Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Puffery (Score 1) 91

by LoyalOpposition (#48212383) Attached to: Judge Says EA Battlefield 4 Execs Engaged In "Puffery," Not Fraud

The world would be a better place if corporations had to be objective and stick to the facts when advertising their goods.

And while we're at it we can make it illegal for politicians to make claims they don't follow through with. And religions. Religions can't make any claims they can't objectively prove. And political action committees. And athiests. Athiests won't be able to claim there is no god unless they can prove there is none. And the press. The press won't be able to report anything unless the reporter actually saw and understands it. I'm sick and tired of reading science reports where the reporter gets the basic science wrong. You know, I think you may be on to something here. Perhaps we could have a Ministry of Truth, and the Ministry of Truth could have two books. One book could list everything that's mandatory, and the other everything that's forbidden. Everything that can be spoken or written would be in one of those two books. In no time at all we would have Utopia.

~Loyal

Comment: Re:"Protected Corporate Speak"? (Score 1) 91

by LoyalOpposition (#48210185) Attached to: Judge Says EA Battlefield 4 Execs Engaged In "Puffery," Not Fraud

The correct ruling is that the papers are yours, not the house's and you have a right to not have your papers and effects searched without a warrant.

Agreed. And the correct ruling in this case is that all of the purported misstatements are inactionable statements of opinion, optimism, or puffery, and that the owners of the corporation have a right to make those statements, and that the government may not infringe them.

~Loyal

Comment: Re:"Protected Corporate Speak"? (Score 1) 91

by LoyalOpposition (#48207155) Attached to: Judge Says EA Battlefield 4 Execs Engaged In "Puffery," Not Fraud

Corporations are not just people, but protected people now.

That worries me. Suppose a policeman admitted that people had a right against unreasonable search and seizure, but homes don't. Since this home doesn't have any rights then it's perfectly alright to search the papers and effects in this home. Denied? OMG!!! The Supreme Court has ruled that houses are protected people.

~Loyal

Comment: Re:Puffery (Score 1) 91

by LoyalOpposition (#48207071) Attached to: Judge Says EA Battlefield 4 Execs Engaged In "Puffery," Not Fraud

The definition of puffery requires that the customer doesn't take the claim seriously.

Not "customer," but rather "ordinary consumers." For the courts to reward the customers who believe the claims and not those who didn't would be to reward the people who are gullible--or at least those who claim to be gullible.

It sounds like the investors (the customers in this case, in a sense) did indeed take them seriously.

They have a vested interest to make that claim.

~Loyal

Comment: Plot Twist (Score 1) 472

by LoyalOpposition (#48189797) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

A 39-year-old UK man has been convicted of possessing illegal cartoon drawings of young girls exposing themselves in school uniforms and engaging in sex acts.

What if they write a sequel with a plot twist where the girl was actually a Taiwanese 25-year old police woman who was undercover in the school trying to find illegal song downloaders? Will he get out of gaol retroactively?

~Loyal

Comment: Re:To their defense (Score 1) 314

I wonder if stores' unwillingness to take $50 and $100 bills actually helps work against inflation as consumers end up putting a relative-value compared to the $20 on items for sale.

No, at least according to Milton Friedman. He once said, "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."

~Loyal

Comment: Re:To their defense (Score 1) 314

I... This isn't talking about people buying drugs or something. This is about counterfeiting money or laundering money or downright stealing money. They're all reprehensible activities, I hope you will agree.

Of course. Right. Well, unless it's the government doing it. Then it's okay. But otherwise, reprehensible.

~Loyal

Comment: Re:we get it (Score 1) 295

by LoyalOpposition (#48093429) Attached to: NASA Study: Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

But you know digging up fossil fuels and burning them creates GREENHOUSE GASSES that cause WARMING, don't you?

Yes. On the other hand, if you believe in the organic origin of oil and coal then you believe that same carbon was once in the atmosphere after which it was bound by plants and then sequestered underground.

~Loyal

Comment: Re:phase change (Score 1) 295

by LoyalOpposition (#48092101) Attached to: NASA Study: Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

It's very simple. The bottom of the ocean is COLD. There's not going to be much circulation going on between the upper warmer layers and the bottom.

Yes. That's rather the point. Climate models predicted increased temperatures. Temperatures didn't increase, therefore the climate models were seriously broken. Climate models could be fixed if the heat was going into the deep ocean. Heat was not going into the deep ocean. Therefore climate models cannot be fixed that way.

~Loyal

Comment: Re:phase change (Score 0) 295

by LoyalOpposition (#48091537) Attached to: NASA Study: Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

if I'm convinced that global warming is going to wipe out the human race, then anyone who is arguing on the other side is directly contributing to the extermination of humanity

I would say that's nearly correct. Let me put it this way--if I'm convinced that global warming is going to wipe out the human race, then I could conclude anyone who is arguing on the other side is directly contributing to the extermination of humanity. Whether such people are actually contributing to the extermination of the human race depends on whether global warming is actually going to wipe out the human race barring action to the contrary. Not whether I'm convinced of it.

tolerant people can't be expected to be tolerant of intolerance.

I don't see why not. Suppose there are three people--Primus, Secundus, and Tertius. Suppose Tertius owns a restaurant in which he doesn't allow black people. Suppose Primus and Secundus believe the same in all ways except that Secundus tolerates Tertius's actions to exclude black people, and Primus does not. There is no way to argue that Primus and Secundus are equally tolerant, nor is it possible to argue that Primus is more tolerant than Secundus. The only possible conclusion is that Secundus is more tolerant than Primus. Now, it's certainly possible to argue that there is a correct amount of tolerance. It's just not possible to argue that more tolerance is less tolerance.

~Loyal

Comment: Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score 4, Funny) 635

by LoyalOpposition (#47909623) Attached to: Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

nutcases very soon who will all claim that this -obviously- does NOT mean global warming isn't happening.

Your double negatives threw me for a second there, but I think I see what's happening. You're concerned about their opponents. (I'm referring to the opponents of the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean that global warming isn't happening.) No doubt, you're familiar with the movement opposing those nutcases, and you with to make sure they don't get a foothold in the media, public perception, or in the legislature. There are a number of groups involved in that, and several of those are politically active. There is a bill in the legislature kowtowing to those groups, and a number of committees are organizing to keep them from making any progress. They aren't sufficiently organized at present, but with enough help they will be able to push forward enough to reach their goals. I think you'll be relieved to learn that I'm thoroughly opposed to the groups seeking to weaken the proponents of the bill making illegal the actions of committees organized to oppose the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean global warming isn't happening. At least...so far as it's consistent with the first Amendment.

~Loyal

Comment: Dear Comcast, (Score 4, Insightful) 418

by LoyalOpposition (#47908641) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

Users who try to use anonymity, or cover themselves up on the internet, are usually doing things that aren’t so-to-speak legal.

Dear Comcast,

          I notice that your customer list, vendor list, inter-company agreements, and engineering drawings are concealed. Why are you committing illegal acts?

~Loyal

Comment: Re:No. It is not. In any way. (Score 1) 135

Same reason I didn't "single out" height or weight - IT IS NOT THE ISSUE BEING DISCUSSED.

Neither was ethnicity or religion, yet you seemed to find it suitable for discussion. Let me make it plain: In an article about Jack the ripper, the author mentioned the alleged perpetrator's religion, ethnicity, sex, and vocation. You became incensed at his listing the alleged perpetrator's religion and ethnicity, but find his sex and vocation beneath discussion. Why?

Which is still completely unrelated to the case as it was back then BECAUSE - it does not relate to the case in any way.

Evidence about a murderer is unrelated to the case in any way? I'm afraid your theory of crime analysis is quite far out of the mainstream.

Aaaaand that's a bingo! Thank you for taking part in "Spot a racist!"

I'm a racist? Constable Alfred Long reported that it read "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." Detective Constable Daniel Halse reported that it read, "The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing." City surveyor Fredrick William Foster reported that it read, "The Juws are not the men To be blamed for nothing." Police Superintendent Thomas Arnold had the graffiti erased because he thought that it would cause a riot.

Here's how a non-racist might have phrased a similar sentence HAD the Ripper's murders been in ANY way, shape or form marked with religious and/or ethnic markings or motives.

So, I write like a racist and you don't? Would you care to explain the difference to me?

~Loyal

p.s. I have since read the article and find that the "shawl" and the "apron" are not the same thing.

"It is easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." -- Alfred Adler

Working...