your inability to understand is no reason to think I am.
That I disagree with your opinion does not mean that do not understand your position.
Being that this is a debate over opinion, "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Period.
you're entitled to disagree, and I won't dispute that
Yet you HAVE been disputing it... if you weren't you would have shut up by now, because this is a debate over opinion, and "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Yet you persist in debating.
Also, the fact that you think that additional clarity in the presentation of your hypothesis immediately implies that you'd be treating the audience as "individuals of deficient mental capability"... Well, let's just say it's a little bit on the disrespectful side towards said audience.
My statement of mental deficiency is applied appropriately to people who would necessarily lack the sufficient mental capacity to engage in interpolation and extrapolation.
This is my opinion. And since this is a debate over opinion, "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Full Stop.
did I ever say that I needed such explicit explanations?
No, you imply it by failing to understand my position: "I disagree with you, and you are not changing my mind." This being a debate over opinion, "I disagree with you" should be the end of the debate. End paragraph.
Such apologies are not needed. It's me who should be apologizing to the rest of the slashdotters for continuously feeding the troll.
Asserting my opinion does not make me a troll, which requires a disingenuous representation of an position.
I fully hold honestly and earnestly, that if someone really did need the explicit context, which you suggested, then they are mentally deficient.
If it makes you happier to label me a troll, and construct your opinion of me with such language, then well... fine. Such is your perogative.
However, please consider your own position. You keep forcing your opinion on me under the claim that I do not understand you.
I understand you fine. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. This will not change.
That you keep pressing this issue shows either assholery, stupidity, or mental retardation.
Your opinion is rejected. I understand that you reject my opinion.
Let me clarify again: "I disagree with your opinion."
I already knew that. So what? What does you disagreeing with me have to do with your inability to understand me?
Firstly, I'm going to apologize up front for descending yet again into offensive language again, but seriously, jesus fucking christ.
I mean, holy fucking shit, are you seriously this retarded that you need need me to spell everything out for you in such explicit terms?
Yes? Ok, then, let's get to it. I clarify here as explicitly as I possibly can be:
"You presented an initial critic about the presentation of my hypothetical situation. This opinion is that I should have been more explicit. Having evaluated your opinion, I do not find the criticism reasonable, and refuse to revise the presentation of my hypothetical situation in any way. The key reason for rebuking your criticism is that I have the opinion that any individual that is a part of my target audience will not need their hand to be held so explicitly during a hypothetical situation. I am not addressing idiots, retards, or any individuals of deficient mental capability."
I am finding it difficult to have a high opinion of your intelligence due to your constant need for such explicit explanations.
You are not a computer, you are not dumb... you should be capable of extrapolating and interpolating. Please start doing so.
My apologies if you have a mental variation which makes you incapable of properly understanding without pedantically explicit detail.
On the contrary, I understand your point just fine, reading my posts (provided that you understand them, of course) will prove that to you just fine. What you don't seem to understand (apart from my point) is that not once have I said that your post (the original one about the plant, the guest and the subpoena, that is) didn't prove the point you were trying to make. And that's like the third time I state this, which makes me even more convinced that you have no intention whatsoever to understand or make any effor to understand.
No, you do not understand me just fine.
Let me clarify again: "I disagree with your opinion."
And yet it is, since it's te very cause for the subpoena. And you have repeatedly acted as if it were fundamentally necessary.
I will restate more clearly: I do not think it fundamentally necessary to explicitly state the information, as it was a given in the hypothetical situation.
You still haven't understood my point.
You do not seem able to understand my point either: my post proved the point I was trying to make.
Except that not even once did you present as fact that the neighbour knew that the one that damaged his plant was a guest of mine. It was merely implied, and the only point I raised was that it should have been presented as fact, seeing how important it is for your argument. So I don't think I'm the hopeless case here (and since I see it coming already, no that doesn't mean I think you're the hopeless case), nor the one that is "factually wrong" (and please note how, despite that, I didn't use the imperative).
I didn't think, and I still do not think that it was fundamentally necessary to my argument.
The only thing I was attempting to establish is that it is false to say that one cannot be legally harassed unless having done something illegal.
I do not think it necessary to provide a robust well-established counter-example to blanket statements.
"All odd integers are prime" Response: "No, 9."
I have not provided any proper rigorous examination as to why this is a valid counter-example. I merely need show that there is one.
Formal logic wise: if one makes a "for all" assertion, then one must provide a rigorous argument for that assertion.
However, if one makes a "there exists" assertion, then one must merely provide a single candidate.
In general human discussion, then the restrictions are a bit more relaxed... this isn't debate club. And so for a "for all", one should only need to present an argument for why it is likely, and for a "there exists", one should only need present a likely candidate.
This was quoted 100% accurately. Even the spelling of "neighbour".
That spelling is correct.
I suspected that it were the correct spelling in Commonwealth English. This is why I didn't say it were wrong, but rather that it was simply kept without changing it.
However, since I am American, when I'm talking about a neighbor I spell it an entirely different way, and if I were to spell it in the same way as Commonwealth English, then it would be "wrong".
Not really, but I guess there's nothing I can do if you see it that way. Just a bit of advice: if someone doesn't say "Aye, sir" to your every word, that doesn't mean he's being an asshole.
You're making a lot of progress towards actually providing criticism in a polite and respectful way.
Or what "man up" means?
Now, I'm aware that I am a little mysandronist. Which is why, one should always consider the audience that one is speaking to.
I'm offended that the best suggestion you can give me is to suggest that I need to be more like a man... even if you only mean it figuratively. Fuck systemic sexism.
When a person is presenting a hypothetical situation, they must naturally use a finite amount of information to establish the situation. I was of the belief that when presenting my hypothetical that it would be understood that all parties were entirely aware of all the facts presented in the hypothetical. By saying he is a guest, thus everyone involved in the hypothetical situation, would thus know that he were a guest.
Guess I'll have to remind you that not even once have I said anything about the guest being a guest, but rather about the neighbour knowing that he was a guest. Really, are you even reading what I write? That's the second time you prove you aren't.
Stop for two seconds. (Imperative, because you're simply factually wrong.) Read the bolded part of my requote...
Now, if you cannot understand how that means that the neighbor knows that he was a guest, then you're a hopeless case.
I entirely understand your argument. I am actually reading your text.
It is my presumption that ALL parties to the hypothetical situation were aware of ALL facts that I presented to establish the hypothetical situation, unless specifically stated otherwise.
This is supported by me stating in the hypothetical what the people do not know.
Inventing the word "skupplenap" for your new invention isn't nearly as likely as naming it something that has some amount of meaning.
And yet you're writing this on a blog called Slashdot, while you Google...
"Slashdot" is composed of two words, each with independent meaning.
"Google" is your closer argument, however it was intended to be the same as "Googol", or 10^100. The original term does appear to have been invented seemingly from thin air.
However, I didn't argue that this never happened, but rather that inventing new terms from juxtaposing other terms is more common.
Human language, much like the genome, doesn't tend to spontaneously generate new words out of the air. Rather, the vast amount are from mutations of existing words, or borrowings from other languages.
When I learned that the German word for "maintenance" was "Handhabung" (lit: hand having), I felt disappointed of the language. It seemed like such a boring, literal, utilitarian example of slapping two words together. Then I examined the English word, and realized that it's literally the same thing, just with French words: "main-tenance".
Get off yourself. Specially considering you just proved you don't even understand what I'm saying.
This is simply confrontational. I don't expect you to respond to me saying "fuck off" or "stop being an asshole".
In fact, you don't even understand what you're saying: since when is my neighbour knowing that the other dude was a guest of mine a necessary precondition for the neighbour to a suit involving either my guest or me?
This was quoted 100% accurately. Even the spelling of "neighbour".
After all (and that was one of the points of my first reply to you) he can subpoena every neighbour just in case they know anything. And that should backfire, of course, one can't go just filing suits "just in case".
Yeah, he possibly could, but it is irrelevant to the counter-example in the original argument. Because it was irrelevant, I did not see a point in addressing it, or even including it just to be ignored.
To this excerpt, you say I am "mutilating" it.
In my personal opinion, trimming something doesn't count as "mutilating".
I see no problem here, except for the poor wording on my part, but I'd assume that you of all people should be able to forgive that.
If you're admitting to a mistake, then accepted.
However, you simply do not seem to be able to let it go that I didn't provide the "perfect example", and you bit my head off. I tell you to stop being an asshole, and what is your response? To continue being an asshole.
You even eventually tell me to "man up"... good to know that everything on the internet has to cater to masculine more of confrontational argument. *beats chest à la King Kong*
When presenting a hypothetical situation one need not present all of the information explicitly.
Because you say so?
I did not explicitly state that my hypothetical situation occurred on Earth. Yet this implicit element did not seem to offend you.
When a person is presenting a hypothetical situation, they must naturally use a finite amount of information to establish the situation. I was of the belief that when presenting my hypothetical that it would be understood that all parties were entirely aware of all the facts presented in the hypothetical. By saying he is a guest, thus everyone involved in the hypothetical situation, would thus know that he were a guest.
Now, when you are presenting your own hypothetical situations, you are entirely free to follow your own personal tastes and opinions about how they should be presented.
You even make it clear that you're criticizing the presentation and not the substance of my argument:
How many times do I have to repeat that I wasn't criticising your argument, but the exposition of said argument?
This is awesome news, because since you are insisting that there is no critic on substance of my hypothetical, all of your criticism is based on... opinion!
That's kind of why you should be couching your criticism in polite language... because you're relating your own opinion. (I thought they covered this in elementary school, however I might be wrong, you might be autistic, or you could just be anti-social.)
If I presented an argument that stated that I could charge you for destruction of property in my original hypothetical, then you would be right to say, "shut up, you're wrong." Even to perhaps coat it with liberal confrontational statements like "you're an idiot," or the like. And it would be warranted, because I would be factually wrong.
However, we're not arguing fact here... we're simply arguing over style and presentation.
I take your criticism that I could have presented the information to the audience more clearly, and I respectfully disagree.
This is an utterly terrible idea, however, as you can type way, way faster on, say, an iPhone than you could ever select symbols from a list. I mean, a bunch of custom smilies is what this is, and a bunch of them are commercial. This is highly likely not to take off.
(Also, where’s the Android app?)
Forget just the Android app... where is the freaking link-in to use it with Facebook?
If these iConji aren't around commonly, it will actually be harder for people to read than just the words... and heaven help you if you're dyslexic.
Presented to you is actual photographic evidence for the reason for "resting a steak".
What's in there might be actual photographic evidence that people have different tastes. That would only seem to apply to meat that simply isn't cooked enough. I *hate* medium-rare steaks. Medium-well is the minimum cooking a steak would need, but I'd prefer mine well-done.
Yeah, yeah. A whole lot of people are going to start replying on how I'm killing the taste of the meat. I don't like that raw taste you seem to like, and I want to kill it. Resting a stake seems to increase that flavor, based on your evidence.
Not everyone agrees with your tastes. Get over it.
I would never argue that you are killing the taste of the steak. If you like your meat well-done, then by Thor, you want it well-done!
Taste is opinion. Period.
But the person I responded to replied that there is no reason to rest a steak, to which I provided evidence that there is a proper scientifically verifiable reason to resting a steak.*
I also pointed out though, that if a steak is cold when you get it; it should never be because it was rested. If one is leaving a steak out until it is cold, then this is not "resting"... this is simply being a bad chef.
To wit, if you're in a restaurant, feel free to order a steak well-done with no resting. Most chefs already understand the idea of cooking to order.
* Unlike searing a steak to "seal in the juices". It's been scientifically proven that searing a steak actually decreases the moisture content at the end.
Excuse me, what? Now I know you're not even making the slightest effort to read and/or understand my posts. [snip] And even then it wouldn't be a correct interpretation of my words, because I do not wonder if it needs to be more clearly stated: I'm certain that it needs to be more clearly stated.
I took your criticism to "behave like a adult, and not like a spoiled brat that can't take criticism." (I did paraphrasing you some here.)
Since you wanted to talk about how I don't take criticism, I presented to you -- as criticism -- a proper way to offer criticism so that the person won't freak out and get pissy.
However, you apparently do not understand how to properly couch criticism to make it non-offensive, and perhaps you need a more clear explanation as to why "I wonder if" is there. This is because it makes the comment less hostile, and rude. This use of the subjunctive as well as indirection is by far the most common way to express demands and criticism to others.
"Pass the salt" is rude. "Would you pass the salt" is less rude. "Can you pass the salt?" even less rude, and "Could you pass the salt?" is close to the least rude possible in English without going overboard. "Would you please be able to pass the salt, if it would not be too difficult?" has started to become smacking of pretentiousness, however, when an individual is extremely hostile, sometimes this could possibly become necessary.
Notice, how when I'm presenting my criticism, I am not ordering you around with the imperative form at all? Rather, I'm couching things in hypotheticals, subjunctives, and indirection. This allows an individual to more easily accept that the criticism is not intended to injure or upset them.
Because it is perfectly natural for a person to respond to hostile criticism with hostile responses, one should not be surprised that when one is not bothered to concern yourself with the pleasantries of civility, that others will not concern themselves with the same.
Not because I don't see it being implied, not because I don't get the point, but because there are other possibilities that render the whole hypothesis moot, so it's best to explicitly rule them out from the start.
When presenting a hypothetical situation one need not present all of the information explicitly. My hypothetical -- as presented -- served the purpose it was designed for... showing that it is possible for one can be disrupted by legal process, even if someone hasn't done anything wrong.
In fact, I did not even strictly intend my hypothetical to be a proper analogy. I was simply intending to produce a hypothetical which demonstrated a counter-example to the assertion that one has a right to not be bothered, unless one does something illegal.
If the reader has to connect a few dots or two, perhaps the author felt that the dots should be easily connectible.
But upon reviewing your previous posts together... I would like to revisit some of your statements.
I was just pointing out how it's not a good analogy.
Followed by:
The analogy and the hypothetical are fine.
Interesting.
Now, let's look at this:
In fact, you don't even understand what you're saying: since when is my neighbour knowing that the other dude was a guest of mine a necessary precondition for the neighbour to a suit involving either my guest or me?
preceded by:
My complaint was not about the results of the subpoena, but rather about the reasons behind it. You have now properly adressed that, however, so I shall say no more about this.
Huh.
Next up:
Do I have to remind you that I made that simple inference just fine, as shown by my reference to the missing information probably being implied for the sake of the argument?
Bliss was at first overjoyed. Then he was furious, because he found out the teachers (and the kids) used it "wrong", not according to the rules he'd set up. He threatened to sue. Eventually they were forced to settle, for a large sum. So in essence he stole money from handicapped children,
Thus proving once and for all that ignorance is not Bliss.
- So if there is no symbol for a certain brand already licensed in the system, how do you, as a user, discuss it?
You use some transliteration. So for say a particular burger joint, you would use a symbol starting with M, then C, then D. The symbols chosen also attempting to portray some additional subtext. Like, say... "Meat Cheese Dog".
WTF is this "summer" thing? I looked it up on Wikipedia, but it makes no sense. They seem to be talking about that one week, where we can walk around without an umbrella, but it's still a little unclear...
You're in no position to tell me to shut up. The analogy and the hypothetical are fine, what is not fine is the way you explain it. And the only one that's trolling here is you. So get off yourself and shut up. And learn to behave like the adult I'd assume you are, and not like a spoiled brat that can't take criticism. Grow the fuck up.
Since it has been upmodded quite a bit for being "Informative", I would say that generally people already got the point.
I'm sorry I didn't meet your sufficient pedantry level, and that you cannot make a simple inference.
If you want to give criticism, give it in a more non-combative way. Starting of with something like, "Your analogy and hypothetical situation are fine, but I wonder if it needs to be more clearly stated that your neighbor knows that you know who your guest is?"
To which I would respond, "you obviously understood that this is a necessary precondition to a suit, so why do I have to tell you that the little plus sign between the two symbols representing the value of two represents addition?"
You're reading too much into that. It's still a criminal offense, it's just that you can also sue for damages. The only file sharing cases that's ever gone into Swedish court have been criminal ones and it'll probably remain that way, the reason is quite simple. In Sweden you can only sue for actual damages(rather then punitive) so being able to sue for all of $10 per movie you prove he downloaded isn't a very good use of your time.
Every suit in Sweden that has been under IPRED has been a civil offense. In particular this very case is an IPRED case, and thus a civil offense.
Wait, do you seriously blog about how your roommate's cooking is not as good as yours, mostly because of your "level of dedication", being a culinary arts student?
No, I do not blog about my roommate's cooking. But I do blog about what I have cooked.
Agreed. The only time I'd use my phone whilst in a restaurant would be a) to take a photo if it's a birthday party or celebration, or b) if there was really bad service or standards of hygiene, and I wanted proof to back it up when I reported it. Ok, technically there's also c) to take a call, but I would either switch the phone off or put it on silent or vibrate, to avoid pissing off everyone around me.
-MT.
Or d) a dish served in such a presentation that it is an edible piece of art.
This rarely occurs outside of fine dinning, though. Even then, presentation is not normally at the super artistic level of "I need to photograph this!"
Food artists handle preparing food for being photographed. What looks good when it is presented right before you will not always look good on camera. Same issues as with people having their picture taken.
Chefs at a restaurant are not typically preparing food to be photographed, rather they are preparing food to be admired shortly prior to being consumed.
To be honest, I keep flirting with taking a contrarian position, and insisting that people should stop worrying about whether food tastes good, much less whether it looks good. There seem to be so many problems with people eating unhealthy food, or eating too much food, and wasting food, and so on, that I sometimes wish people would just take a utilitarian attitude towards food.
The problem is keeping food palatable. Take out all the fat (or most of it) and it becomes unpalatable. So, they add tons of sugar to make it palatable again. Or, they add tons of salt for the same purpose.
As an insightful sibling comment mentioned, chefs take a much more reasoned approach to food. Proper portions, good taste, and proper balance of nutritional elements.
When food takes a half hour to an hour to cook, then a lot more attention is paid to what food's purpose is, rather than pulling up to the drive through and having it handed to you.
As with many of the problems in the careless and reckless nature of humans is that the root of it is laziness.
A "linguistic desert" is a desert devoid of language. A "clue desert" would be a desert devoid of clues.
An epicurean desert would lack any sensual pleasure, particularly to the enjoyment of good food and comfort.
Feel free to disagree, I don't think that there are clear linguistic answers to which would be the proper interpretation. Ambiguity is the spice of language.
Food bloggers are simply braggarts. "Look at me and the wonderful food I'm enjoying! Aren't I just precious?" This is the sub-text of almost every food blog. It's even more obnoxious than disturbing the fellow diners.
I'm a future culinary arts student. I'm kind of torn in some ways, in that I don't want to be an arrogant pretentious bitch about food... but when I taste my roommate's cooking, there just isn't the same level of dedication to the taste as with my own dishes.
Sure, I fuck things up here and there (I am still learning after all), but generally my roommates produce bland dishes, or have processed food that only has taste because they've over salted it, over sweetened it, or whatever.
Presented to you is actual photographic evidence for the reason for "resting a steak".
Now, to point, if you rest a steak and the person gets it cold, then they fucked up. Using the argument of "resting a steak" is not a proper reason for a cold steak.
Rather the myth should be that resting a steak means letting it go cold. This later one would be the mark of a bad chef.
Slashdot Mirror
your inability to understand is no reason to think I am.
That I disagree with your opinion does not mean that do not understand your position.
Being that this is a debate over opinion, "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Period.
you're entitled to disagree, and I won't dispute that
Yet you HAVE been disputing it... if you weren't you would have shut up by now, because this is a debate over opinion, and "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Yet you persist in debating.
Also, the fact that you think that additional clarity in the presentation of your hypothesis immediately implies that you'd be treating the audience as "individuals of deficient mental capability"... Well, let's just say it's a little bit on the disrespectful side towards said audience.
My statement of mental deficiency is applied appropriately to people who would necessarily lack the sufficient mental capacity to engage in interpolation and extrapolation.
This is my opinion. And since this is a debate over opinion, "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Full Stop.
did I ever say that I needed such explicit explanations?
No, you imply it by failing to understand my position: "I disagree with you, and you are not changing my mind." This being a debate over opinion, "I disagree with you" should be the end of the debate. End paragraph.
Such apologies are not needed. It's me who should be apologizing to the rest of the slashdotters for continuously feeding the troll.
Asserting my opinion does not make me a troll, which requires a disingenuous representation of an position.
I fully hold honestly and earnestly, that if someone really did need the explicit context, which you suggested, then they are mentally deficient.
If it makes you happier to label me a troll, and construct your opinion of me with such language, then well... fine. Such is your perogative.
However, please consider your own position. You keep forcing your opinion on me under the claim that I do not understand you.
I understand you fine. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. This will not change.
That you keep pressing this issue shows either assholery, stupidity, or mental retardation.
Your opinion is rejected. I understand that you reject my opinion.
THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO DEBATE.
No, you do not understand me just fine.
But I do.
Let me clarify again: "I disagree with your opinion."
I already knew that. So what? What does you disagreeing with me have to do with your inability to understand me?
Firstly, I'm going to apologize up front for descending yet again into offensive language again, but seriously, jesus fucking christ.
I mean, holy fucking shit, are you seriously this retarded that you need need me to spell everything out for you in such explicit terms?
Yes? Ok, then, let's get to it. I clarify here as explicitly as I possibly can be:
"You presented an initial critic about the presentation of my hypothetical situation. This opinion is that I should have been more explicit. Having evaluated your opinion, I do not find the criticism reasonable, and refuse to revise the presentation of my hypothetical situation in any way. The key reason for rebuking your criticism is that I have the opinion that any individual that is a part of my target audience will not need their hand to be held so explicitly during a hypothetical situation. I am not addressing idiots, retards, or any individuals of deficient mental capability."
I am finding it difficult to have a high opinion of your intelligence due to your constant need for such explicit explanations.
You are not a computer, you are not dumb... you should be capable of extrapolating and interpolating. Please start doing so.
My apologies if you have a mental variation which makes you incapable of properly understanding without pedantically explicit detail.
On the contrary, I understand your point just fine, reading my posts (provided that you understand them, of course) will prove that to you just fine. What you don't seem to understand (apart from my point) is that not once have I said that your post (the original one about the plant, the guest and the subpoena, that is) didn't prove the point you were trying to make. And that's like the third time I state this, which makes me even more convinced that you have no intention whatsoever to understand or make any effor to understand.
No, you do not understand me just fine.
Let me clarify again: "I disagree with your opinion."
And yet it is, since it's te very cause for the subpoena. And you have repeatedly acted as if it were fundamentally necessary.
I will restate more clearly: I do not think it fundamentally necessary to explicitly state the information, as it was a given in the hypothetical situation.
You still haven't understood my point.
You do not seem able to understand my point either: my post proved the point I was trying to make.
Except that not even once did you present as fact that the neighbour knew that the one that damaged his plant was a guest of mine. It was merely implied, and the only point I raised was that it should have been presented as fact, seeing how important it is for your argument. So I don't think I'm the hopeless case here (and since I see it coming already, no that doesn't mean I think you're the hopeless case), nor the one that is "factually wrong" (and please note how, despite that, I didn't use the imperative).
I didn't think, and I still do not think that it was fundamentally necessary to my argument.
The only thing I was attempting to establish is that it is false to say that one cannot be legally harassed unless having done something illegal.
I do not think it necessary to provide a robust well-established counter-example to blanket statements.
"All odd integers are prime" Response: "No, 9."
I have not provided any proper rigorous examination as to why this is a valid counter-example. I merely need show that there is one.
Formal logic wise: if one makes a "for all" assertion, then one must provide a rigorous argument for that assertion.
However, if one makes a "there exists" assertion, then one must merely provide a single candidate.
In general human discussion, then the restrictions are a bit more relaxed... this isn't debate club. And so for a "for all", one should only need to present an argument for why it is likely, and for a "there exists", one should only need present a likely candidate.
This was quoted 100% accurately. Even the spelling of "neighbour".
That spelling is correct.
I suspected that it were the correct spelling in Commonwealth English. This is why I didn't say it were wrong, but rather that it was simply kept without changing it.
However, since I am American, when I'm talking about a neighbor I spell it an entirely different way, and if I were to spell it in the same way as Commonwealth English, then it would be "wrong".
Not really, but I guess there's nothing I can do if you see it that way. Just a bit of advice: if someone doesn't say "Aye, sir" to your every word, that doesn't mean he's being an asshole.
You're making a lot of progress towards actually providing criticism in a polite and respectful way.
Or what "man up" means?
Now, I'm aware that I am a little mysandronist. Which is why, one should always consider the audience that one is speaking to.
I'm offended that the best suggestion you can give me is to suggest that I need to be more like a man... even if you only mean it figuratively. Fuck systemic sexism.
When a person is presenting a hypothetical situation, they must naturally use a finite amount of information to establish the situation. I was of the belief that when presenting my hypothetical that it would be understood that all parties were entirely aware of all the facts presented in the hypothetical. By saying he is a guest, thus everyone involved in the hypothetical situation, would thus know that he were a guest.
Guess I'll have to remind you that not even once have I said anything about the guest being a guest, but rather about the neighbour knowing that he was a guest. Really, are you even reading what I write? That's the second time you prove you aren't.
Stop for two seconds. (Imperative, because you're simply factually wrong.) Read the bolded part of my requote...
Now, if you cannot understand how that means that the neighbor knows that he was a guest, then you're a hopeless case.
I entirely understand your argument. I am actually reading your text.
It is my presumption that ALL parties to the hypothetical situation were aware of ALL facts that I presented to establish the hypothetical situation, unless specifically stated otherwise.
This is supported by me stating in the hypothetical what the people do not know.
Inventing the word "skupplenap" for your new invention isn't nearly as likely as naming it something that has some amount of meaning.
And yet you're writing this on a blog called Slashdot, while you Google...
"Slashdot" is composed of two words, each with independent meaning.
"Google" is your closer argument, however it was intended to be the same as "Googol", or 10^100. The original term does appear to have been invented seemingly from thin air.
However, I didn't argue that this never happened, but rather that inventing new terms from juxtaposing other terms is more common.
Human language, much like the genome, doesn't tend to spontaneously generate new words out of the air. Rather, the vast amount are from mutations of existing words, or borrowings from other languages.
When I learned that the German word for "maintenance" was "Handhabung" (lit: hand having), I felt disappointed of the language. It seemed like such a boring, literal, utilitarian example of slapping two words together. Then I examined the English word, and realized that it's literally the same thing, just with French words: "main-tenance".
Get off yourself. Specially considering you just proved you don't even understand what I'm saying.
This is simply confrontational. I don't expect you to respond to me saying "fuck off" or "stop being an asshole".
In fact, you don't even understand what you're saying: since when is my neighbour knowing that the other dude was a guest of mine a necessary precondition for the neighbour to a suit involving either my guest or me?
This was quoted 100% accurately. Even the spelling of "neighbour".
After all (and that was one of the points of my first reply to you) he can subpoena every neighbour just in case they know anything. And that should backfire, of course, one can't go just filing suits "just in case".
Yeah, he possibly could, but it is irrelevant to the counter-example in the original argument. Because it was irrelevant, I did not see a point in addressing it, or even including it just to be ignored.
To this excerpt, you say I am "mutilating" it.
In my personal opinion, trimming something doesn't count as "mutilating".
I see no problem here, except for the poor wording on my part, but I'd assume that you of all people should be able to forgive that.
If you're admitting to a mistake, then accepted.
However, you simply do not seem to be able to let it go that I didn't provide the "perfect example", and you bit my head off. I tell you to stop being an asshole, and what is your response? To continue being an asshole.
You even eventually tell me to "man up"... good to know that everything on the internet has to cater to masculine more of confrontational argument. *beats chest à la King Kong*
When presenting a hypothetical situation one need not present all of the information explicitly.
Because you say so?
I did not explicitly state that my hypothetical situation occurred on Earth. Yet this implicit element did not seem to offend you.
When a person is presenting a hypothetical situation, they must naturally use a finite amount of information to establish the situation. I was of the belief that when presenting my hypothetical that it would be understood that all parties were entirely aware of all the facts presented in the hypothetical. By saying he is a guest, thus everyone involved in the hypothetical situation, would thus know that he were a guest.
Now, when you are presenting your own hypothetical situations, you are entirely free to follow your own personal tastes and opinions about how they should be presented.
You even make it clear that you're criticizing the presentation and not the substance of my argument:
How many times do I have to repeat that I wasn't criticising your argument, but the exposition of said argument?
This is awesome news, because since you are insisting that there is no critic on substance of my hypothetical, all of your criticism is based on... opinion!
That's kind of why you should be couching your criticism in polite language... because you're relating your own opinion. (I thought they covered this in elementary school, however I might be wrong, you might be autistic, or you could just be anti-social.)
If I presented an argument that stated that I could charge you for destruction of property in my original hypothetical, then you would be right to say, "shut up, you're wrong." Even to perhaps coat it with liberal confrontational statements like "you're an idiot," or the like. And it would be warranted, because I would be factually wrong.
However, we're not arguing fact here... we're simply arguing over style and presentation.
I take your criticism that I could have presented the information to the audience more clearly, and I respectfully disagree.
two words: man up.
I'm a woman.
Captain Blood called, and he wants his UPCOM back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Blood_(video_game)
This is an utterly terrible idea, however, as you can type way, way faster on, say, an iPhone than you could ever select symbols from a list. I mean, a bunch of custom smilies is what this is, and a bunch of them are commercial. This is highly likely not to take off.
(Also, where’s the Android app?)
Forget just the Android app... where is the freaking link-in to use it with Facebook?
If these iConji aren't around commonly, it will actually be harder for people to read than just the words... and heaven help you if you're dyslexic.
you'll often see English words in the middle of Chinese writing because there is no ideographic equivalents.
No, usually it is because they are names.
And what's the matter? "electric talk" isn't clearly enough "telephone"? or "far seeing thing" isn't clearly enough a "television"?
Inventing the word "skupplenap" for your new invention isn't nearly as likely as naming it something that has some amount of meaning.
Presented to you is actual photographic evidence for the reason for "resting a steak".
What's in there might be actual photographic evidence that people have different tastes. That would only seem to apply to meat that simply isn't cooked enough. I *hate* medium-rare steaks. Medium-well is the minimum cooking a steak would need, but I'd prefer mine well-done.
Yeah, yeah. A whole lot of people are going to start replying on how I'm killing the taste of the meat. I don't like that raw taste you seem to like, and I want to kill it. Resting a stake seems to increase that flavor, based on your evidence.
Not everyone agrees with your tastes. Get over it.
I would never argue that you are killing the taste of the steak. If you like your meat well-done, then by Thor, you want it well-done!
Taste is opinion. Period.
But the person I responded to replied that there is no reason to rest a steak, to which I provided evidence that there is a proper scientifically verifiable reason to resting a steak.*
I also pointed out though, that if a steak is cold when you get it; it should never be because it was rested. If one is leaving a steak out until it is cold, then this is not "resting"... this is simply being a bad chef.
To wit, if you're in a restaurant, feel free to order a steak well-done with no resting. Most chefs already understand the idea of cooking to order.
* Unlike searing a steak to "seal in the juices". It's been scientifically proven that searing a steak actually decreases the moisture content at the end.
Excuse me, what? Now I know you're not even making the slightest effort to read and/or understand my posts. [snip] And even then it wouldn't be a correct interpretation of my words, because I do not wonder if it needs to be more clearly stated: I'm certain that it needs to be more clearly stated.
I took your criticism to "behave like a adult, and not like a spoiled brat that can't take criticism." (I did paraphrasing you some here.)
Since you wanted to talk about how I don't take criticism, I presented to you -- as criticism -- a proper way to offer criticism so that the person won't freak out and get pissy.
However, you apparently do not understand how to properly couch criticism to make it non-offensive, and perhaps you need a more clear explanation as to why "I wonder if" is there. This is because it makes the comment less hostile, and rude. This use of the subjunctive as well as indirection is by far the most common way to express demands and criticism to others.
"Pass the salt" is rude. "Would you pass the salt" is less rude. "Can you pass the salt?" even less rude, and "Could you pass the salt?" is close to the least rude possible in English without going overboard. "Would you please be able to pass the salt, if it would not be too difficult?" has started to become smacking of pretentiousness, however, when an individual is extremely hostile, sometimes this could possibly become necessary.
Notice, how when I'm presenting my criticism, I am not ordering you around with the imperative form at all? Rather, I'm couching things in hypotheticals, subjunctives, and indirection. This allows an individual to more easily accept that the criticism is not intended to injure or upset them.
Because it is perfectly natural for a person to respond to hostile criticism with hostile responses, one should not be surprised that when one is not bothered to concern yourself with the pleasantries of civility, that others will not concern themselves with the same.
Not because I don't see it being implied, not because I don't get the point, but because there are other possibilities that render the whole hypothesis moot, so it's best to explicitly rule them out from the start.
When presenting a hypothetical situation one need not present all of the information explicitly. My hypothetical -- as presented -- served the purpose it was designed for... showing that it is possible for one can be disrupted by legal process, even if someone hasn't done anything wrong.
In fact, I did not even strictly intend my hypothetical to be a proper analogy. I was simply intending to produce a hypothetical which demonstrated a counter-example to the assertion that one has a right to not be bothered, unless one does something illegal.
If the reader has to connect a few dots or two, perhaps the author felt that the dots should be easily connectible.
But upon reviewing your previous posts together... I would like to revisit some of your statements.
I was just pointing out how it's not a good analogy.
Followed by:
The analogy and the hypothetical are fine.
Interesting.
Now, let's look at this:
In fact, you don't even understand what you're saying: since when is my neighbour knowing that the other dude was a guest of mine a necessary precondition for the neighbour to a suit involving either my guest or me?
preceded by:
My complaint was not about the results of the subpoena, but rather about the reasons behind it. You have now properly adressed that, however, so I shall say no more about this.
Huh.
Next up:
Do I have to remind you that I made that simple inference just fine, as shown by my reference to the missing information probably being implied for the sake of the argument?
preceded by:
Bliss was at first overjoyed. Then he was furious, because he found out the teachers (and the kids) used it "wrong", not according to the rules he'd set up. He threatened to sue. Eventually they were forced to settle, for a large sum. So in essence he stole money from handicapped children,
Thus proving once and for all that ignorance is not Bliss.
I thought the moral was that Bliss is ignorant...
- So if there is no symbol for a certain brand already licensed in the system, how do you, as a user, discuss it?
You use some transliteration. So for say a particular burger joint, you would use a symbol starting with M, then C, then D. The symbols chosen also attempting to portray some additional subtext. Like, say... "Meat Cheese Dog".
Summers can be spectacular here.
WTF is this "summer" thing? I looked it up on Wikipedia, but it makes no sense. They seem to be talking about that one week, where we can walk around without an umbrella, but it's still a little unclear...
You're in no position to tell me to shut up. The analogy and the hypothetical are fine, what is not fine is the way you explain it. And the only one that's trolling here is you. So get off yourself and shut up. And learn to behave like the adult I'd assume you are, and not like a spoiled brat that can't take criticism. Grow the fuck up.
Since it has been upmodded quite a bit for being "Informative", I would say that generally people already got the point.
I'm sorry I didn't meet your sufficient pedantry level, and that you cannot make a simple inference.
If you want to give criticism, give it in a more non-combative way. Starting of with something like, "Your analogy and hypothetical situation are fine, but I wonder if it needs to be more clearly stated that your neighbor knows that you know who your guest is?"
To which I would respond, "you obviously understood that this is a necessary precondition to a suit, so why do I have to tell you that the little plus sign between the two symbols representing the value of two represents addition?"
You're reading too much into that. It's still a criminal offense, it's just that you can also sue for damages. The only file sharing cases that's ever gone into Swedish court have been criminal ones and it'll probably remain that way, the reason is quite simple. In Sweden you can only sue for actual damages(rather then punitive) so being able to sue for all of $10 per movie you prove he downloaded isn't a very good use of your time.
Every suit in Sweden that has been under IPRED has been a civil offense. In particular this very case is an IPRED case, and thus a civil offense.
From your other post:
and I've been exaggerating that attitude, in this discussion, to be contrarian.
It's called trolling.
You're absolutely right here. What he is describing is entirely literally what "trolling" is. He's just dressing it up in pretty language.
Wait, do you seriously blog about how your roommate's cooking is not as good as yours, mostly because of your "level of dedication", being a culinary arts student?
No, I do not blog about my roommate's cooking. But I do blog about what I have cooked.
Agreed. The only time I'd use my phone whilst in a restaurant would be a) to take a photo if it's a birthday party or celebration, or b) if there was really bad service or standards of hygiene, and I wanted proof to back it up when I reported it. Ok, technically there's also c) to take a call, but I would either switch the phone off or put it on silent or vibrate, to avoid pissing off everyone around me.
-MT.
Or d) a dish served in such a presentation that it is an edible piece of art.
This rarely occurs outside of fine dinning, though. Even then, presentation is not normally at the super artistic level of "I need to photograph this!"
Food artists handle preparing food for being photographed. What looks good when it is presented right before you will not always look good on camera. Same issues as with people having their picture taken.
Chefs at a restaurant are not typically preparing food to be photographed, rather they are preparing food to be admired shortly prior to being consumed.
To be honest, I keep flirting with taking a contrarian position, and insisting that people should stop worrying about whether food tastes good, much less whether it looks good. There seem to be so many problems with people eating unhealthy food, or eating too much food, and wasting food, and so on, that I sometimes wish people would just take a utilitarian attitude towards food.
The problem is keeping food palatable. Take out all the fat (or most of it) and it becomes unpalatable. So, they add tons of sugar to make it palatable again. Or, they add tons of salt for the same purpose.
As an insightful sibling comment mentioned, chefs take a much more reasoned approach to food. Proper portions, good taste, and proper balance of nutritional elements.
When food takes a half hour to an hour to cook, then a lot more attention is paid to what food's purpose is, rather than pulling up to the drive through and having it handed to you.
As with many of the problems in the careless and reckless nature of humans is that the root of it is laziness.
A "linguistic desert" is a desert devoid of language. A "clue desert" would be a desert devoid of clues.
An epicurean desert would lack any sensual pleasure, particularly to the enjoyment of good food and comfort.
Feel free to disagree, I don't think that there are clear linguistic answers to which would be the proper interpretation. Ambiguity is the spice of language.
Food bloggers are simply braggarts. "Look at me and the wonderful food I'm enjoying! Aren't I just precious?" This is the sub-text of almost every food blog. It's even more obnoxious than disturbing the fellow diners.
I'm a future culinary arts student. I'm kind of torn in some ways, in that I don't want to be an arrogant pretentious bitch about food... but when I taste my roommate's cooking, there just isn't the same level of dedication to the taste as with my own dishes.
Sure, I fuck things up here and there (I am still learning after all), but generally my roommates produce bland dishes, or have processed food that only has taste because they've over salted it, over sweetened it, or whatever.
Serious Foods: RE: Resting a Steak
Presented to you is actual photographic evidence for the reason for "resting a steak".
Now, to point, if you rest a steak and the person gets it cold, then they fucked up. Using the argument of "resting a steak" is not a proper reason for a cold steak.
Rather the myth should be that resting a steak means letting it go cold. This later one would be the mark of a bad chef.