attempt to assassinate my character when I describe my interpretation of Apple's policy. That is a move described pretty precisely by the abusive type of argumentum ad hominem from the Wikipedia article, which is no different than what is described in many text books (regardless of you threat to edit it to spread even more of your lies). That is not 'cherry picking'. That is basic reading comprehension, which you need to utilise in these arguments. You keep calling me juvenile names ('fucking racist') as if that adds in any way to the argument, which is exactly the behaviour I was referencing when I said your main tool of argument is a basic logical fallacy. You only continue to prove my point.
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
You call people racist, as if that has any bearing on the logic of their argument. Aka: argumentum ad hominem
BasilBrush adds a reference to a valid, on topic, clear to read law and you complain that he is practicing without a license? You obviously aren't a lawyer.
Beyond that, I don't even know what you and I are arguing about at this point, other than that I resent that racism is being inserted into a situation where it wasn't a factor.
Don't bother, all he is doing in inserting racism into this. He calls anyone who disagrees with him a racist, valid point or not, even if there is no racism present. Ad hominem fallacy is his main tool of argument.
It a nice argument because it is based on the facts I have. From what I have seen of the story, the clerk knew she was planning on sending the controlled product to a banned country. That is illegal from my understanding of the law, and apparently Apple's lawyers agree with me enough to make a policy banning such activity. Calling me racist is only an ad hominem attack, not sound a sound argument. You may disagree with the policy of the embargo against Iran, but that doesn't make the clerk bigoted. It makes him prudent. You may be willing to break the law to supply belligerent countries with goods. Some people aren't willing to take that risk. It certainly doesn't make them brave, but it also doesn't make them bad people either. Iran is openly hostile to America and American people, why should we support them? If Americans do not send Iran candy, iPads, and missiles, does that make America evil? You call it racism, I call it good politics.
Or, it is possible she said all those, hoping for sympathy if only she could think of the proper sob story of who she was sending it to? For example: Oh, I'm sending it to my cousin. No? Ok, well really I'm sending it to my uncle so he can learn to read? No? Ok, I meant to say I am sending it to my sick grandmother so she can play games while she is sick in the hospital. No? Fine, I'll go get the media, they'll like my drama.
We are only getting one side of the story from a drama queen who openly admits that what she intended to do was against Apple's policy.
What she did was legal (she didn't get the iPad after all). What you miss is that what she intended to do was illegal. What she was buying was a piece of technology containing cryptography software. If the clerk had sold the iPad while he knew what she intended to do, he would have broken company policy and the law.
Yes it is it is against the law. If you, as the seller, know that an item banned for export is going to be exported, you are an accessory and in legal trouble if you sell that item. It may be hard to prove you knew, but you still have to pay for the lawyers.
Your analogy is flawed. What happens when I tell my friend next to me that I am buying the case of vodka for a party of teenagers while I am checking out in German and the cashier understands German? The cashier is certainly in the right to deny my sale.
While you may have enjoyed walking in the dark, I believe the point is that it is much safer for children to be traveling in daylight so they are more visible to drivers.
"The rate of cancer survival in the medical industry is pretty bad ~ shouldn't the entire industry be criticized more?" Isn't that like saying 'the rate of head gunshot wound survival is pretty bad, shouldn't the entire medical industry be criticized more?', or about Alzheimer's, or decapitation, etc. They're working on it. It is just that some things are easier to solve than others.
'Bio-cotton?' As opposed to what? Is that a way of saying organic cotton in other cultures? Also, what advantage does organic cotton have over regular cotton when used for shoes? The feel good factor, I suppose. Anyway, wouldn't the seeds in the tongue be a problem when they start sprouting from the moisture/sweat from your feet?
I really hope I just missed a joke. You aren't serious are you? Actually, looking at some of your other posts, you are serious... This is why RNJs (religious nut-jobs) are so frightening. They don't understand most of the things they talk about and jump to conclusions prematurely.
As the parent suggests there have been plenty of instances that man thought he had the answer only to discover that he wasn't just a little wrong, but flat out completely incorrect (see flat earth).
You do know that the bible implies that the earth is flat (ends of the earth? That doesn't work on a sphere very well.). The religious people were the last to give up the flat earth beliefs.
Carbon dating the same artifact can return results that vary by 100,000's of years. That's not exactly a solid science, and if we're going to use those methods to say things like the earth is billions of years old
Ok, so the finding of the article is that radio decay is slightly variable. So instead of an artifact being 3 million years old plus or minus 100,000 years, it is 3 million years old plus or minus 150,000 years. That's not nearly as drastic a change to any dating as you seem to imply. The earth is still more than 4 billion years old, sorry if that goes against what may be suggested in some books (Bible anyone?).
ergo the Bible is factually incorrect I'm going to stand up and call bs.
In the last 2000 years how many times have scientists changed their mind about what they know to be true?
If analyzing our claims, admitting when we have a better claim because of new proof (for or against the previous claim), and learning is a fault; then so be it. Scientists are faulty because the learn instead of clinging unwaveringly to unfounded beliefs. (that was sarcasm)
But then I don't have a vested interest in disproving His existence.
Neither do scientists. Scientists do not try to prove or disprove god. They try to stick to verifiable claims. You do seem to have a vested interest in proving god's existence though. Why is that?
I'll add some anecdotal evidence: Whenever I quite drinking coffee, I usually double or triple my total intake of fluids by way of tap water. I will always get a splitting headache for an entire day after quitting the caffeine cold turkey (bad Idea I know) The withdrawal effects are very real for me. Also, for what it is worth, I usually drink 6 cups of coffee spaced out over a day
I can't speak for others, but I would qualify under you having nothing but fully paid or free software and music. I still strongly agree with the posters pointing out the bad ethics of this company and its employees. I also would argue that stealing music is not very comparable to what IMU was doing. Have you ever had your ID stolen? Have you ever had your music passed around free on the internet? They are not nearly the same.
Yeah, because the USSR and PRC governments and cultures are equivalent to the USA. Capitalism has created it fair share of problems, including TMI, even when compared to communism.
Slashdot Mirror
I second the Netflix idea. Though, Mythbox is useful if you have a large digital repository of videos already, otherwise you probably won't need it with a streaming video service.
I did read the whole article. You keep falsely claiming that I am a racist, apparently associating me with that 'third party' guy, in an attempt to assassinate my character when I describe my interpretation of Apple's policy. That is a move described pretty precisely by the abusive type of argumentum ad hominem from the Wikipedia article, which is no different than what is described in many text books (regardless of you threat to edit it to spread even more of your lies). That is not 'cherry picking'. That is basic reading comprehension, which you need to utilise in these arguments. You keep calling me juvenile names ('fucking racist') as if that adds in any way to the argument, which is exactly the behaviour I was referencing when I said your main tool of argument is a basic logical fallacy. You only continue to prove my point.
You call people racist, as if that has any bearing on the logic of their argument. Aka: argumentum ad hominem
Sad that the only way for you to combat my logic is to resort to violence and call me names. Obviously I bow to your superior logic skills.
BasilBrush adds a reference to a valid, on topic, clear to read law and you complain that he is practicing without a license? You obviously aren't a lawyer.
Don't bother, all he is doing in inserting racism into this. He calls anyone who disagrees with him a racist, valid point or not, even if there is no racism present. Ad hominem fallacy is his main tool of argument.
It a nice argument because it is based on the facts I have. From what I have seen of the story, the clerk knew she was planning on sending the controlled product to a banned country. That is illegal from my understanding of the law, and apparently Apple's lawyers agree with me enough to make a policy banning such activity. Calling me racist is only an ad hominem attack, not sound a sound argument. You may disagree with the policy of the embargo against Iran, but that doesn't make the clerk bigoted. It makes him prudent. You may be willing to break the law to supply belligerent countries with goods. Some people aren't willing to take that risk. It certainly doesn't make them brave, but it also doesn't make them bad people either. Iran is openly hostile to America and American people, why should we support them? If Americans do not send Iran candy, iPads, and missiles, does that make America evil? You call it racism, I call it good politics.
Or, it is possible she said all those, hoping for sympathy if only she could think of the proper sob story of who she was sending it to? For example: Oh, I'm sending it to my cousin. No? Ok, well really I'm sending it to my uncle so he can learn to read? No? Ok, I meant to say I am sending it to my sick grandmother so she can play games while she is sick in the hospital. No? Fine, I'll go get the media, they'll like my drama. We are only getting one side of the story from a drama queen who openly admits that what she intended to do was against Apple's policy.
What she did was legal (she didn't get the iPad after all). What you miss is that what she intended to do was illegal. What she was buying was a piece of technology containing cryptography software. If the clerk had sold the iPad while he knew what she intended to do, he would have broken company policy and the law.
Yes it is it is against the law. If you, as the seller, know that an item banned for export is going to be exported, you are an accessory and in legal trouble if you sell that item. It may be hard to prove you knew, but you still have to pay for the lawyers.
Your analogy is flawed. What happens when I tell my friend next to me that I am buying the case of vodka for a party of teenagers while I am checking out in German and the cashier understands German? The cashier is certainly in the right to deny my sale.
Have you seen who uses iPods?
Your statement is bullshit by the fact that alcohol is a legal and socially accepted drug and that is why it is more prevalent.
While you may have enjoyed walking in the dark, I believe the point is that it is much safer for children to be traveling in daylight so they are more visible to drivers.
Are you missing the point? I'm pretty sure he is implying that such regulations would be ridiculously onerous.
"The rate of cancer survival in the medical industry is pretty bad ~ shouldn't the entire industry be criticized more?" Isn't that like saying 'the rate of head gunshot wound survival is pretty bad, shouldn't the entire medical industry be criticized more?', or about Alzheimer's, or decapitation, etc. They're working on it. It is just that some things are easier to solve than others.
'Bio-cotton?' As opposed to what? Is that a way of saying organic cotton in other cultures? Also, what advantage does organic cotton have over regular cotton when used for shoes? The feel good factor, I suppose. Anyway, wouldn't the seeds in the tongue be a problem when they start sprouting from the moisture/sweat from your feet?
You do know that the bible implies that the earth is flat (ends of the earth? That doesn't work on a sphere very well.). The religious people were the last to give up the flat earth beliefs.
Ok, so the finding of the article is that radio decay is slightly variable. So instead of an artifact being 3 million years old plus or minus 100,000 years, it is 3 million years old plus or minus 150,000 years. That's not nearly as drastic a change to any dating as you seem to imply. The earth is still more than 4 billion years old, sorry if that goes against what may be suggested in some books (Bible anyone?).
See: biblical contradictions
You are begging the question
If analyzing our claims, admitting when we have a better claim because of new proof (for or against the previous claim), and learning is a fault; then so be it. Scientists are faulty because the learn instead of clinging unwaveringly to unfounded beliefs. (that was sarcasm)
Neither do scientists. Scientists do not try to prove or disprove god. They try to stick to verifiable claims. You do seem to have a vested interest in proving god's existence though. Why is that?
So, if it is getting caught in the crossfire what is shooting it on the other side? Oh, you meant it was just caught in the line of fire.
I'll add some anecdotal evidence: Whenever I quite drinking coffee, I usually double or triple my total intake of fluids by way of tap water. I will always get a splitting headache for an entire day after quitting the caffeine cold turkey (bad Idea I know) The withdrawal effects are very real for me. Also, for what it is worth, I usually drink 6 cups of coffee spaced out over a day
I can't speak for others, but I would qualify under you having nothing but fully paid or free software and music. I still strongly agree with the posters pointing out the bad ethics of this company and its employees. I also would argue that stealing music is not very comparable to what IMU was doing. Have you ever had your ID stolen? Have you ever had your music passed around free on the internet? They are not nearly the same.
I thought it was pretty obvious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarian#Holiday
Wait, how did you arrive at that? I'm having trouble finding a line of rational reasoning that results in your conclusion.
Yeah, because the USSR and PRC governments and cultures are equivalent to the USA. Capitalism has created it fair share of problems, including TMI, even when compared to communism.
Trust me, volunteering can help your your emotional/physical/mental well being more than a simple vacation.