 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/21/2011 10:42 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> I'll just point out again that it wasn't the executive branch, but the
>>>> congress, that declared a national day of prayer.
>>>
>>> The first words of the first amendment to your constitution somehow
>>> resonate in my head when I read that, causing a terrible pain...
>>>
>
>> Yeah, me too.
>
> Btw, the attitude that Americans have towards their Constitution seems
> quite strange. Seemingly they consider it an infallible and untouchable
> holy scripture, and even the idea of going and changing even a single letter
> of it is tantamous to blasphemy. (Amendments can be added, but changing
> existing text, *especially* the original text written by the Founding
> Fathers, is considered some kind of sacrilege.)
>
Not true.. There have been recent calls by some of the "new" people on
the right wing to "repeal" whole sections of it, ranging from
desegregation, to well... if it involves civil liberties, or the right
to not be lorded over by religious fanatics, they want it removed. Those
things apparently being "unnecessary", sort of like taxes, health care
and the minimum wage.
No, the ones that are required to take it as a sacred document, in
theory, is the supreme court. Which is why the ones now there, all
appointed, and non-removable, by right wingers, have ignored it, and
case law, in order to declare corporations full citizens, and thus able
to spend every dime they have to elect people who will write corporate
friendly laws (and maybe even adjust the constitution, so they can deny
people the right to work/get service there, if they don't like their
religion, color, or national origin).
I bloody wish they took it as sacred. Though.. maybe that is the
problem... these idiots don't read their own damn bible with enough
seriousness to have a frakking clue what it says, its hardly a surprise
they have an equal amount of "total respect" for the constitution, i.e.,
no frakking clue what it actually says, since actually reading and
understanding it would like, I don't know.. taint it, or be a sin, or
something...?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm not sure what drop of ink you're talking about. Are you exaggerating for
> effect, or have you actually heard an argument about this? (I *have* heard
> that in some contract disputes, but not the Constitution.)
I misremembered: The smudge-that-could-be-a-comma was not in article 1,
but in the 5th amendment (the typo in article 1 is an "it's" which should
be an "its").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_in_the_United_States_Constitution
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:26:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:28:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say".
>>
>> Because while you believe there is no difference, some believe there
>> is. Who am I to say they're (or you're, or - for that matter - I'm)
>> wrong?
>>
> Its called "critical thinking". Apparently a practice that isn't taught
> too well in colleges (never mind it should start in grade school:
>
> "After the full four years, 36 percent had shown no development in
> critical thinking, reasoning and writing, according to the study, which
> forms the basis of the new book "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning
> on College Campuses.""
Sure, it's critical thinking, but just because people don't employ it the
same way you do, that doesn't make it wrong. There's nothing wrong with
having a system that works for an individual to organize one's thoughts
in a way that lets you think about them.
> If you don't know how to interpret facts in the first place, you can
> hardly, in the case of those people with the opinion there "is" some
> huge difference, whine about someone else pointing out that there isn't
> any. Right?
Sure. But at the same time, if you use a tool to help you organize facts
so you can interpret them, that puts you in a position of being able to
talk about the different interpretations, or seeing that there isn't any.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:05:39 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> And after I used that technique to clarify my thinking and what I
>> wanted out of a new job, I accepted the offer.
>
> If you need to make a decision, flip a coin. Between the time the coin
> lands and the time you look at it, you'll learn exactly what it is
> you're hoping you'll find.
That might work for you, it doesn't work for me.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:35:39 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> So there again, I don't think it's necessary to be offensive to those
>> who are happy to believe that some supernatural power intervened -
>> whether that's the case or not.
>>
>> Jim
> The problem is.. It doesn't just stop at them using it to effect their
> *own* lives.
If the outcome is agreeable to everyone, there isn't a problem with
this. In my case, of course it affected more than just my life, it
affected my wife's life and my stepson's life. And we talked about it as
well, but they ultimately said that since I'm the one who will be
affected the most by the change (in that what I do from day to day would
change dramatically), that ultimately it was my decision to make.
> Failure to recognize that it is a form of applied reasoning
> (and I would argue that isn't always the case, since you need data to
> reason from, and religion tends to reject wide ranges of data and
> sources), leads people to trying to make decisions for *others* based on
> the same reasoning.
Which is why I don't think anyone should ever, ever, ever do a tarot
reading for someone else, because it shifts the purpose from really
organizing one's thoughts about an issue to just being entertainment.
There's absolutely nothing mystical about it at all when done properly.
> It also leads them, invariably, to false
> equivalencies, failure to understand what they are actually advocating
> for/against, etc.
I find for me that when I do a "reading" myself, it actually *helps* me
understand what I'm actually advocating for/against. Because it's a tool
that helps me be introspective while looking at the topic from all
angles. That's how I use the tool, and why it's an appropriate tool for
me.
> We spent decades in the US, far more than any other
> country in the world, being "nice" to the religious, [...]
Yeah, there are whackos out there. There are also non-religious whackos
out there.
> Oh, right, and it also plays in to the hands of quack psychology, quack
> pharmacology, quack gizmos, modern patent medicine gibberish, and all
> the rest of the stuff, which preys in the same inability to tell the
> difference between confirmation bias, placebo, and/or what their own
> brain is doing, versus "quantum, spiritual, all natural, suplimental,
> toothpaste", or what ever they have made up this week to sell the same
> fools.
That's a completely different topic.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_in_the_United_States_Constitution
Thanks! I was completely unaware of that debate. :-)
Given that the details of commas in british english differ from american
english, I'm rather surprised anyone is making a fuss about such a thing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/21/2011 12:19 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:26:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:28:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say".
>>>
>>> Because while you believe there is no difference, some believe there
>>> is. Who am I to say they're (or you're, or - for that matter - I'm)
>>> wrong?
>>>
>> Its called "critical thinking". Apparently a practice that isn't taught
>> too well in colleges (never mind it should start in grade school:
>>
>> "After the full four years, 36 percent had shown no development in
>> critical thinking, reasoning and writing, according to the study, which
>> forms the basis of the new book "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning
>> on College Campuses.""
>
> Sure, it's critical thinking, but just because people don't employ it the
> same way you do, that doesn't make it wrong. There's nothing wrong with
> having a system that works for an individual to organize one's thoughts
> in a way that lets you think about them.
>
>> If you don't know how to interpret facts in the first place, you can
>> hardly, in the case of those people with the opinion there "is" some
>> huge difference, whine about someone else pointing out that there isn't
>> any. Right?
>
> Sure. But at the same time, if you use a tool to help you organize facts
> so you can interpret them, that puts you in a position of being able to
> talk about the different interpretations, or seeing that there isn't any.
>
> Jim
Point is, usually the "method" goes hand in hand with the failure to
learn the facts needed to make an effective decision. Odds are, the vast
majority of people with Tarot cards *do not* use them as a system to
work out what to do, based on knowing sufficient facts. They use them to
derive what they want to see, usually for someone else, by cajoling
people into giving them information (i.e. a magic trick, and not even an
honest one, for either involved). There is a difference between someone
that realized what they are doing, and does it for themselves, and the
majority, who would never even question that it worked via magic, or one
sort or another. The later isn't going to look for facts, examine their
own premises, attempt to understand the real causes behind things they
already "assume" to be true.
Basically, what I am saying is, a crutch can help you do something you
can't, temporary or otherwise, when you need it. If you spend you whole
life being told you *must* use a crutch to do things, eventually you
stop trying without it, even if you don't really need it. The end result
becomes that you are so reliant of the crutch, and so unaware of why
your world view has been distorted, that there are, invariably, some
things that you can never do, imagine doing, or understand how to do,
since doing them requires putting down the crutch first.
I could care less if someone has an "alternative" way to process
something to get a valid result. The problem is, most of this stuff was
invented to get a *specific* result out of its users, practitioners, and
even its teachers, and the end result has *never* been to question
assumptions, understand how things work, outside of the sphere of
explanations allowed by them, and curtail discovery. After all, "Idle
hands are the devils play thing", is a concept that exists in just about
every religion, cast system, or authoritarian vision, and the method of
controlling them involves a) never letting anyone have time to question,
and b) if they do, having convenient rituals, stories, and meditations,
directed at making people accept the way thing are "supposed" to be,
without questioning them.
This is the core of all such practices. That they can be adopted to do
other things, if you know what they are, why they work, and honestly
approach them, doesn't change the fact that virtually every single "true
believer" in any of these things is still walking around with the
crutch, convinced they can do nothing without it, and that their whole
world view is only true, proper, and complete, if seen in relation to
the existence of the crutch.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/21/2011 12:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> We spent decades in the US, far more than any other
>> country in the world, being "nice" to the religious, [...]
>
> Yeah, there are whackos out there. There are also non-religious whackos
> out there.
>
True. Though, as one person once stated it, "Do you refuse to treat a
recognized, and maybe curable, cancer, because there are a lot of other
sorts of cancers your cure won't fix?" One less source of wackos is
still one less source.
>> Oh, right, and it also plays in to the hands of quack psychology, quack
>> pharmacology, quack gizmos, modern patent medicine gibberish, and all
>> the rest of the stuff, which preys in the same inability to tell the
>> difference between confirmation bias, placebo, and/or what their own
>> brain is doing, versus "quantum, spiritual, all natural, suplimental,
>> toothpaste", or what ever they have made up this week to sell the same
>> fools.
>
> That's a completely different topic.
>
> Jim
But related. Once willing to give up reason on one subject, its easy to
fall prey to others. And, again, the majority of people playing with
something like Tarot are *not* doing so honestly, or with themselves,
they are doing it because it is simply a different sort of "power
bracelet", which fits into the gibberish they already fell for.
In any case, you don't make progress against it by a) ignoring it (it
won't go away), b) pretending its not a problem (they have no problem
claiming you are a problem instead), or c) trying to refute it on a case
by case basis (they will happily present you with 80 cases in five
minutes, then demand that you address why all of them are wrong, or you
lose, in the same time, even when you can't properly address the *first*
one, in 10x as many minutes).
The only way to effectively address it is all at once, early, before
people get overly hooked into it. And, we can't get people to teach what
is needed to do that in bloody colleges here, never mind to 8 year olds,
never mind that there is plenty of evidence that this *is* possible, of
parents let us do it, instead of whining in abject horror at the idea
that schools is about how to think, not just jamming facts in, and
hoping they stay there long enough to test.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:26:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Yeah, there are whackos out there. There are also non-religious
>> whackos out there.
>>
> True. Though, as one person once stated it, "Do you refuse to treat a
> recognized, and maybe curable, cancer, because there are a lot of other
> sorts of cancers your cure won't fix?" One less source of wackos is
> still one less source.
Sure, but there are also plenty of reasonable people who are religious as
well.
The whackos are the minority of any particular group, generally (unless
you're talking exclusively about a group of whackos, that is <g>).
>> That's a completely different topic.
>>
> But related. Once willing to give up reason on one subject, its easy to
> fall prey to others. And, again, the majority of people playing with
> something like Tarot are *not* doing so honestly, or with themselves,
> they are doing it because it is simply a different sort of "power
> bracelet", which fits into the gibberish they already fell for.
And that's their decision to make. Lots of strange things happen in a
free society. If you don't want that to happen, you need to go to a less
free society.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:17:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Point is, usually the "method" goes hand in hand with the failure to
> learn the facts needed to make an effective decision. Odds are, the vast
> majority of people with Tarot cards *do not* use them as a system to
> work out what to do, based on knowing sufficient facts.
Sure, there are bad people in the world. That's also a consequence of a
free society - some people will take advantage of other people.
The solution isn't to remove the thing that people use to be dishonest,
it's to address the dishonesty head on. Which is what law is intended to
do.
The same argument can be made about gun control: rather than heavily
regulate guns in the US, make the bad usages illegal and deal with those
who break the law.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 7:42 PM, Stephen wrote:
> Got it :-D
> I'll take a bit to compare them. O_O
Did you get the file?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:27:58 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 17/01/2011 7:42 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> Got it :-D
>> I'll take a bit to compare them. O_O
>
> Did you get the file?
I did indeed, and listened to it last night. Wonderful stuff. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/01/2011 10:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Did you get the file?
> I did indeed, and listened to it last night. Wonderful stuff.:-)
>
:-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/24/2011 3:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:17:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Point is, usually the "method" goes hand in hand with the failure to
>> learn the facts needed to make an effective decision. Odds are, the vast
>> majority of people with Tarot cards *do not* use them as a system to
>> work out what to do, based on knowing sufficient facts.
>
> Sure, there are bad people in the world. That's also a consequence of a
> free society - some people will take advantage of other people.
>
> The solution isn't to remove the thing that people use to be dishonest,
> it's to address the dishonesty head on. Which is what law is intended to
> do.
>
> The same argument can be made about gun control: rather than heavily
> regulate guns in the US, make the bad usages illegal and deal with those
> who break the law.
>
> Jim
The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
already happened. Making bad uses illegal is meaningless if the "bad
use" is something like people dying, or losing all of their money.
Ironically, there **are** laws on the books, lots of them, making doing
either to someone illegal. Oddly enough, they have no effect at all at
either preventing the misuse of a gun, when they are easily available,
or preventing people's money stolen from them for what *they* are
convinced is real, but the shop owner only gets by with even selling at
all by labeling it "entertainment" (this rule can vary from place to
place, but in most cases the law says its legal only as an amusement).
Its con artist lying about being a magician, so that they can rob people
that believe magic actually works. Or, its someone that thinks it does
work, pretending to be a magician, because its not legal to do it
otherwise, unintentionally robbing gullible people that also believe in
it out of their money. Either way, its not strictly legal for them, at
least under a lot of laws, to claim they can *actually* do any of it,
any more than it is legal for someone selling a bottle of mostly water
(i.e. homeopathy) to *actually* claim that their tap water can cure
cancer. The problem is, more than half the idiots writing the laws
either have stake in the same game/business, or believe in it, and thus
these giant loopholes exist, like being able to sell, say, Airborne,
with no evidence, fake credentials, fake creators, fake "research
institutes", outright bold face lie about all of it, then get by with it
because the only "legal" requirement is that they do not specifically
claim that it "cures" anything (though you can claim it helps, even if
the evidence is all fishy, inconsistent, and not generally accepted by
anyone but the quacks), and it says it is a "supplement". Same, as I
said, with Tarot card readers, and the like. As long as its
"entertainment", it doesn't matter if the thief charges the target 50
cents, $50 dollars, or $50,000 dollars, they paid for an
"entertainment", and can only get in trouble of the person scammed
actually sues them, and can prove the thief *actually* claimed it was real.
Thankfully, or perhaps sadly, this isn't often too hard, whether it be
the rather inconvenient corpse resulting from lax gun control, or the
fact that nearly every practitioner of bullshit, not matter how cleverly
they work the loopholes, tends to "believe" their own BS, making it hard
for them to argue they charged someone $50,000 to be "entertained".
Or, to put it another way, you can't legislate human behavior,
gullibility, or wishful thinking by making the *outcomes* illegal. You
can only do it by limiting the range of situations where those behaviors
will produce a negative outcome. And you *definitely* can't do it if the
consequences are purely post-hoc, do not address the underlying reason
why people keep doing it, like mental illness, or poor education, and
instead do nothing but increase the jail time, or otherwise fiddle with
the punishment. You either have to prevent the behavior on some level,
or you have to make sure as few people as possible see it as a viable
option.
Some things, like psychic BS is so easy to pull, and so close to the
pre-existing "wish fulfillment" people seek anyway, that the "costs" of
getting caught, never mind the likelihood of failing to find a victim
are both easily accepted. Like a pick pocket in a room full of blind
people, with bad counting skills, and no guards. The odds that most of
them will even notice you lifting a few coins is small, and you only do
get in trouble of you are stupid enough to get overly greedy. The
cost... might be fairly high, or it might be simply not being allowed
into the innumeracy club for the blind again. If its the later, its
simple enough to just find new people to pick pocket. And *that* is the
case with "psychic" gibberish (and religions, but that is another
matter). With guns, its a bit different. We know the consequences are
stupidly high for the victim, we have set the consequence about as high
as we can get it (or as high, in places with death penalties), yet... we
have lowered the bar, in some places, to the risk of it actually
happening, the availability of the tool used to do so, and all other
factors, including the "need" some people insist they have to own dozens
of those tools, to the point where its like hoping that people don't
show up at the next comic con wearing cheesy costumes. You will *always*
be disappointed, since nearly everyone will do it, and no matter how
much you legislate the consequence, there will be the one person that
tries to show up as "the nude avenger", or something else that crosses
what ever line you placed on how bad, cheesy, or questionable the costume.
In short, make it so every has a gun, anyone can carry one, and do
**nothing** to address **any** of the other issues, or what ever excuse
there is for allowing people to get by with so many other things via
loopholes, or easy access, or failure of any oversight, when the
*actual* thing they did is illegal as hell already, and can't be made
any more so... well, the value of that is highly debatable when the
people that are injured as a result of failing to address anything but
the post-hoc punishment of the shooter, or scammer, or bank baron, or
rapist, or whatever, are either dead, scarred for life, bankrupt, or
otherwise seriously/permanently injured.
In case you are not getting what I am saying, I have no problem with
people selling Tarot cards. I have a set myself, though I found them
pretty useless for "anything" at all, unlike you. But, I would lay odds
that you are the rare exception, with a fair certainty of being right,
with respect to the number that have them, and don't either believe the
stuff they are selling (which doesn't change scamming people with them
being illegal), or *intentionally* scamming them with the things. This
doesn't mean you ban the cards, it means you make frakking law so that
they can't "entertain" anyone with them either, with being very precise
what that means, and that it doesn't mean, "Charge them stupid amounts
of money for it, or less, lot and lots of times."
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/24/2011 3:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:26:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, there are whackos out there. There are also non-religious
>>> whackos out there.
>>>
>> True. Though, as one person once stated it, "Do you refuse to treat a
>> recognized, and maybe curable, cancer, because there are a lot of other
>> sorts of cancers your cure won't fix?" One less source of wackos is
>> still one less source.
>
> Sure, but there are also plenty of reasonable people who are religious as
> well.
>
There is nothing "reasonable" about religion. Tolerable, yes, but not
reasonable. That said, I have no more problem tolerating fools spending
insane amounts of cash on foam hands, and the like, to see a ball game,
with all the silliness of that, than I do with those you are calling
"reasonably religious". At least up to the point where one of them
decides to piss me off by insisting that I *must* where a football
jersey, or the like, because their "team" is just ever so more important
than my own *personal* choice of wardrobe. Thankfully, sports fans get
no where *near* as unreasonable as "reasonable" religious people about
that sort of thing... Oddly enough, the later can get downright crass,
if you pick the wrong subject, day, event, or shirt, with very little
seeming interest in making sure they remain all reasonable, and the like.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
> already happened.
Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation of
guns in the US. "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death is
involved.
Slightly different when it comes to someone being swindled out of money.
> Its con artist lying about being a magician, so that they can rob people
> that believe magic actually works.
Well, PT Barnum *was* right - there's a sucker born every minute. The
question is this: How far does the law have to go in protecting people
from themselves?
One could extend that question to indicate varying degrees, too -
protecting people from being swindled out of their life savings (or from
something that would actually kill them) is one degree. Swindling
someone out of $20 for a fake "reading" that's entertainment (even if not
perceived as such by the recipient)? That's a long ways down the scale
of things to be overly concerned about.
> Or, to put it another way, you can't legislate human behavior,
> gullibility, or wishful thinking by making the *outcomes* illegal.
Depends on whether you're talking about criminal liability (ie, the
"beyond a reasonable doubt" kind of liability) or civil liability. Don't
forget that OJ was found criminally not guilty in the deaths he was
charged with, but he was found to be liable in civil court. (Maybe not
the best example). Different standards of proof for different
circumstances is my point.
> pretty useless for "anything" at all, unlike you. But, I would lay odds
> that you are the rare exception, with a fair certainty of being right,
> with respect to the number that have them, and don't either believe the
> stuff they are selling (which doesn't change scamming people with them
> being illegal), or *intentionally* scamming them with the things. This
> doesn't mean you ban the cards, it means you make frakking law so that
> they can't "entertain" anyone with them either, with being very precise
> what that means, and that it doesn't mean, "Charge them stupid amounts
> of money for it, or less, lot and lots of times."
That gets a bit too far into the "nanny state" for my tastes.
BTW, I did note you spelt "frakking" right. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:30:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Sure, but there are also plenty of reasonable people who are religious
>> as well.
>>
> There is nothing "reasonable" about religion.
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I'll note that
you're conflating "reasonable people" with "reasonable about religion"
and the two are different.
> than my own *personal* choice of wardrobe. Thankfully, sports fans get
> no where *near* as unreasonable as "reasonable" religious people about
> that sort of thing...
Maybe you don't hang out with a crowd that does that. Try hanging out
with die-hard Utah Jazz fans and tell me there's a difference. I find
many of those hard-core sports fans to be much more obnoxious than people
who practice a religion, or who claim to.
You think I'm wrong, try wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey near the Energy
Solutions Arena here in SLC on game day. Or, for a real treat, try
wearing a Mets jersey in Boston (or for that matter, to a Yankees game).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
>> already happened.
>
> Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation of
> guns in the US. "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death is
> involved.
The problem is that it works both ways. You're just arguing that defenders
should die instead of attackers. If there's tight regulation on gun control,
you're letting those who ignore those regulations kill those who obey them,
without that same "undo" you're trying to control.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2011 3:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> pretty useless for "anything" at all, unlike you. But, I would lay odds
>> that you are the rare exception, with a fair certainty of being right,
>> with respect to the number that have them, and don't either believe the
>> stuff they are selling (which doesn't change scamming people with them
>> being illegal), or *intentionally* scamming them with the things. This
>> doesn't mean you ban the cards, it means you make frakking law so that
>> they can't "entertain" anyone with them either, with being very precise
>> what that means, and that it doesn't mean, "Charge them stupid amounts
>> of money for it, or less, lot and lots of times."
>
> That gets a bit too far into the "nanny state" for my tastes.
>
> BTW, I did note you spelt "frakking" right. ;-)
>
> Jim
We do this on a regular basis for "companies" that are even as small as
a mom and pop outfit, where they have to be actually *selling* what they
claim, and it has to work as advertised. Oddly, the law says that we not
only don't, but, thanks to some morons, and congressmen, though as Mark
Twain stated, "I repeat myself", you can have a multi-billion dollar
"company" that advertises one thing, sells someone else (most of the
stuff from "psychic networks", to homeopathy), and the law *can't* do
anything about it. Apparently, if you are MGM, you can be sued for
delivering a blank screen, while promising a movie, and badly enough
that you may lose your business, but if you are selling "energy
balancing" bracelets, or the like, you may only lose a few thousand, and
have the change the logo.
Its not about nanny stating. Its about getting rid of the damn loopholes
that let them do what *is* illegal otherwise, but, due to some stupid
idiocy, is either not prosecutable, not *really* illegal, in that
context, or is somehow specially privileged, so untouchable. Its about
honesty in advertising, and honesty in delivery. Neither of which means
jack, if all the person has to do is jab on a label that says, "I really
didn't mean everything I just said in 50 TV commercials, the 8 hours I
spent selling it at the convention, or implied with 800 testimonials,
mostly from people I paid to make them.", and get off scott free from
being called a liar, let alone jail time, or a sufficient punishment to
stop it happening again.
And you know the really insane thing about it? Most of this crap is made
and shipped from places like China, Taiwan, and everyone *but* the US.
So you have con artists, or just nuts, selling this stuff, basically
untouchable, as long as they put the proper legerdemain on it, and its
not even benefiting anyone *here*, but some bozo in another country, who
is laughing their asses off at both the buyer, and the seller.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 1:36 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> And you know the really insane thing about it? Most of this crap is made
> and shipped from places like China, Taiwan, and everyone *but* the US.
> So you have con artists, or just nuts, selling this stuff, basically
> untouchable, as long as they put the proper legerdemain on it, and its
> not even benefiting anyone *here*, but some bozo in another country, who
> is laughing their asses off at both the buyer, and the seller.
Another way of looking at it is, someone at home is shipping it from
China, Taiwan etc. to make a profit. But that is the free market for you.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2011 4:29 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
>>> already happened.
>>
>> Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation
>> of guns in the US. "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death
>> is involved.
>
> The problem is that it works both ways. You're just arguing that
> defenders should die instead of attackers. If there's tight regulation
> on gun control, you're letting those who ignore those regulations kill
> those who obey them, without that same "undo" you're trying to control.
>
There is a lot of circular logic going on here yes. The defenders are
dying anyway, along with the victims. There was someone else at the
Arizona incident **with** a gun, who managed to be rational enough to
not pull on, and shoot, one of the defenders, after he got the gun away
from the shooter. Some hot head, with less brain, would have. You don't
get rid of attackers by lax gun control, all you do is put them in the
hands of **both** attackers *and* idiots, both of which end up shooting
innocent people. Yet, the argument always goes, "Obviously, if everyone
has a gun, only the people shooting victims will get shot!" How the hell
does a room full of 50 people pulling guns *tell* how the damn attacker
is, when half of them where not even looking that direction when the
first shot rang out? The argument is pure madness, no different, in
principle, for the MAD doctrine of making sure you have as many nukes as
someone else, so both of you are too scared to fire one. Its not the two
mutually scared shitless fools with a closet full of guns, dressed like
someone from the damn Mad Max film that is the problem, its the other
nut that walks in with *one* gun, intent on hurting someone, who sets
off the whole hornets nest.
I find it amazing that the government can see the *obvious* idiocy of
letting someone like Iran get nukes, and figuring out that the best way
to stop it is to not give *anyone* a reason to have them, including
themselves (or at least most of them figured this out), but when its
some bozo with a hand gun... More = better, unless they are someone that
shouldn't have them, which they can't **prevent** as long as you can
find someone willing to sell the damn things out of the back of a van,
or someplace similar, for $20, in any city in the country, no questions
asked, because the van owner *is* doing it illegally, and just hasn't
been caught and jailed yet. Very similar to the "lets keep such and such
country from getting nukes, or nuke materials, including the thousands
we can't find, track, detect, or have a clue where they went to, when
Russia feel.. Keep crazy people from getting guns **how** exactly?
Enforce laws that already exist, but don't work, better *how* exactly?
But don't dare make new laws, to try to close loopholes, because we
gotta have those personal nukes, uh... guns, sorry..
Tell me, what would happen if the US wasn't a source of guns *for*
crooks in the UK? After all, that is one of the arguments, "They get
them here too, but the cops don't, so we are not safe!" Gee.. Where
from? The gun nut capitol of the world, that is where. A place where
anything short of something you can blow up a building with is A-OK to
own, set up in your house, pointed at the front door, or carry on your
person, as long as its not concealed in places where you can't conceal
it, or you have a permit in places you need one, or you have the right
to have one even without those, and it doesn't make you list was you
walk, do to being designed to take out military tanks. And, I am sure
that will be the next thing some idiot decides to make legal in Arizona,
just as soon as a few years have passed, and they forget about some
government official or other being shot in Arizona, or fudge the history
of the event, to claim it was caused by not enough guns, and liberals...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2011 6:49 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/01/2011 1:36 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> And you know the really insane thing about it? Most of this crap is made
>> and shipped from places like China, Taiwan, and everyone *but* the US.
>> So you have con artists, or just nuts, selling this stuff, basically
>> untouchable, as long as they put the proper legerdemain on it, and its
>> not even benefiting anyone *here*, but some bozo in another country, who
>> is laughing their asses off at both the buyer, and the seller.
>
> Another way of looking at it is, someone at home is shipping it from
> China, Taiwan etc. to make a profit. But that is the free market for you.
>
My personal feeling is, if a company has more than 50% of its damn
resources, product *or* employees in some other country, and its not
*specifically* claiming to be a resaler (which would not have the same
"rights" as the rest, including being able to muck with politics *at
all*), it can't claim to be an "American company", no matter where their
"head office" is located. If we used that logic on something like
diplomats, foreign dignitaries could claim to be members of bloody
congress, on the grounds that their embassy is on US land, and they do
all their work from the embassy office, without ever going back to their
own country for visits.
But, heh, that's just me...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2011 3:37 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:30:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> Sure, but there are also plenty of reasonable people who are religious
>>> as well.
>>>
>> There is nothing "reasonable" about religion.
>
> That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I'll note that
> you're conflating "reasonable people" with "reasonable about religion"
> and the two are different.
>
>> than my own *personal* choice of wardrobe. Thankfully, sports fans get
>> no where *near* as unreasonable as "reasonable" religious people about
>> that sort of thing...
>
> Maybe you don't hang out with a crowd that does that. Try hanging out
> with die-hard Utah Jazz fans and tell me there's a difference. I find
> many of those hard-core sports fans to be much more obnoxious than people
> who practice a religion, or who claim to.
>
> You think I'm wrong, try wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey near the Energy
> Solutions Arena here in SLC on game day. Or, for a real treat, try
> wearing a Mets jersey in Boston (or for that matter, to a Yankees game).
>
> Jim
Yes, well.. Those would be the sports "nuts". My point was, when push
comes to shove, among religions, everyone has something they are *nuts*
about. I would argue that, if your claim was consistent, you would be
arguing that the "rational religious" have nothing at all in common with
rabid sports fans, and that *I* am the one trying to equate the
equivalent of evangelical (or some hardline type) sports fanatics with
moderates in religion. Instead, you seem to be making the argument that,
yes, Patrick is right, religious people do have some things they get
seriously wacko about, so are exactly the same as the most rabid, and
extreme sports fan.
My argument is, unlike the religious, you have sports fans that *won't*
get offended by some specific thing you bring up, do, wear, etc., where
the religious almost all have some *specific* thing that can and will
set them off.
Note, I do not consider people that go to church for community reasons,
but are skeptical of, agnostic about, or even atheist about, god, and
religion, as "religious". That seems to represent a larger number than
full blown agnostics/atheists in the US, of the people who claim to be
religious, and is growing in number. In other countries, its just about
everyone, except for a small minority, who bother to set foot in a
church (excluding the ones that do so because it has been converted to a
bed and breakfast).
In short, if you are claiming that rabid sports fans = "rational
religious", I couldn't agree more. I, however, doubt it is what you
meant. ;) lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 1:59 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> My personal feeling is, if a company has more than 50% of its damn
> resources, product *or* employees in some other country, and its not
> *specifically* claiming to be a resaler (which would not have the same
> "rights" as the rest, including being able to muck with politics *at
> all*), it can't claim to be an "American company", no matter where their
> "head office" is located. If we used that logic on something like
> diplomats, foreign dignitaries could claim to be members of bloody
> congress, on the grounds that their embassy is on US land, and they do
> all their work from the embassy office, without ever going back to their
> own country for visits.
>
What is the big deal about being American?
> But, heh, that's just me...
It is indeed.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:11:06 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yes, well.. Those would be the sports "nuts". My point was, when push
> comes to shove, among religions, everyone has something they are *nuts*
> about.
The vast majority of religious people (or people who self-identify as
such) just go to church on Sunday and get on with their lives. Of course
you never hear about them, you only hear about the lunatics, because the
normal people aren't interesting news.
It's been my experience that *most* people who are religious also won't
get offended by something you say about their religion if you frame it in
a way that isn't offensive.
If you walk into an LDS wardhouse and start screaming "you're all nuts,
Jesus never came to the US and you're all LOOZERZ!@!!@!@!@", you'll get a
strong reaction.
But at the same time, if you sit down with individuals and have a
rational discussion with them, you may not change their minds, but you'll
get a respectful discussion.
I know. I've done it. (The latter, not the former).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:29:44 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
>>> already happened.
>>
>> Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation of
>> guns in the US. "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death is
>> involved.
>
> The problem is that it works both ways. You're just arguing that
> defenders should die instead of attackers. If there's tight regulation
> on gun control, you're letting those who ignore those regulations kill
> those who obey them, without that same "undo" you're trying to control.
Well, yes.
But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the US.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> We do this on a regular basis for "companies" that are even as small as
> a mom and pop outfit, where they have to be actually *selling* what they
> claim, and it has to work as advertised.
And if someone uses something like Tarot and gets an outcome that matches
what they were aiming for, then it could be said to be "working as
advertised". Yes, you and I both know that correlation is not causation,
but the fact of the matter is that someone calling in to Miss Cleo gets
their fortune told that they're going to (say) win the lottery, and they
win the lottery, hey, it worked as advertised.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the US.
That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved by
guns in there somewhere.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>> US.
>
> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
> by guns in there somewhere.
Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
relevant statistics to include.
So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be
included.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-1-2011 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>> US.
>>
>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
>> by guns in there somewhere.
>
> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
> relevant statistics to include.
Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?
> So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be
> included.
>
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:07:32 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>> relevant statistics to include.
>
> Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
> gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?
Sure, why not? I'm not compiling the statistics, but that'd be useful
information too.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>> US.
>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
>> by guns in there somewhere.
>
> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
> relevant statistics to include.
Sure.
> So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be
> included.
Which would be ... wrong. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:26:31 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally
>>>> by guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in
>>>> the US.
>>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people
>>> saved by guns in there somewhere.
>>
>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>> relevant statistics to include.
>
> Sure.
>
>> So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should
>> be included.
>
> Which would be ... wrong. ;-)
Well, it would be more properly said to be "incomplete". ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2011 12:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>> US.
>>
>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
>> by guns in there somewhere.
>
> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
> relevant statistics to include.
>
> So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be
> included.
>
> Jim
Course.. The number "saved" is fairly arbitrary. You have to assume that
everyone "saved" couldn't have been without the gun, or even that some
that died in the same situation would have died anyway, had no gun been
involved. Precisely how do you quantify that, other than to flat out
ignore the problem, and just proclaim, "A gun was there, so they where
saved by one."?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2011 3:07 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 27-1-2011 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>>> US.
>>>
>>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
>>> by guns in there somewhere.
>>
>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>> relevant statistics to include.
>
> Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
> gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?
>
Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2011 9:59 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> We do this on a regular basis for "companies" that are even as small as
>> a mom and pop outfit, where they have to be actually *selling* what they
>> claim, and it has to work as advertised.
>
> And if someone uses something like Tarot and gets an outcome that matches
> what they were aiming for, then it could be said to be "working as
> advertised". Yes, you and I both know that correlation is not causation,
> but the fact of the matter is that someone calling in to Miss Cleo gets
> their fortune told that they're going to (say) win the lottery, and they
> win the lottery, hey, it worked as advertised.
>
> Jim
Only if everyone that does so wins the lotto. Otherwise, not so much.
Its also rather fiddly. Some morons will take nearly anything as an
example of "success".
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2011 4:16 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/01/2011 1:59 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> My personal feeling is, if a company has more than 50% of its damn
>> resources, product *or* employees in some other country, and its not
>> *specifically* claiming to be a resaler (which would not have the same
>> "rights" as the rest, including being able to muck with politics *at
>> all*), it can't claim to be an "American company", no matter where their
>> "head office" is located. If we used that logic on something like
>> diplomats, foreign dignitaries could claim to be members of bloody
>> congress, on the grounds that their embassy is on US land, and they do
>> all their work from the embassy office, without ever going back to their
>> own country for visits.
>>
>
> What is the big deal about being American?
>
If its a foreign company, it can't get tax breaks, privileged treatment,
and all the other BS that lets them get by with shit they do. This is
the dream of the Repuglicans, straight from Texas:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/texas_our_bold_leader_into_the.php
This is what they think will "save the country", while whining that
their goal is to do the exact opposite. More money, power, and privilege
to companies, even the ones that outsource 90% of their jobs to some
foreign country, and everyone else gets completely screwed. So.. Its
simple. Stop treating companies that outsource more than 49.9% of their
jobs to China, or the like, as privileged, US, companies, with all the
rights and special treatment that come with it. Apply the same foreign
import taxes, and the like, to them that anyone else that manufactures
outside the US has to. If they won't hire us, they should at least
frakking pay enough taxes to to make up the difference it costs in
keeping the people that can't find work from starving to death.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2011 9:55 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:11:06 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Yes, well.. Those would be the sports "nuts". My point was, when push
>> comes to shove, among religions, everyone has something they are *nuts*
>> about.
>
> The vast majority of religious people (or people who self-identify as
> such) just go to church on Sunday and get on with their lives. Of course
> you never hear about them, you only hear about the lunatics, because the
> normal people aren't interesting news.
>
> It's been my experience that *most* people who are religious also won't
> get offended by something you say about their religion if you frame it in
> a way that isn't offensive.
>
> If you walk into an LDS wardhouse and start screaming "you're all nuts,
> Jesus never came to the US and you're all LOOZERZ!@!!@!@!@", you'll get a
> strong reaction.
>
> But at the same time, if you sit down with individuals and have a
> rational discussion with them, you may not change their minds, but you'll
> get a respectful discussion.
>
> I know. I've done it. (The latter, not the former).
>
> Jim
Again, depends on the point of discussion. An argument is only rational
if it is *possible* to change someone's mind. If the reason they can't
is religion, then QED, they are not rational about that subject.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
I think you need to do more controlled studies. Some places, the crime rate
goes way up. Some places it goes down. If you take two similar areas next
to each other and compare, the place with less gun control has lower crime
rates, but one might argue that's because there's easy pickin's close by.
Gun crime is very low in some countries with lots of guns simply because
there aren't many laws against shooting other people that get enforced or
because most of the violence is the government against the peasants. Gun
crime is very low in some countries that traditionally even the police don't
carry guns, simply because the culture isn't as violent and is much more
uniform, and the crime rate would be equally low if everyone had guns.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Course.. The number "saved" is fairly arbitrary. You have to assume that
> everyone "saved" couldn't have been without the gun,
No. You go to, for example, the FBI violent crime reports, and see how many
times people were mugged who had a knife got hurt. Then how many times
people were mugged who had a gun and got hurt. Then how many times people
who were mugged and had no weapon got hurt. Etc.
It turns out, at least for the years I looked up way back in college, that
it was something like 82% of the people who cooperated were unharmed, 86% of
the people who had a gun (whether they drew it or fired it or not) were
unharmed, and the next higher number was mid-70s. So, basically, having a
gun is the only way when being a victim of a violent crime that's likely to
get you less hurt than just handing over your wallet.
> ignore the problem, and just proclaim, "A gun was there, so they where
> saved by one."?
If they were *saved*, they can tell you what happened.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/01/2011 2:56 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/27/2011 4:16 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> What is the big deal about being American?
>>
> If its a foreign company, it can't get tax breaks, privileged treatment,
> and all the other BS that lets them get by with shit they do. This is
> the dream of the Repuglicans, straight from Texas:
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/texas_our_bold_leader_into_the.php
>
>
Woosh!
> This is what they think will "save the country"...
>
I'm still no wiser.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:58:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Again, depends on the point of discussion. An argument is only rational
> if it is *possible* to change someone's mind. If the reason they can't
> is religion, then QED, they are not rational about that subject.
It's entirely possible to be logical using the internal logic (which in
many religions has some degree of consistency) and have a rational
discussion.
Rationality doesn't imply starting from a valid premise. You can be
completely rational and logical in discussing something that starts with
a bad premise.
An argument can be completely rational as well if the goal isn't to
change someone's mind but to provide them with another data point or to
learn something yourself.
That's why I've continued responding here, for example <ducking>. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:47:48 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
"Look, it snowed boatloads in the eastern seaboard - the earth ISN'T
warming up after all! It's freezing outside! Al Gore is a LIAR LAIR
PANTS ON FIRE!!!@@!@!".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:46:43 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> "A gun was there, so they where
> saved by one."?
Sure, it's hard to prove definitively, but it is possible to extend
conjecture.
Otherwise, how does the statistic you cited about the reduction of gun-
related crime in New York fit into this? An increase in gun control
effectiveness may well not have had anything to do with the drop-off in
crime at all, using this logic.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:49:33 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Only if everyone that does so wins the lotto.
Well, I was being very simplistic - it probably wouldn't be stated as
"you will win the lotto" but something more generic - "you will come into
some cash". That's how that sort of thing actually is done.
So someone who wins the lotto will see it as predicting their winning the
lotto. Someone who finds $20 on the street will see that as being
confirmation that it was "predicted".
> Otherwise, not so much.
> Its also rather fiddly. Some morons will take nearly anything as an
> example of "success".
So, are you saying that being optimistic is moronic? Because after all,
optimists tend to take what they see that's positive as a sign of success.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:54:06 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
>> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
>
> Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
I like that, will have to remember it. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2011 15:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/27/2011 3:07 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 27-1-2011 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>>>> US.
>>>>
>>>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people
>>>> saved
>>>> by guns in there somewhere.
>>>
>>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>>> relevant statistics to include.
>>
>> Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
>> gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?
>>
> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
produce them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
> produce them.
And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred or
more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2011 23:04, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>> produce them.
>
> And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred
> or more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
I was afraid someone would say something like that, but I can hardly
believe you missed the 'cheaply' in that sentence. Get over it, your
second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't
worry they are mostly foreigners.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
