The Saddam/911 link is a bad example
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
Isn't the 'Saddam planned 9/11' myth a bad example. It would seem to me that even among the populace that this is increasingly known to be false. It may not be a large %, but that % is growing.
It is important because it sparked a discussion that actually identified what Partially Zero means. It means that these vehicles aren't your average 'Green vehicles' (whatever the fuck that means). And the fact that they aren't quite 'Green' should be of interest to you.
Much in that same way as getting kicked in the balls isn't the "ultimate level of pain", but it still sucks. If it can kill you, then I would classify it as pretty ultimate. Neurogenic shock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenic_shock
The slippery slope is only a logical fallacy if you apply it to outcomes which are not influenced by external forces. What happens when one group is not satisfied?
Traditionally, the slippery slope arguement is used to describe restrictions to liberty as having a snowballing effect. One restriction will lead to others. On its own, this is not necessarily true. Yet simply dismissing the argument as a slippery slope fallacy without understanding the motivations of all players is foolish.
Basically, an arguement suggesting that a slippery slope exists isn't false simply because of the assertation. Of course, evidence must be presented to suggest that a slippery slope does exist.
Precedent is the principle in law of using the past in order to assist in current interpretation and decision-making. Precedent can be of two types. Binding or mandatory precedent is a precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis that a court must consider when deciding a case. Advisory precedent are cases which a court may use but is not required to use to decide its cases. In general, binding precedent involves decisions made by a higher court in a common law jurisdiction. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
One could use precedent from previous examples where 'A' led to 'B' in one situation, where in all other situations 'B' never spontaneously occured. This would suggest that 'A' makes 'B' possible, maybe not inevitable, but possible and potentially probable.
If their alignment is at most 20-30 degrees off then this would still be an interesting story. Let's assume they have a perfect shape, I would expect that there would be an even distribution from -90 to 90 degrees. ie: 180 degrees.
Given that you should expect 180 degrees, a measurement that is accurate enough to determine that they are only varying by 60 degrees maximum is a pretty significant difference.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree that those parts can be disabled, but the fact that those parts were implemented by design left a lot of users feeling sour about the whole Realplayer experience.
For me its a bit of a 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me until Release 11...'
Realplayer would have much more success if they partnered with another company to release this product under an entirely different name. There is a lot of bad publicity and resentment to this product.
I believe the arguement would still apply regardless of the company doing the selling.
My question is this, if AT&T and Apple want this phone tied into AT&T's service, why don't they simply require a 2 year contract? Is this what they are doing already and people are just shelling out for the early termination fee?
However, there is a parallel to the car analogy still.
While it is not a forced monopoly in that you can always select a different phone, or phone carrier, it does limit you to who you can do business with.
In a car analogy, it would be as if GM held the patent on emission testers for GM vehicles, and refused to sell those testers to non-GM repair shops. Effectively you would be forced to go to GM if you ever wanted your car to pass inspection.
Although I believe that Yahoo China wouldn't request that because of the political and economic backlash that would result, I'm quite sure that there is nothing legally preventing them from doing so.
Accessing the databases in the of Yahoo (us) might be a different issue based on privacy statements (which I have no intention of reading since I don't plan to ever use Yahoo)
However, your hypothetical question is at least interesting and I would be curious to think it through.
I did pay for the cable company to run a line to my home. I very seriously doubt that it was as involved as you would expect. Here is what happened in my case:
1. I called the cable company and asked if I could get cable at the house. They responded yes.
2. I bought the house and requested that they hook it up for cable.
3. A technition arrived the next month (yes month) and informed me that he didn't have enough wire. He would reschedule and come back. But it might take another month.
4. I wait a month, no notice of a new appointment. I call again, explain the situation and they send another tech out. He reports that he never got the message that he would need longer lengths of cable and had to reschedule. I made him call IMMEDIATELY from my house on the cell (This was the second day of work I had to miss)
5. The third technition arrives and informs me that they have to do an extension. It requires a survey. He schedules the survey.
6. The cable company does the survey, never informs me. I call back 1 month later and tell them that "Yes, proceed with the work" They tell me that it may take up to 2 years to get the permits... (WTF?)
In the meantime, I investigate every option. Satellite (will not work with what I need). ISDN (the phone company no longer deals in this area) DSL, I'm 16000' just too far. Wireless, I'm on the wrong side of the hill. EVDO: not broadband in my area, pretty much dialup.
7. 8 months pass and I have to call again "Umm, where the hell are you?" 3 weeks later they finally hook it up.
So thats what I went through with a company that WANTED to hook up my cable. I paid them to do it. I think it is more that some schmuck didn't want to be bothered with filling out the form to send a truck out to his home.
How about this. I DID call the cable company before purchasing my home and only after a few months of discussion (They sent 4 technitions to run the line over a period of 2 months) did they figure out that it would cost an additional $1500 and take up to 2 years to run a line. And of course, this ignores the fact that there is no excuse for the data infrastructure of the USA to be this underdeveloped.
My previous city of 10,000 had FIOS, and my current city of 40,000 could barely get me cable.
In a city that large, there should be a reasonable expectation of broadband.
Anyone posting on Slashdot who tries to tell you that you don't need the internet is probably a troll, or just trying to get a rise out of you.
I tried to function w/o the internet for 10 months until I could get permits to run a line to my house. You may be functional, but in today's society it would be like binding your offhand behind your back. Sure you function, but at a reduced capacity.
There may not be much advantage for that business in the short term to advertise their limits, but there is a definate disadvantage in the long term as most customers will avoid them like the plague.
I was in a Comcast served area for a few years, but I went with DSL because of the horror stories about limits, oversold connections and the like. Comcast is going to be in a world of hurt if they keep this up while FIOS is deployed.
I'm just going to go the extra mile and whenever I see a J&J product I'll think, "Oh this product is from the company that sued the ARC. I think I'll go with brand X".
Actually, I'm not sure if it matters if they push this or not. The red cross symbol has become synonymous with 'First Aid' in the public mind. Like it or not, they might lose this suit against a company that just started 3 days ago, let alone the Red Cross.
What about those with Epilepsy? Could this be considered excessive force if they went into a seizure? I don't know, wouldn't that be a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
A nuclear bomb the size of fatman or little boy would have barely scratched the surface of a mountain.
How would you then communicate this explosion to the Japanese people? Would you show them pictures of the mountain and say "See this boulder was jostled a few meters to the left which shows just how terrible this new weapon is."
Well the universe is not believed to be infinite but more like 150 Gly in diameter. And even then, there may be a limit to how big a galaxy can possibly be. Actually you mentioned something that is very important to this discussion. The theoretical limit of a galactic diameter.
It is possible that this new supergalaxy may exceed that limit, and any stars that are further away (or moving at a velocity greater than the galaxy's escape velocity) would be shed.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the 'Saddam planned 9/11' myth a bad example. It would seem to me that even among the populace that this is increasingly known to be false. It may not be a large %, but that % is growing.
It is important because it sparked a discussion that actually identified what Partially Zero means. It means that these vehicles aren't your average 'Green vehicles' (whatever the fuck that means). And the fact that they aren't quite 'Green' should be of interest to you.
For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2703355.stm
The ruling was handed down in a case in which a man had kneed another in the testicles, killing him instantly.
Shooter s ex change? I think that qualifies in one of the top 50 most unfortunate domain names.
The slippery slope is only a logical fallacy if you apply it to outcomes which are not influenced by external forces. What happens when one group is not satisfied?
Traditionally, the slippery slope arguement is used to describe restrictions to liberty as having a snowballing effect. One restriction will lead to others. On its own, this is not necessarily true. Yet simply dismissing the argument as a slippery slope fallacy without understanding the motivations of all players is foolish.
Basically, an arguement suggesting that a slippery slope exists isn't false simply because of the assertation. Of course, evidence must be presented to suggest that a slippery slope does exist.
Precedent is the principle in law of using the past in order to assist in current interpretation and decision-making. Precedent can be of two types. Binding or mandatory precedent is a precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis that a court must consider when deciding a case. Advisory precedent are cases which a court may use but is not required to use to decide its cases. In general, binding precedent involves decisions made by a higher court in a common law jurisdiction.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
One could use precedent from previous examples where 'A' led to 'B' in one situation, where in all other situations 'B' never spontaneously occured. This would suggest that 'A' makes 'B' possible, maybe not inevitable, but possible and potentially probable.
If their alignment is at most 20-30 degrees off then this would still be an interesting story. Let's assume they have a perfect shape, I would expect that there would be an even distribution from -90 to 90 degrees. ie: 180 degrees.
Given that you should expect 180 degrees, a measurement that is accurate enough to determine that they are only varying by 60 degrees maximum is a pretty significant difference.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree that those parts can be disabled, but the fact that those parts were implemented by design left a lot of users feeling sour about the whole Realplayer experience.
For me its a bit of a 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me until Release 11...'
Realplayer would have much more success if they partnered with another company to release this product under an entirely different name. There is a lot of bad publicity and resentment to this product.
Just based on your post you have a piece of software that DOES the following:
1. Aggressivly associates file types to it.
2. Spyware activities.
3. Intrusive behaviors.
These are things which you state takes a bit of effort to do. Normal software does NOT do such things.
How the heck is that "Not really as bad as most people think"?
I believe the arguement would still apply regardless of the company doing the selling.
My question is this, if AT&T and Apple want this phone tied into AT&T's service, why don't they simply require a 2 year contract? Is this what they are doing already and people are just shelling out for the early termination fee?
However, there is a parallel to the car analogy still.
While it is not a forced monopoly in that you can always select a different phone, or phone carrier, it does limit you to who you can do business with.
In a car analogy, it would be as if GM held the patent on emission testers for GM vehicles, and refused to sell those testers to non-GM repair shops. Effectively you would be forced to go to GM if you ever wanted your car to pass inspection.
Although I believe that Yahoo China wouldn't request that because of the political and economic backlash that would result, I'm quite sure that there is nothing legally preventing them from doing so.
Accessing the databases in the of Yahoo (us) might be a different issue based on privacy statements (which I have no intention of reading since I don't plan to ever use Yahoo)
However, your hypothetical question is at least interesting and I would be curious to think it through.
To any business that doesn't want to be phased out in the next 10 years, internet service (at broadband rates) is a necessity.
I did pay for the cable company to run a line to my home. I very seriously doubt that it was as involved as you would expect. Here is what happened in my case:
1. I called the cable company and asked if I could get cable at the house. They responded yes.
2. I bought the house and requested that they hook it up for cable.
3. A technition arrived the next month (yes month) and informed me that he didn't have enough wire. He would reschedule and come back. But it might take another month.
4. I wait a month, no notice of a new appointment. I call again, explain the situation and they send another tech out. He reports that he never got the message that he would need longer lengths of cable and had to reschedule. I made him call IMMEDIATELY from my house on the cell (This was the second day of work I had to miss)
5. The third technition arrives and informs me that they have to do an extension. It requires a survey. He schedules the survey.
6. The cable company does the survey, never informs me. I call back 1 month later and tell them that "Yes, proceed with the work" They tell me that it may take up to 2 years to get the permits... (WTF?)
In the meantime, I investigate every option. Satellite (will not work with what I need). ISDN (the phone company no longer deals in this area) DSL, I'm 16000' just too far. Wireless, I'm on the wrong side of the hill. EVDO: not broadband in my area, pretty much dialup.
7. 8 months pass and I have to call again "Umm, where the hell are you?" 3 weeks later they finally hook it up.
So thats what I went through with a company that WANTED to hook up my cable. I paid them to do it. I think it is more that some schmuck didn't want to be bothered with filling out the form to send a truck out to his home.
How about this. I DID call the cable company before purchasing my home and only after a few months of discussion (They sent 4 technitions to run the line over a period of 2 months) did they figure out that it would cost an additional $1500 and take up to 2 years to run a line. And of course, this ignores the fact that there is no excuse for the data infrastructure of the USA to be this underdeveloped.
My previous city of 10,000 had FIOS, and my current city of 40,000 could barely get me cable.
In a city that large, there should be a reasonable expectation of broadband.
Anyone posting on Slashdot who tries to tell you that you don't need the internet is probably a troll, or just trying to get a rise out of you.
I tried to function w/o the internet for 10 months until I could get permits to run a line to my house. You may be functional, but in today's society it would be like binding your offhand behind your back. Sure you function, but at a reduced capacity.
There may not be much advantage for that business in the short term to advertise their limits, but there is a definate disadvantage in the long term as most customers will avoid them like the plague.
I was in a Comcast served area for a few years, but I went with DSL because of the horror stories about limits, oversold connections and the like. Comcast is going to be in a world of hurt if they keep this up while FIOS is deployed.
With that much CC, who is tanking?
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company.
They can block wavelengths and there are brands out there that are designed with the intent to block certain wavelengths.
However, I am not aware of any that are designed as laser protection.
I'm just going to go the extra mile and whenever I see a J&J product I'll think, "Oh this product is from the company that sued the ARC. I think I'll go with brand X".
Actually, I'm not sure if it matters if they push this or not. The red cross symbol has become synonymous with 'First Aid' in the public mind. Like it or not, they might lose this suit against a company that just started 3 days ago, let alone the Red Cross.
A nuclear bomb the size of fatman or little boy would have barely scratched the surface of a mountain.
How would you then communicate this explosion to the Japanese people? Would you show them pictures of the mountain and say "See this boulder was jostled a few meters to the left which shows just how terrible this new weapon is."
It is possible that this new supergalaxy may exceed that limit, and any stars that are further away (or moving at a velocity greater than the galaxy's escape velocity) would be shed.