It is a tautology to say something is X because it is X though... and tautology is fallacious.
Wrong again. Tautology means "logically guaranteed to be true". That's pretty much the opposite of fallacy.
Let me give you some examples:
X or not X -- tautology, logically guaranteed to be true
If X, then X -- tautology, logically guaranteed to be true
Suppose X. Therefore, X. -- fallacy, looks like a tautology but isn't.
It is still a fallacy though.
It's not a fallacy to warn others that an unreliable source is unreliable.
You misunderstoood. The prison system is for-profit, and every businessman knows that you need repeat customers. Repeat offenders are also especially easy to suspect and convict, so the cops and district attorneys can also show how effective they are.
The search results thing is not the right to be forgotten. Some stupid journalists got confused and called it that
Those "stupid journalists" appear to be in good company, starting with official press releases from both the European Commission and indeed the European Court of Justice itself about the 2010 Spanish newspaper case.
I would be the first to agree that moves towards a more powerful right to be forgotten such as you describe would be a good idea, but as of today, these are mostly just proposals. For example, while there is already a right under some limited circumstances to request deletion of personal data, the UK's data protection regulator has written guidance for data controllers that makes clear that the right is quite tightly constrained for the time being.
In this case, "filter" means select only those items that match the criteria, i.e., where the given predicate is true.
This usage is about as consistent as anything you'll find in the programming world: languages using it this way include Python, PHP, JavaScript, Java, D, and many well-known functional programming languages including Haskell, several of the ML family, Erlang, Scala and Clojure. Some other well-known languages have related algorithms under other name, but I know of no counter-examples that use "filter" in the opposite sense.
You got it wrong -- bankers and CEOs still get caught. But their punishment is tons of bailout money and a golden parachute.
One of the most important questions relating to incarceration and rehabilitation is how to discourage recidivism.
The entire system is designed to encourage recidivism.
One of the most important questions is what things can be done to discourage recidivism -- and how to avoid doing those things without being too obvious about it.
Further, if this was in existence a few decades ago, perhaps we would have nipped Scientology in the bud before it landed in the UK.
If it were in existence ~1400 years ago, perhaps we would have nipped Islam in the bud.
If it were in existence ~2000 years ago, perhaps we would have nipped Christianity in the bud.
And I wonder how many readers agreed with my first line, then threw a shit-fit when they got to my second line.
-
I can't have a serious discussion with you if you believe racist things. No one intellectually honest and capable can have a serious discussion with a racist, because it is only possible to believe in racist things if you are of low intellect. Objectively true. To correlate skin color and intellect is gross prejudice composed of logical fallacies. It is ironic too (you need to be low iq to commit to the fallacies and believe this arbitrary link between skin color and intellect).
I can't have a serious discussion with a creationist or an antivaxxer or a ufo cultist either. Because to firmly believe these things is only possible if you are a person with a serious defect in intellect. I'm being 100% serious and sincere. You are a stupid person. Objectively true based on you having a racist belief. You are not worth the time of anyone serious, and you will never find the "fair" airing of your thoughts that you seek because everyone intelligent has discarded your entire domain. No one intellectually honest is interested in indulging and entertaining an idiot's idea. And that is exactly what racism is: the "thoughts" of the dumb people.
And if you want to improve the gene pool: don't have children. Again, I am completely sincere. You are a dumb person. To have a racist belief is only possible if you are.
You disrespect people based on the color of their skin. Therefore you deserve no respect. You withhold respect for ignorant reasons. You see a skin color, and make a baseless judgment on intellect and character from that. Which, ironically, is proof you are unintelligent and of low character. Because to believe racist thoughts is only possible if you lack cognitive capacity in certain areas of reasoning and social intelligence, and if you have bad intent on society and individuals in general.
You're a disrespectful asshole, so you get nothing but insults and disrespect in return. You get what you give you ignorant douchebag.
Want to improve the gene pool? Don't have children. I mean that sincerely. The quality of your words here belies low intellect and low character on your part, objectively speaking.
Virtually anything; for example, "begin" and "end" as in Pascal
Why would you type 8 characters instead of 2?
But at least they're actual words, which means you're likely to type them correctly. Unlike esac.
Stop looking for a heavier screwdriver. Use a hammer.
For the benefit of any self-identifying "makers", I mean right tool, right job.
If I was one of their competitors and I realised that, it could be a source of endless amusement. Like getting a younger sibling or slightly simple[1] classmate to do dumb shit. We've al done that, right?
[1] As we used to say, back in the day. It's not allowed now, because of the Belgians.
It took 4 billion years to develop an intelligent civilization on a planet which is highly suitable to life.
And it's 200 light-years away, so we'll probably never get to meet them.
All the simple programs have been written.
