"If that's the kind of system you desire, there are plenty of places in the world still where individuals have no rights. You're welcome to live there."
I repeat:
"You're welcome to live there"
The implication being that such a person is *not* welcome to live _here_.
If that's not the implication you intended to make, you should have chosen your words more carefully.
You points would stand if we were discussing even remotely the same thing. As you've once again chosen to ignore the context completely, I concur.
So, in order to argue with me you are taking the quote completely out of the context it was used in the original post I replied to?
Well...that explains why we are completely unable to come to terms....but then you had to go and accuse me of trying to take away the rights of others and imply I should go live somewhere else.
How quaint.
So.. A persons rights are only valid if they agree with you, and because I took the quote as posted, in context (and not the context you apply to it), I no longer deserve to live in this country?
*laughing*
Ahhhh... One does have to admire the hypocrisy.
Believe me. I have a bit of knowledge regarding our judicial system, its many flaws, and its many strengths. I've tried to impress upon you and others in this thread that I was replying to the poster, and _his_ use of the quote, in the context of the thread, and more specifically, the original post in which it was quoted, *not* in the context in which it was originally used. This has apparently been repeatedly ignored.
So please, do me the honor of sparing us your ego-stroking "informing the mis-informed" condescension. This is not a schoolroom, you are not a school-marm, and I am no longer a student.
You're entitled, of course, I just believe it is insanely shortsighted.
Your examples however, are absurd.
1st: Bismark and Pol Pot also did not believe in a peer jury or a modern criminal justice system. Thankfully, we do.
The odds that we will cause an innocent to suffer are thus greatly reduced from the likes of Bismark and Pol Pot.
2nd: Let *any* guilty (found as such by a jury of their peers) persons go free, on the grounds that there might be some small chance they *may* be innocent puts at risk other innocents. Countless innocents if you go with Good ol' Benjy's "100's".
We have a criminal justice system for a reason. It is not perfect, but it is a *far* cry from Benjy's quote, Bismark, or Pol Pot.
I'll take our current system over any of the above, thankyouverymuch.:)
The quote I replied to had no such reasoning behind it.
"Better ten guilty persons escape"
Keyword: Escape. They've been found guilty. In the context of the posts prior to that, the only logical assumption was that the poster intended nothing more or less than the release of all who have been found guilty, as an innocent may be among them.
Such a suggestion is ludicrous, no mater how you spin it.
A recession is two consecutive negative growth quarters in terms of GDP.
This hasn't happened yet.
The quarter before last our GDP rose. This last quarter was the first quarter it fell...by a marginal.3%.
That's one quarter. Do the math. of course, you'd rather we re-write the definition instead of calling it what it is, right? "Tough economic times" hardly generates the fear and uncertainty that "RECESSION" causes, right?...and without FEAR and UNCERTAINTY...how can we drive the population into a frothing mob demanding "change" in regards to that which they know next to *nothing* (other than what we've told them..RECESSION!) about.
That credit is based on assets, investments...and *real* money.
When those investments turn sour, that money dries up and those assets are sold.
Credit disappears.
It has virtually *nothing* to do with the price of Gas (other than they'll lower it if we stop buying it, and raise it if we buy it up like, well...gas).
That's why we have a judicial system and a system of checks and balances.
My response was solely concerning the post above mine, and the implied assumption that no-one should be criminalized, just in case we might be wrong...
Your logic (I know it's a stretch to even call it that) falls flat when those 10 guilty persons set free cause suffering to countless other innocents; such that could have been prevented but for the suffering of that one innocent.
We all suffer for the individual and the individual suffers for all. That's called society. Deal with it.
What's really absurd about this, is that you trolls are comparing Pre-beta, development code to a production environment, achieving the same speeds and a far more responsive UI...and then saying this is a *bad* thing.
You mention: Vista: Figure out which edition you need.
But right above that: Ubuntu: Insert DVD.
Sorry, you fail. A normal user has 3 editions of Vista to choose from (Basic, Home, and Ultimate)...compare that to Mandriva, RedHat, Ubuntu, Mint, Xandros, Suse, Debian...the list is virtually infinite).
Ooh! That cut me to the quick. I'm still reeling from the dizzying display of intellect you've launched.
Care to elaborate and back up your accusations, or shall we just judge them based on the plethora of useful and telling information you've already supplied?
Slashdot Mirror
OMG! RLY?!?!?! Troll???!
Replace Microsoft Word with OpenOffice, nitwit.
Get a life!
Control Panel - Folder Options - File Types - WRI - Edit - Open - Change to Microsoft Word.
Problem solved.
Next!
...and I quote:
"If that's the kind of system you desire, there are plenty of places in the world still where individuals have no rights. You're welcome to live there."
I repeat:
"You're welcome to live there"
The implication being that such a person is *not* welcome to live _here_.
If that's not the implication you intended to make, you should have chosen your words more carefully.
You points would stand if we were discussing even remotely the same thing. As you've once again chosen to ignore the context completely, I concur.
We're done here.
So, in order to argue with me you are taking the quote completely out of the context it was used in the original post I replied to?
Well...that explains why we are completely unable to come to terms. ...but then you had to go and accuse me of trying to take away the rights of others and imply I should go live somewhere else.
How quaint.
So.. A persons rights are only valid if they agree with you, and because I took the quote as posted, in context (and not the context you apply to it), I no longer deserve to live in this country?
*laughing*
Ahhhh... One does have to admire the hypocrisy.
Believe me. I have a bit of knowledge regarding our judicial system, its many flaws, and its many strengths. I've tried to impress upon you and others in this thread that I was replying to the poster, and _his_ use of the quote, in the context of the thread, and more specifically, the original post in which it was quoted, *not* in the context in which it was originally used. This has apparently been repeatedly ignored.
So please, do me the honor of sparing us your ego-stroking "informing the mis-informed" condescension. This is not a schoolroom, you are not a school-marm, and I am no longer a student.
You're entitled, of course, I just believe it is insanely shortsighted.
Your examples however, are absurd.
1st: Bismark and Pol Pot also did not believe in a peer jury or a modern criminal justice system. Thankfully, we do.
The odds that we will cause an innocent to suffer are thus greatly reduced from the likes of Bismark and Pol Pot.
2nd: Let *any* guilty (found as such by a jury of their peers) persons go free, on the grounds that there might be some small chance they *may* be innocent puts at risk other innocents. Countless innocents if you go with Good ol' Benjy's "100's".
We have a criminal justice system for a reason. It is not perfect, but it is a *far* cry from Benjy's quote, Bismark, or Pol Pot.
I'll take our current system over any of the above, thankyouverymuch. :)
The quote I replied to had no such reasoning behind it.
"Better ten guilty persons escape"
Keyword: Escape. They've been found guilty. In the context of the posts prior to that, the only logical assumption was that the poster intended nothing more or less than the release of all who have been found guilty, as an innocent may be among them.
Such a suggestion is ludicrous, no mater how you spin it.
...and they are *all* 100% correct.
A recession is two consecutive negative growth quarters in terms of GDP.
This hasn't happened yet.
The quarter before last our GDP rose. This last quarter was the first quarter it fell...by a marginal .3%.
That's one quarter. Do the math. of course, you'd rather we re-write the definition instead of calling it what it is, right? "Tough economic times" hardly generates the fear and uncertainty that "RECESSION" causes, right? ...and without FEAR and UNCERTAINTY...how can we drive the population into a frothing mob demanding "change" in regards to that which they know next to *nothing* (other than what we've told them..RECESSION!) about.
How very cute...
That credit is based on assets, investments...and *real* money.
When those investments turn sour, that money dries up and those assets are sold.
Credit disappears.
It has virtually *nothing* to do with the price of Gas (other than they'll lower it if we stop buying it, and raise it if we buy it up like, well...gas).
So letting those "innocents" get hurt to protect *one* other is just the price those "innocents" pay?
They'll just gonna shrug it off and pretend everything's OK?
When we could have locked them up before hand, and had only one innocent suffer?
Cute.
*laughing*
No, the Presumption of Innocence has nothing to do with the discussion above.
Read for context next time. Here's a hint in case your scroll-wheel is broken:
"You can't blame your wife for stabbing you in the face when you keep locking her in the bedroom."
"Using your stupid analogy, this would be more like threatening to raze the entire city to the ground because no one intervened to stopped the wife"
That's why we have a judicial system and a system of checks and balances.
My response was solely concerning the post above mine, and the implied assumption that no-one should be criminalized, just in case we might be wrong...
It's ridiculous to the extreme.
Sorry:
QoS (or) Throttling. ...and I didn't necessarily include dropping packets in either of those.
Perhaps I should have just stated "prioritizing". All the data needs to get where it's going, but some data is more important than others.
*dinosaur. (note to self: proofread before posting...)
And things like VOIP and RDP go the way of the donosaur.
Sorry. Without QoS/p2p throttling, applications such as VOIP become unusable.
What's your solution for that one?
...and those 10 guilty persons, what about them?
They'll never cause another innocent to suffer?
Your logic (I know it's a stretch to even call it that) falls flat when those 10 guilty persons set free cause suffering to countless other innocents; such that could have been prevented but for the suffering of that one innocent.
We all suffer for the individual and the individual suffers for all. That's called society. Deal with it.
How's that, retard?
By running CPU benchmarks? Who's the dimwit?
What's really absurd about this, is that you trolls are comparing Pre-beta, development code to a production environment, achieving the same speeds and a far more responsive UI...and then saying this is a *bad* thing.
Crack doesn't smoke itself, kids...
Consider yourself "0wn3d", dimwit.
*laughing*
Retard.
You mention:
Vista: Figure out which edition you need.
But right above that:
Ubuntu: Insert DVD.
Sorry, you fail. A normal user has 3 editions of Vista to choose from (Basic, Home, and Ultimate)...compare that to Mandriva, RedHat, Ubuntu, Mint, Xandros, Suse, Debian...the list is virtually infinite).
Nice troll.
Pre-beta, development code is *as fast as the current production product*?!?!? ...and this is a BAD thing???
Are you guys high, stupid, or just plain retarded?
If this is what we have as a *PRE-BETA*, then by all rights, the final release should *really* blow Vista (and perhaps even XP) out of the water.
Lay off the crack, guys.
It's logically possible to turn Bread into Fish?
Uh-huh..
Okay, how about making a rock so heavy, you cannot lift it...and then making yourself strong enough to lift it.
Hmmm....
BTW: I think you are all full of shit. :)
*laughing*
Ooh! That cut me to the quick. I'm still reeling from the dizzying display of intellect you've launched.
Care to elaborate and back up your accusations, or shall we just judge them based on the plethora of useful and telling information you've already supplied?
Right...
No-one wanted to admit it. Priorities were all hosed.
Election timing was horrible.
Bad planning...
The whole nine yards. Of course, once they did something about it, they made damned sure we'd get to repeat the process 15 years down the road.
Like Hilary Clinton?
Oh, wait...
The fundamentalist Christians are leaning ever farther left and becoming the "Victimized Left". Where have you been?
It's also, sadly, the truth.
Actual Conservative republicans are extremely rare nowadays.
Sucks, don't it?
Apparently, as a society, we've outgrown things like individual rights and protections and instead decided for dependence over independence.
For a large part, I agree with you. Still better than the primary alternative though...unless you jump to the non-primary parties.
Riiight.
Merit...
Sorry. "Because it's good for the people" is subjective and changes radically from one day to the next.
Things like limited government, fiscal conservatism, and social conservatism do not.
Someone labeled a RINO jumped off the conservative bandwagon to get votes, approval, or money, *not* for the good of the people.