You make the mistake of believing that you can only know that which you can prove.
Well that right there says volumes about you. Me, I only know that which I can prove (to myself). Everything I cannot prove to myself to be true I do not know for a fact. I either assume, believe, or am inclined to believe but I do not know. See I reserve that word (know) for those things of which I am certain.
He knew the only way that the guy got that much money was through the drug trade.
Really? The only way to make $800,000 is through the drug trade? Well, better rush all those $1,000,000+/year + $1+ Million/Bonus Executives to jail straight away. Those lottery winners as well. That assertion is not just false, it is ludicrous. Remember, this guy built compartments for securing storing valuables of which, cash, is chief among them. He was under no obligation nor had any authority to question where the money came from since it was perfectly legal cash.
He should have told the guy that he had compromised his business by showing up with all that money in the "trap" and exposed him to legal liability beyond what he had agreed to.
Okay, so he assumes the customer is a drug lord (because he happens to have a lot of valuable cash in his compartment designed and made to hold valuables) and your advice is to deny the customer service because they have provided him information that makes him liable if he does not report it. Now if you think about that, even for just a minute; what would a drug lord do in such a situation? Certainly not leave a witness around, especially one that now has no use. That would effectively be a suicide-sentence for the installer (unless he was dealing with amateur criminals). His only, rational, self-preserving choice was do what he did, limit his exposure to information (to protect himself from both the law and the customer) and to get those people out of this driveway, happy.
Elohim transliterates as "god" - the generic term for deity.
One question: if there is, and has only ever been, one true god, why would there be a word to describe a class of entities as gods? Wouldn't there be only one word that means the singular entity that cannot be confused or compared to any other?
The Second Amendment is a stupid anachronism. It needs gutting.
Sounds like someone slept through history class. If you think all of the reasons for the second amendment no longer exist, then you obviously missed some of them.
There is no longer a need for a militia - the USA has a nice big standing army with which to defend itself and it has much better weapons than assault rifles, like aircraft, helicopters and tanks.
Well, if you don't want to have the means to protect yourself, your house, your neighbors and/or your family from a foreign invading force, then that's your decision, as ill-advised as it may be. Me, I'll need as many options as I can get and have prepared my self to have. I will not be exclusively relying on others for my own protection, my house may not be in a militarily strategic location and could be considered an acceptable loss.
How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?
How long they last is not a relevant question. How could they possibly win is also not a relevant question. They are not relevant because the answers do not matter. What matters is that the people have a right to fight against a tyrannical opposing force, foreign or domestic. They have the right to stand up honorably for what they believe in and fight for it to the death if it comes to that. They have the right to be equipped for that fight for all-in-all they have the right to live. With the right to life comes, without exception, the right to protect that life. The second amendment makes that abundantly clear for all to see - in this country, the people not only have the right to live they also have the right to the means to ensure that their right to live is not taken away. If you really think guns and an armed populace are anachronism, then perhaps you should live with those who think more like you, I hear the UK feels that way and you won't even have to learn a new language. You can leave this free country to the men (and women) who have the courage to accept the price freedom costs for it has only ever been paid for with blood.
In medical tests, people are given a placebo and yet claim to feel better or feel the same effects as people who are given the real medication.
People don't claim to feel better, they do feel better. There is no incentive for them to lie, in fact, there is a disincentive for them to do so. The reason behind the cause of the "placebo" effect is in the mind of the patient. The patient believes they should be getting better and then they do. Power of thought, belief and, if defined correctly, faith. Really, it is the power of consciousness which no one fully understands.
This can be applied to apparent differences in audio formats. The observer believes that one source should sound better and then it does. Since qualifying better/worse is entirely subjective, objectivity has no place in the argument.
To know of a crime and not report it makes one an accessory to the crime, after the fact. Whether his evidence was sufficient enough for arrest and/or prosecution would be up to the police and DA to decide.
An honest review should have come out saying the game was (for example) a 7/10, because of the possible issues the always-online DRM could cause, even if its a fantastic game
Emphasis mine. Yes a 7/10 would be reasonable if the DRM issues were possible and could cause hiccups in your game. However, the facts upon their revised review were that the DRM issues are happening and they do cause hiccups in the game turning 9.5/10 rating (when there was no observable reason to believe the servers were anything but flawless) to 4/10. Personally, it should of dropped to a 1/10. The fact it still got as high as a "4" is the evidence I'd use to say the review was bought and paid for.
I would that "reductio ad absurdum" results in a straw man argument, the most* absurd possible straw man (assuming I am remembering that term correctly). Two ways of looking at the same coin
I understand that prices are fluid and are constantly changing which can make this concept confusing especially with terms that can have different meanings, in different contexts. But let me refer you to one other example of that might make this clear; the commodities market. As opposed to the stock market, this market deals with tangible goods and is used to determine the current price of any raw material (to the minute, hour, day, etc.). How is the current price calculated? Well it was the actual amount paid for the last transaction of that commodity. The market tracks the price based on the transactions (in as close to real time as possible) and is always based on what was paid not what was asked.
If you got something accidentally for free, noticed it and didn't correct it (dishonest), then the price of the item was zero. It may not have been the intended price but it was the actual price. All the rest of the hand-waving (or whatever you want to call it) that you're doing is to distract from the fact the price is that which was paid. Until the purchase is made, the only thing one has the list price, suggested price, recommended price or starting price which is not the same thing as the price. All others are up for negotiation until the sale is made and really aren't worth discussing or comparing.
Straw man of my own: Store A lists object X for $50. Store B lists the same object X for $100 but has a 50% discount going on. Person A buys from Store A, Person B buys from Store B. According to you the price of object X is $50 in Store A but $100 in store B. According to me, they are both $50. Which one of us is closer to reality?
The price of an item is what was paid, period. You can play with the semantics all day but that simple fact does not change. Discounts, sales, coupons, etc. are all marketing ploys designed to encourage you to buy the object. Nothing but smoke and mirrors. The price is what they charge at the register and what is ultimately paid.
Yes, obviously . The justifications for the increase may be different (in your example the sale ended) but an increase is an increase, period. If object x cost y today and y + 3 tomorrow, then the price went up (relative to yesterday's price), regardless of the reason it went up.
Are you arguing that when a sale starts, that it is not a price decrease??
might take exception if they realised the gun serves marketing purposes rather than gameplay.
What are you smoking? The guns being part of the game play (which is the entire reason they are in the game) is the advertising. It's not that they are trying to market guns and the game is just a side-effect of that marketing. They are trying to market games and their market wants games with real guns in them, so the (supposed) advertising is a side-effect of the main goal of the guns being in the game, the game play. As far as making sure the guns are used in a "positive" light, that is them being responsible and ensuring that the games aren't encouraging people use their products in illegal or irresponsible ways. This is why Grand Theft Auto doesn't have name brand weapons, I'm sure the manufacturers wouldn't let them use them. They don't want their guns marketed in that way, even in a purely fantasy video game. This is responsible behavior, stop bitching about it, it just makes you look stupid/petty.
Like candy cigarettes, any advertising of an inherently dangerous/deadly product towards an adolescent target audience probably should be carefully scrutinized, regulated, or eliminated.
No, that is incorrect. It is the parent's responsibility to scrutinize, regulate or eliminate undesired advertisements directed towards their children/adolescents (for any reason). It is not the Government's job. Period. Don't like the additional responsibility of being a parent, don't have kids.Also, kids aren't the only target audience of video games (especially of this type).
Any game I purchase, in a store or otherwise, that I can't play at my leisure now or at any time in the future because the creator or owner of the license shuts down a server, or stops supporting the game will not be in my inventory.
Emphasis, mine. Obviously, with Diablo, Diablo 2 and Starcraft 1's DRM, this wasn't an issue as the authentication was offline and will work for as long as you have hardware/OS that can run it.
I never like it when people suggest pirating software as a form of protest, if you think the DRM is too intrusive, don't buy the game at all.
The problem with this is the suits will blame the lost sales on a bad game, not on the DRM unless you can demonstrably show that people DO like the game and are willing to WORK to play it, so long as the DRM isn't in their way. By separating the two issues (piracy does allow this in a fuzzy-math way), one can see that a game is popular, by piracy rates, but sales for it are low and cause the bean counters to investigate why as it obviously isn't the game itself that is the problem; priced too high, DRM too intrusive, etc.
The bit you left out of your cherry-picked view is that the reason these programs are necessary is that the jobs that are available aren't able to support the people.
So the companies get to pay minimum wages with little or no benefits because they know the employees won't drop dead because the government covers their needs.
The part you seem to leave out is, that it is because of these social safety nets that non-living wages are able to be offered and are accepted. If people could not actually live on these wages, the market would be forced to adjust and increase wages as necessary. If the market did not adjust, the Government would have to step in and force them to via the Minimum Wage. The minimum wage is the proper mechanism for ensuring a living wage of the populace. However, it does not grant politicians any power over the populace so they prefer to directly pay the people via the government and get the power as well.
You should not send the message that suicide is an acceptable way to "get back" at someone or to "really show your enemies and make them sorry."
I'm going to give you a second chance to read that again and really think about it. If you are so aggrieved by someone's actions and the effect they have had on your life, that you are willing to sacrifice said life in a final attempt to make their actions known and, hopefully, punished, don't you think that IS something we as a society should pay attention to? On my worst day, I haven't seriously considered suicide and I'd wager you probably haven't either so it's not something people do willy-nilly.
Schools have used student IDs for decades, usually with bar codes. Same with libraries, workplaces, drivers licenses, etc. We are already indoctrinated and have been for generations.
Yes, we have been indoctrinated into carrying around identification cards/badges that can be used to identify us. However, the fact the we are being identified and by who and for what purpose is known to the holder of the card (i.e. we have to take it out and show it), or if wearing it, we can see those who can see us and our cards. Tracking is not involved in the current system unless you swipe the card for access and again you know and can control what is being tracked. The new system is for ubiquitous identification and tracking, not knowing who is identifying/tracking you or when or for what purpose. This is a different system and one people should NOT be indoctrinated into as it is dehumanizing.
Slashdot Mirror
You make the mistake of believing that you can only know that which you can prove.
Well that right there says volumes about you. Me, I only know that which I can prove (to myself). Everything I cannot prove to myself to be true I do not know for a fact. I either assume, believe, or am inclined to believe but I do not know. See I reserve that word (know) for those things of which I am certain.
He knew the only way that the guy got that much money was through the drug trade.
Really? The only way to make $800,000 is through the drug trade? Well, better rush all those $1,000,000+/year + $1+ Million/Bonus Executives to jail straight away. Those lottery winners as well. That assertion is not just false, it is ludicrous. Remember, this guy built compartments for securing storing valuables of which, cash, is chief among them. He was under no obligation nor had any authority to question where the money came from since it was perfectly legal cash.
He should have told the guy that he had compromised his business by showing up with all that money in the "trap" and exposed him to legal liability beyond what he had agreed to.
Okay, so he assumes the customer is a drug lord (because he happens to have a lot of valuable cash in his compartment designed and made to hold valuables) and your advice is to deny the customer service because they have provided him information that makes him liable if he does not report it. Now if you think about that, even for just a minute; what would a drug lord do in such a situation? Certainly not leave a witness around, especially one that now has no use. That would effectively be a suicide-sentence for the installer (unless he was dealing with amateur criminals). His only, rational, self-preserving choice was do what he did, limit his exposure to information (to protect himself from both the law and the customer) and to get those people out of this driveway, happy.
No, it wasn't. Chapter 2 verse 18 uses the past tense "the Lord God had formed".
Except you left out the word "Now" which was at the beginning of the sentence, placing it in sequential order after the preceding statement.
Elohim transliterates as "god" - the generic term for deity.
One question: if there is, and has only ever been, one true god, why would there be a word to describe a class of entities as gods? Wouldn't there be only one word that means the singular entity that cannot be confused or compared to any other?
The Second Amendment is a stupid anachronism. It needs gutting.
Sounds like someone slept through history class. If you think all of the reasons for the second amendment no longer exist, then you obviously missed some of them.
There is no longer a need for a militia - the USA has a nice big standing army with which to defend itself and it has much better weapons than assault rifles, like aircraft, helicopters and tanks.
Well, if you don't want to have the means to protect yourself, your house, your neighbors and/or your family from a foreign invading force, then that's your decision, as ill-advised as it may be. Me, I'll need as many options as I can get and have prepared my self to have. I will not be exclusively relying on others for my own protection, my house may not be in a militarily strategic location and could be considered an acceptable loss.
How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?
How long they last is not a relevant question. How could they possibly win is also not a relevant question. They are not relevant because the answers do not matter. What matters is that the people have a right to fight against a tyrannical opposing force, foreign or domestic. They have the right to stand up honorably for what they believe in and fight for it to the death if it comes to that. They have the right to be equipped for that fight for all-in-all they have the right to live. With the right to life comes, without exception, the right to protect that life. The second amendment makes that abundantly clear for all to see - in this country, the people not only have the right to live they also have the right to the means to ensure that their right to live is not taken away. If you really think guns and an armed populace are anachronism, then perhaps you should live with those who think more like you, I hear the UK feels that way and you won't even have to learn a new language. You can leave this free country to the men (and women) who have the courage to accept the price freedom costs for it has only ever been paid for with blood.
In medical tests, people are given a placebo and yet claim to feel better or feel the same effects as people who are given the real medication.
People don't claim to feel better, they do feel better. There is no incentive for them to lie, in fact, there is a disincentive for them to do so. The reason behind the cause of the "placebo" effect is in the mind of the patient. The patient believes they should be getting better and then they do. Power of thought, belief and, if defined correctly, faith. Really, it is the power of consciousness which no one fully understands.
This can be applied to apparent differences in audio formats. The observer believes that one source should sound better and then it does. Since qualifying better/worse is entirely subjective, objectivity has no place in the argument.
Just what is Johnson guilty of?
To know of a crime and not report it makes one an accessory to the crime, after the fact. Whether his evidence was sufficient enough for arrest and/or prosecution would be up to the police and DA to decide.
An honest review should have come out saying the game was (for example) a 7/10, because of the possible issues the always-online DRM could cause, even if its a fantastic game
Emphasis mine. Yes a 7/10 would be reasonable if the DRM issues were possible and could cause hiccups in your game. However, the facts upon their revised review were that the DRM issues are happening and they do cause hiccups in the game turning 9.5/10 rating (when there was no observable reason to believe the servers were anything but flawless) to 4/10. Personally, it should of dropped to a 1/10. The fact it still got as high as a "4" is the evidence I'd use to say the review was bought and paid for.
It's a matter of leverage. If the confirmation is something the Executive wants, it will have to give the Senate what it wants.
I would that "reductio ad absurdum" results in a straw man argument, the most* absurd possible straw man (assuming I am remembering that term correctly). Two ways of looking at the same coin
I understand that prices are fluid and are constantly changing which can make this concept confusing especially with terms that can have different meanings, in different contexts. But let me refer you to one other example of that might make this clear; the commodities market. As opposed to the stock market, this market deals with tangible goods and is used to determine the current price of any raw material (to the minute, hour, day, etc.). How is the current price calculated? Well it was the actual amount paid for the last transaction of that commodity. The market tracks the price based on the transactions (in as close to real time as possible) and is always based on what was paid not what was asked.
Straw men do not a solid argument make.
If you got something accidentally for free, noticed it and didn't correct it (dishonest), then the price of the item was zero. It may not have been the intended price but it was the actual price. All the rest of the hand-waving (or whatever you want to call it) that you're doing is to distract from the fact the price is that which was paid. Until the purchase is made, the only thing one has the list price, suggested price, recommended price or starting price which is not the same thing as the price. All others are up for negotiation until the sale is made and really aren't worth discussing or comparing.
Straw man of my own: Store A lists object X for $50. Store B lists the same object X for $100 but has a 50% discount going on. Person A buys from Store A, Person B buys from Store B. According to you the price of object X is $50 in Store A but $100 in store B. According to me, they are both $50. Which one of us is closer to reality?
The price of an item is what was paid, period. You can play with the semantics all day but that simple fact does not change. Discounts, sales, coupons, etc. are all marketing ploys designed to encourage you to buy the object. Nothing but smoke and mirrors. The price is what they charge at the register and what is ultimately paid.
This simply rolls back the temporary 2% payroll tax decrease from 2 years ago.
Yes, that is true. But that doesn't make it any less of an increase (or an effective pay cut).
Yes, obviously . The justifications for the increase may be different (in your example the sale ended) but an increase is an increase, period. If object x cost y today and y + 3 tomorrow, then the price went up (relative to yesterday's price), regardless of the reason it went up.
Are you arguing that when a sale starts, that it is not a price decrease??
might take exception if they realised the gun serves marketing purposes rather than gameplay.
What are you smoking? The guns being part of the game play (which is the entire reason they are in the game) is the advertising. It's not that they are trying to market guns and the game is just a side-effect of that marketing. They are trying to market games and their market wants games with real guns in them, so the (supposed) advertising is a side-effect of the main goal of the guns being in the game, the game play. As far as making sure the guns are used in a "positive" light, that is them being responsible and ensuring that the games aren't encouraging people use their products in illegal or irresponsible ways. This is why Grand Theft Auto doesn't have name brand weapons, I'm sure the manufacturers wouldn't let them use them. They don't want their guns marketed in that way, even in a purely fantasy video game. This is responsible behavior, stop bitching about it, it just makes you look stupid/petty.
Like candy cigarettes, any advertising of an inherently dangerous/deadly product towards an adolescent target audience probably should be carefully scrutinized, regulated, or eliminated.
No, that is incorrect. It is the parent's responsibility to scrutinize, regulate or eliminate undesired advertisements directed towards their children/adolescents (for any reason). It is not the Government's job. Period. Don't like the additional responsibility of being a parent, don't have kids.Also, kids aren't the only target audience of video games (especially of this type).
Any game I purchase, in a store or otherwise, that I can't play at my leisure now or at any time in the future because the creator or owner of the license shuts down a server, or stops supporting the game will not be in my inventory.
Emphasis, mine. Obviously, with Diablo, Diablo 2 and Starcraft 1's DRM, this wasn't an issue as the authentication was offline and will work for as long as you have hardware/OS that can run it.
I never like it when people suggest pirating software as a form of protest, if you think the DRM is too intrusive, don't buy the game at all.
The problem with this is the suits will blame the lost sales on a bad game, not on the DRM unless you can demonstrably show that people DO like the game and are willing to WORK to play it, so long as the DRM isn't in their way. By separating the two issues (piracy does allow this in a fuzzy-math way), one can see that a game is popular, by piracy rates, but sales for it are low and cause the bean counters to investigate why as it obviously isn't the game itself that is the problem; priced too high, DRM too intrusive, etc.
The bit you left out of your cherry-picked view is that the reason these programs are necessary is that the jobs that are available aren't able to support the people.
So the companies get to pay minimum wages with little or no benefits because they know the employees won't drop dead because the government covers their needs.
The part you seem to leave out is, that it is because of these social safety nets that non-living wages are able to be offered and are accepted. If people could not actually live on these wages, the market would be forced to adjust and increase wages as necessary. If the market did not adjust, the Government would have to step in and force them to via the Minimum Wage. The minimum wage is the proper mechanism for ensuring a living wage of the populace. However, it does not grant politicians any power over the populace so they prefer to directly pay the people via the government and get the power as well.
I didn't ask why the Feds were involved. I asked why what he did was even considered a Felony.
He broke into a wiring closet using a disguise, and kept circumventing their increasingly-specific bans.
So, trespassing? Violating Tos which is breach of contract. Somewhere I'm missing where Felony status becomes reasonably involved.
You should not send the message that suicide is an acceptable way to "get back" at someone or to "really show your enemies and make them sorry."
I'm going to give you a second chance to read that again and really think about it. If you are so aggrieved by someone's actions and the effect they have had on your life, that you are willing to sacrifice said life in a final attempt to make their actions known and, hopefully, punished, don't you think that IS something we as a society should pay attention to? On my worst day, I haven't seriously considered suicide and I'd wager you probably haven't either so it's not something people do willy-nilly.
At least with IT, those people chose to work in a field where most of their interactions are with machines rather than with people.
Schools have used student IDs for decades, usually with bar codes. Same with libraries, workplaces, drivers licenses, etc. We are already indoctrinated and have been for generations.
Yes, we have been indoctrinated into carrying around identification cards/badges that can be used to identify us. However, the fact the we are being identified and by who and for what purpose is known to the holder of the card (i.e. we have to take it out and show it), or if wearing it, we can see those who can see us and our cards. Tracking is not involved in the current system unless you swipe the card for access and again you know and can control what is being tracked. The new system is for ubiquitous identification and tracking, not knowing who is identifying/tracking you or when or for what purpose. This is a different system and one people should NOT be indoctrinated into as it is dehumanizing.
I believe that people should be free to take advantage of uninformed consumers.
So, you are all for fraud/cons then as that is the epitome of taking advantage of uninformed people.