I don't get it. Please explain where you're coming from and what you're trying to express (clearly and use short words 'cause I'm dumb) with this statement.
True but does each missed test (and the resulting effects on those who may have passed them) count as data points on their own or is the one large outage a single data point? Sometimes we have to refine and dig deeper to see a trend or spot a problem.
I'm not entirely sure but I believe every ad I've seen from them (concerning this, of course) has clearly stated it as this, "no service contract." I think that's good enough but it seems that I hold myself to a higher standard than this AG does.
Holy shit, she looks a great deal like my niece. No, she's taken. Not married though but she has way too much baggage and crazy for me to advice pursuit.
If it goes to court and the judge insists on opening your contract box in his chambers, by himself, and somehow dies before he tells anyone if you signed the contract or not then is the contract signed or unsigned if you signed it via quantum cryptography?
Also, did anyone observe you signing it with your quantum cryptography?
I can't answer to that but I can tell you that US Cellular (small, regional but nationwide I guess these days - or so they claim on their commercials) was my company for a long time. They will not, and have directly told me is a matter of policy, activate any phone on their network that doesn't have "US Cellular" written on it. My phone pre-dated them printing that on their phones. That is how I know and why I was told. As I said, I can't speak to the choices of other carriers.
I lean left and strongly Libertarian though not in the context of those who claim the party these days. I prefer strong personal responsibility with an effective social net.
What I really enjoy (and I shouldn't) is people who find various stages or choices and point to those as places where WWII could have had an outcome where Germany won.
Maybe you should read the page (and either tick or untick the box) before clicking "continue." Yeah, you requested the emails. Don't lie to us. We ALL order from the same company.
They didn't deny the Soviet Union's influence, are you attempting to deny US involvement, commitment, influence, and success? Why? They were allied - did he say don't thank a Russian? My questions are mostly rhetorical but concern why you seem to chose to reply the way you did. The subject is the US's help/involvement. Ah well, that question is for you alone to answer.
That's right. China's per capita coal consumption is far less than typical Westerners, so until the Chinese have wrecked the environment at least as much as you have, for at least as long as you have, and a good deal worse and longer for good measure, then you need to shut your stupid fat face.
You know that is illogical, right? Just because someone has done something wrong doesn't mean that they can't point out, complain, or attempt to stop another from doing the same thing. Even if they're still doing that same thing themselves it makes it no less wrong. It is hypocritical but the act is still wrong regardless of the source or history of the accuser.
What is sad is that you're not the only one who presumes such. I'd hope that more people could think logically but most of my hopes seem to expect too much of people.
Do you know what the word hysteria means? Is it possible for one to be unemotionally hysterical? Could you show me where, specifically, you thought you saw hysteria and not dripping sarcasm?
Here, I am not sure if you're the same coward as the other one so let me quote:
What does that tell me? That it could have ended hours before if they hadn't had everybody locked up like a bunch of fools sitting in their houses.
This is laughable. Do you notice the flaws in that statement on your own? I'll give you a hint.
No, it didn't tell them/you anything. That the situation was full of unknown variables and could have ended in so many different ways it is impossible for it to tell someone anything. The reality is that safety and removing distractions for the cops was a good choice. That people listened is admirable. I'm sure you wouldn't have, no - not you. You'd have been out there in your underwear with a Buck knife.
What expertise, I'll take professional experience or college in the justice enforcement field, do you have for making such a claim? Please link to any published papers you have so we can judge your ability to speak authoritatively on the subject. How do you know that the guy being at work, the increased traffic on the road, or the number of curious people out getting in the way of the cops would have made this more efficient? How do you know that if people had been out and about the death/injured toll wouldn't be higher?
Anyhow, we get that you want to be an ITG and you had to say something so you could feel good about yourself and 'fit in.' I'd suggest you get an account and lurk a while before speaking some more though. We tend to deal with facts and educated guesses. Either way, it doesn't "tell you" that it could have been over hours earlier. If it does you're then you're not all that bright. It could have been over hours earlier, hours later, not at all, sometime next Friday, and a Girl Named Tuesday.
Either way, the citizens were asked to remain indoors. They opted to do so. There's no rights violations there, there's no absurdity there, there's nothing there except some concern trolls who are looking for an excuse to whine, act tough, and spout rhetoric hoping that nobody realizes they're idiots. Here's the thing, with all the unknown variables and the increased risks they would be wise (not cowards) to listen and remain indoors. Making fun of or criticizing smart people who are making smart choices (even the cops were being smart in this case) isn't going to get you good attention. Criticizing people who made the correct choices isn't very smart.
As I said, register an account and lurk, it's a nice site. We do make fun of stupid people though so don't be stupid or someone will probably notice and make fun of you. Really, you might just as well have said that it tells you that aliens were involved. It makes just as much sense and utilizes the same "logic."
I gave up when you changed the definition of innocent, decided 9/11 wouldn't count, and then went on to ignore (the military) the highest number of people killed by terrorists (even though the subject is people killed by terrorists, these ones don't count according to you). Of course I gave up! It's difficult to communicate with a person who doesn't speak the languages I speak. It's hard to discuss statistics when the person arbitrarily decides that they don't like the actual numbers so they have to narrow the criteria down until they finally have a number that may or may not fit. Hell, you haven't even demonstrated how many INNOCENT people are killed by police.
The worst part is that I see what you're saying, why you're saying it, and don't think you were wrong in your conclusion other than your crazy desire to just make up statistics. You don't even NEED to make up statistics/facts which is good because the facts don't support your absurd assertion* anyhow. You're on point and 110% correct just to say that the police are too dangerous and/or kill innocent people too often.
Of course I gave up!!! Obviously I'm insane though because I'm still responding...
Anyhow...
If that is what you meant then next time you should be more clear but that surely isn't what you wrote. Not to mention, deciding to completely ignore the 3000 deaths on 9/11 really really does your argument no credence. If you want to ignore facts to make a point then there's absolutely no "winning" or "losing" here though I'm not sure what I'd gain other than some new knowledge if you'd actually posted facts to back up your claim.
You know?
I guess you'd be correct if you'd said, "More people, who may be innocent but we don't really know how many people that is equal to, die from being shot by police than are killed by terrorists (if you completely ignore 9/11 and don't count the thousands of military members who have died at the hands of terrorists over the past ten years)! Also we might have to limit it to just home-grown terrorists just to be sure."
That isn't what you said though nor does it sound as nice. If you're willing to ignore data you can make pretty much any statement you want but that doesn't make it factual. Your statement would look nice on a bumper sticker but it still isn't true. 9/11 and the military members who died certainly count toward the total number of lives taken by terrorists.
I'm not saying that cops don't kill innocent people, indeed they do, but I am saying that to make a point based on statistics you actually have to have the facts to back that up. Hell, I'm not even disagreeing with your point - just that your 'facts' aren't right according to your claim. It's dishonest, disingenuous at best, to cross your fingers behind your back and claim you're not counting the two largest data sets because you don't like them and because you'd be wrong if you counted them.
Wow, it's like arguing with a two year old. Are you doing this on purpose? LOL *sighs* I suppose you could have included that you'd like to ignore the data in your initial post but you failed to do so. Hell, it's good that you didn't mention you were ignoring half the data for the past 12 years. Everyone would have told you that that was a stupid point to make. It would have been like you claiming to be richer than everyone on Slashdot so long as we first clean the data so that it only counts people who don't have a job.
"If you narrow down the criteria enough and select that criteria so as to ignore the largest number of deaths AND assume an unknown variable to be a certain number then cops kill more innocent US civilians than terrorists do." Maybe that is what you should have said. You might want to consider getting it on a shirt though, I think it is too long for a bumper sticker.
*Also, is assertation a word? It's not at m-w.com but other sites have it and include a definition.
You're still not counting the soldiers and no, no I gave up reading most of what you had to say when you decided that fatalities per attack and home-grown terrorism were the numbers you suddenly wanted to go with, that you didn't count 9/11, that "innocent" means "civilian," and then decided to just plain make a number up for how many innocent people are killed by police officers. I'm hardly losing anything here, so I don't see what I can possibly be sore about and, no, your typographical errors are the least of my concerns.
You are removing whole classifications and the entirety of 9/11 and you've yet to provide any real number for the innocent killed by police officers.
I get your point but that's not how logical debate or statistics work, changing entire definitions of words, removing 9/11 and somehow assuming our troops aren't innocent for your classification, well yeah - of course eventually you'll get justification for your statement.
Don't get me wrong, cops are sometimes pricks and the odds are low BUT on this day they were potentially much higher. I realize you want to sound tough and like you have the world by the tail but it doesn't come off that way and moving the goalposts while excluding data doesn't help. It also doesn't help that you (I gave up midway through and skimmed because of this honestly) cite the number of fatalities per attack when we're looking for a total amount.
I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right. You could have just said that people were scared and stayed in their house and that the chances of them being hurt were likely pretty low (or similar). I'd probably have countered with, "Yeah but a smart choice regardless, even more so because they're out of the way of the cops and cops sometimes get pretty trigger happy." Either way, it's a moot point. Your numbers don't add up, represent your claim, or prove anything of value because you can't just arbitrarily decide who is innocent, that 9/11 doesn't count, and that the military doesn't count.
Your claim that it was fear is likely correct. Your "proof" isn't. Fear isn't a bad thing sometimes unless you are defined on your ability to be an ITG.
Man this thread has lots of people that I am inclined to reply to.
Anyhow, I'm also inclined to agree with you. I figured they'd want terror and that either would work. I could see how maiming would increase the level of terror as well as increase the length of time that people think about it. The impact from crippling may be minimized in a large city as compared to a smaller village though but it still seems likely.
Much appreciated. I'd have never thought of it that way.
They did too! That's exactly what they did! I don't even live in Boston but I'm contacting ACLU and am going to sue them for violating my right to not be inconvenienced.
It cost them a marginal amount of money (people will do their shopping and make up the work on Monday). People were asked and willingly stayed inside but some where inconvenienced probably, surely, well... I haven't actually heard anyone complain or anything but I'm sure someone was.
My concern is them potentially removing people from their home and then accessing said home without a warrant or enough evidence to make it probable cause. I'm not sure if that happened or not though but it seems like it did. I'm not sure where the line is on probable cause in this matter and I acknowledge that I'm not an expert so I'll defer to them when they do chime in. I do know that people were reporting (they had an interview with a couple of them) that they'd been told to leave their houses and that cops went through at least some of those houses. I can't trust the reporting and I don't feel comfortable making a claim as to the laws regarding that.
Oddly, with all the folks who in here who have a GED in Law, the potential violations of the fourth seems to be largely ignored in favor of raging about a mythical lock down. It is everything from a slippery slope to an egregious violation of civil rights and, oddly, it is a financial crisis that we won't fully understand until I great-grandchildren finally finish sorting the paperwork out some 60 years from now.
I'm starting to think that people just want to bitch so much that they'll invent stuff to be outraged about and, worse, they actually believe these made up things. There's got to be a psychology paper or two in there. Hell, there may be a DSM diagnosis.
Slashdot Mirror
I am, at least a little, willing to listen.
I don't get it. Please explain where you're coming from and what you're trying to express (clearly and use short words 'cause I'm dumb) with this statement.
True but does each missed test (and the resulting effects on those who may have passed them) count as data points on their own or is the one large outage a single data point? Sometimes we have to refine and dig deeper to see a trend or spot a problem.
I'm not entirely sure but I believe every ad I've seen from them (concerning this, of course) has clearly stated it as this, "no service contract." I think that's good enough but it seems that I hold myself to a higher standard than this AG does.
Which is different than a SERVICE CONTRACT.
See? I can use the shift key too.
Holy shit, she looks a great deal like my niece. No, she's taken. Not married though but she has way too much baggage and crazy for me to advice pursuit.
If it goes to court and the judge insists on opening your contract box in his chambers, by himself, and somehow dies before he tells anyone if you signed the contract or not then is the contract signed or unsigned if you signed it via quantum cryptography?
Also, did anyone observe you signing it with your quantum cryptography?
Oh the humanity.
Put your name to it coward. Not that I care but being a coward is lower than being a child molester.
I can't answer to that but I can tell you that US Cellular (small, regional but nationwide I guess these days - or so they claim on their commercials) was my company for a long time. They will not, and have directly told me is a matter of policy, activate any phone on their network that doesn't have "US Cellular" written on it. My phone pre-dated them printing that on their phones. That is how I know and why I was told. As I said, I can't speak to the choices of other carriers.
I lean left and strongly Libertarian though not in the context of those who claim the party these days. I prefer strong personal responsibility with an effective social net.
What I really enjoy (and I shouldn't) is people who find various stages or choices and point to those as places where WWII could have had an outcome where Germany won.
Why use a word that you don't understand the meaning of?
Hmm... More so, why blame other people and get mad at them because of your ignorance? We did not make you ignorant.
Maybe you should read the page (and either tick or untick the box) before clicking "continue." Yeah, you requested the emails. Don't lie to us. We ALL order from the same company.
They didn't deny the Soviet Union's influence, are you attempting to deny US involvement, commitment, influence, and success? Why? They were allied - did he say don't thank a Russian? My questions are mostly rhetorical but concern why you seem to chose to reply the way you did. The subject is the US's help/involvement. Ah well, that question is for you alone to answer.
That's right. China's per capita coal consumption is far less than typical Westerners, so until the Chinese have wrecked the environment at least as much as you have, for at least as long as you have, and a good deal worse and longer for good measure, then you need to shut your stupid fat face.
You know that is illogical, right? Just because someone has done something wrong doesn't mean that they can't point out, complain, or attempt to stop another from doing the same thing. Even if they're still doing that same thing themselves it makes it no less wrong. It is hypocritical but the act is still wrong regardless of the source or history of the accuser.
What is sad is that you're not the only one who presumes such. I'd hope that more people could think logically but most of my hopes seem to expect too much of people.
Ah but maybe he does know that it means sarcasm and they're a global warming skeptic?
Poe's Law indeed...
Oh, and do you have a citation for that?
LOL No. It works how I say it works!
There... Take that!
Do you know what the word hysteria means? Is it possible for one to be unemotionally hysterical? Could you show me where, specifically, you thought you saw hysteria and not dripping sarcasm?
Here, I am not sure if you're the same coward as the other one so let me quote:
What does that tell me? That it could have ended hours before if they hadn't had everybody locked up like a bunch of fools sitting in their houses.
This is laughable. Do you notice the flaws in that statement on your own? I'll give you a hint.
No, it didn't tell them/you anything. That the situation was full of unknown variables and could have ended in so many different ways it is impossible for it to tell someone anything. The reality is that safety and removing distractions for the cops was a good choice. That people listened is admirable. I'm sure you wouldn't have, no - not you. You'd have been out there in your underwear with a Buck knife.
What expertise, I'll take professional experience or college in the justice enforcement field, do you have for making such a claim? Please link to any published papers you have so we can judge your ability to speak authoritatively on the subject. How do you know that the guy being at work, the increased traffic on the road, or the number of curious people out getting in the way of the cops would have made this more efficient? How do you know that if people had been out and about the death/injured toll wouldn't be higher?
Anyhow, we get that you want to be an ITG and you had to say something so you could feel good about yourself and 'fit in.' I'd suggest you get an account and lurk a while before speaking some more though. We tend to deal with facts and educated guesses. Either way, it doesn't "tell you" that it could have been over hours earlier. If it does you're then you're not all that bright. It could have been over hours earlier, hours later, not at all, sometime next Friday, and a Girl Named Tuesday.
Either way, the citizens were asked to remain indoors. They opted to do so. There's no rights violations there, there's no absurdity there, there's nothing there except some concern trolls who are looking for an excuse to whine, act tough, and spout rhetoric hoping that nobody realizes they're idiots. Here's the thing, with all the unknown variables and the increased risks they would be wise (not cowards) to listen and remain indoors. Making fun of or criticizing smart people who are making smart choices (even the cops were being smart in this case) isn't going to get you good attention. Criticizing people who made the correct choices isn't very smart.
As I said, register an account and lurk, it's a nice site. We do make fun of stupid people though so don't be stupid or someone will probably notice and make fun of you. Really, you might just as well have said that it tells you that aliens were involved. It makes just as much sense and utilizes the same "logic."
I gave up when you changed the definition of innocent, decided 9/11 wouldn't count, and then went on to ignore (the military) the highest number of people killed by terrorists (even though the subject is people killed by terrorists, these ones don't count according to you). Of course I gave up! It's difficult to communicate with a person who doesn't speak the languages I speak. It's hard to discuss statistics when the person arbitrarily decides that they don't like the actual numbers so they have to narrow the criteria down until they finally have a number that may or may not fit. Hell, you haven't even demonstrated how many INNOCENT people are killed by police.
The worst part is that I see what you're saying, why you're saying it, and don't think you were wrong in your conclusion other than your crazy desire to just make up statistics. You don't even NEED to make up statistics/facts which is good because the facts don't support your absurd assertion* anyhow. You're on point and 110% correct just to say that the police are too dangerous and/or kill innocent people too often.
Of course I gave up!!! Obviously I'm insane though because I'm still responding...
Anyhow...
If that is what you meant then next time you should be more clear but that surely isn't what you wrote. Not to mention, deciding to completely ignore the 3000 deaths on 9/11 really really does your argument no credence. If you want to ignore facts to make a point then there's absolutely no "winning" or "losing" here though I'm not sure what I'd gain other than some new knowledge if you'd actually posted facts to back up your claim.
You know?
I guess you'd be correct if you'd said, "More people, who may be innocent but we don't really know how many people that is equal to, die from being shot by police than are killed by terrorists (if you completely ignore 9/11 and don't count the thousands of military members who have died at the hands of terrorists over the past ten years)! Also we might have to limit it to just home-grown terrorists just to be sure."
That isn't what you said though nor does it sound as nice. If you're willing to ignore data you can make pretty much any statement you want but that doesn't make it factual. Your statement would look nice on a bumper sticker but it still isn't true. 9/11 and the military members who died certainly count toward the total number of lives taken by terrorists.
I'm not saying that cops don't kill innocent people, indeed they do, but I am saying that to make a point based on statistics you actually have to have the facts to back that up. Hell, I'm not even disagreeing with your point - just that your 'facts' aren't right according to your claim. It's dishonest, disingenuous at best, to cross your fingers behind your back and claim you're not counting the two largest data sets because you don't like them and because you'd be wrong if you counted them.
Wow, it's like arguing with a two year old. Are you doing this on purpose? LOL *sighs* I suppose you could have included that you'd like to ignore the data in your initial post but you failed to do so. Hell, it's good that you didn't mention you were ignoring half the data for the past 12 years. Everyone would have told you that that was a stupid point to make. It would have been like you claiming to be richer than everyone on Slashdot so long as we first clean the data so that it only counts people who don't have a job.
"If you narrow down the criteria enough and select that criteria so as to ignore the largest number of deaths AND assume an unknown variable to be a certain number then cops kill more innocent US civilians than terrorists do." Maybe that is what you should have said. You might want to consider getting it on a shirt though, I think it is too long for a bumper sticker.
*Also, is assertation a word? It's not at m-w.com but other sites have it and include a definition.
I really have no idea.
You're still not counting the soldiers and no, no I gave up reading most of what you had to say when you decided that fatalities per attack and home-grown terrorism were the numbers you suddenly wanted to go with, that you didn't count 9/11, that "innocent" means "civilian," and then decided to just plain make a number up for how many innocent people are killed by police officers. I'm hardly losing anything here, so I don't see what I can possibly be sore about and, no, your typographical errors are the least of my concerns.
It is a sine of the times.
You are removing whole classifications and the entirety of 9/11 and you've yet to provide any real number for the innocent killed by police officers.
I get your point but that's not how logical debate or statistics work, changing entire definitions of words, removing 9/11 and somehow assuming our troops aren't innocent for your classification, well yeah - of course eventually you'll get justification for your statement.
Don't get me wrong, cops are sometimes pricks and the odds are low BUT on this day they were potentially much higher. I realize you want to sound tough and like you have the world by the tail but it doesn't come off that way and moving the goalposts while excluding data doesn't help. It also doesn't help that you (I gave up midway through and skimmed because of this honestly) cite the number of fatalities per attack when we're looking for a total amount.
I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right. You could have just said that people were scared and stayed in their house and that the chances of them being hurt were likely pretty low (or similar). I'd probably have countered with, "Yeah but a smart choice regardless, even more so because they're out of the way of the cops and cops sometimes get pretty trigger happy." Either way, it's a moot point. Your numbers don't add up, represent your claim, or prove anything of value because you can't just arbitrarily decide who is innocent, that 9/11 doesn't count, and that the military doesn't count.
Your claim that it was fear is likely correct. Your "proof" isn't. Fear isn't a bad thing sometimes unless you are defined on your ability to be an ITG.
Man this thread has lots of people that I am inclined to reply to.
Anyhow, I'm also inclined to agree with you. I figured they'd want terror and that either would work. I could see how maiming would increase the level of terror as well as increase the length of time that people think about it. The impact from crippling may be minimized in a large city as compared to a smaller village though but it still seems likely.
Much appreciated. I'd have never thought of it that way.
They did too! That's exactly what they did! I don't even live in Boston but I'm contacting ACLU and am going to sue them for violating my right to not be inconvenienced.
It cost them a marginal amount of money (people will do their shopping and make up the work on Monday). People were asked and willingly stayed inside but some where inconvenienced probably, surely, well... I haven't actually heard anyone complain or anything but I'm sure someone was.
My concern is them potentially removing people from their home and then accessing said home without a warrant or enough evidence to make it probable cause. I'm not sure if that happened or not though but it seems like it did. I'm not sure where the line is on probable cause in this matter and I acknowledge that I'm not an expert so I'll defer to them when they do chime in. I do know that people were reporting (they had an interview with a couple of them) that they'd been told to leave their houses and that cops went through at least some of those houses. I can't trust the reporting and I don't feel comfortable making a claim as to the laws regarding that.
Oddly, with all the folks who in here who have a GED in Law, the potential violations of the fourth seems to be largely ignored in favor of raging about a mythical lock down. It is everything from a slippery slope to an egregious violation of civil rights and, oddly, it is a financial crisis that we won't fully understand until I great-grandchildren finally finish sorting the paperwork out some 60 years from now.
I'm starting to think that people just want to bitch so much that they'll invent stuff to be outraged about and, worse, they actually believe these made up things. There's got to be a psychology paper or two in there. Hell, there may be a DSM diagnosis.