Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:wont last (Score 1) 159

No, it's not. The purpose of Wal-Mart's price matching policy is to drive competition out of business.

While they may wish to be the only store around, it'll take far more than price-matching to drive the competition out of business.

Saying that it's the policy's one true purpose is silly.

Comment: Re:The workplace is changing. (Score 1) 410

by SillyHamster (#48429389) Attached to: As Amazon Grows In Seattle, Pay Equity For Women Declines

"t 4-5 female vets do the job of one male vet." this just keep driving me up a wal. So by your "logic" a female vet works 3 hours a day?

An observation is not logic.

But by this observation, yes - if 4 part-time female vets are needed to do the same job as 1 full time male vet, then they are working the equivalent of 3 hours a day. On average - that number may not be the actual number of working hours per day.

When you consider that they're working part time and having families (pregnancy, maternity leave, taking care of kid's events), that number sounds plausible. It's the equivalent of working 2 days a week instead of 6.

Comment: Re:Meh (Score 1) 257

by SillyHamster (#48427865) Attached to: Internet Sales Tax Bill Dead In Congress

What an rude, arrogant thing to say.

I may or may not be rude and arrogant. But I note that you did not claim it was the wrong thing to say. Based on your latest post, that's because my statement was true.

I've made two points in this discussion thread:

1. The federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce by collecting/authorizing an internet sales tax.

2. State use taxes are simply a relabeled sales tax on inter-state transactions and are thus unconstitutional under current federal law.

Read the bill. Or even just read a news article about it. It wasn't a tax. It was a bill that would have unconstitutionally tried to force STATES to collect taxes for other STATES.

Neither of my points care what the text of the rejected federal sales tax bill says. Your response is irrelevant - which means my comment is accurate. You are not paying attention to the content of my posts when you respond to them. That's the charitable interpretation.

You presume to correct a misunderstanding that is not there. Your behavior is rude and arrogant - which makes your accusations of the same in me seem like projection.

You can't even summarize your own article correctly. From your link: "the bill ... would allow states and local governments to collect sales taxes on Internet sales by businesses located outside their borders".

That's not one state forcing another state to act. Businesses are not states. Why don't you take your own advice on reading up and getting a clue?

Comment: Re:Meh (Score 1) 257

by SillyHamster (#48417977) Attached to: Internet Sales Tax Bill Dead In Congress

Nice theory, but it doesn't work. States set their OWN sales taxes. It's not a Federal tax, and it varies from state to state. And apparently you forgot the part where I pointed out that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to collect taxes on behalf of states. There is no law anywhere -- sure as HELL not in the Constitution -- that gives the Federal government that kind of taxation power. It's taxing powers are spelled out very clearly in black and white.

You are not following the discussion and you do not understand the points being raised.

The authority of the federal government to collect taxes on behalf of the states is not in question. The federal government can collect a sales tax because it wants to, just like it collects an income tax.

What the federal government does with a hypothetical federal sales tax revenue is its own business - it can then pass federal laws to give money to states based on a set of rules. (subject to some equitable standard; no giving all the money to a single state)

State laws have NOTHING to do with such a tax system.

Comment: Re:THIS is the kind of thing that GamerGate is abo (Score 1) 473

You just changed the definition of Social Justice Warrior (SJW).

I have not. I previously said people who do X are SJW. I did not say that all SJW do X. There is no contradiction between what I said earlier and now, and there has been no change in definition because the previous statement was not a definition at all.

I see you have also completely ignored all of my questions in favor of incompetently criticizing a single point as a "gotcha!". Answer the questions.

Comment: Re:THIS is the kind of thing that GamerGate is abo (Score 1) 473

I say you're projecting an identity on a group of people you label as SJWs because I don't know if the group you think exists actually exists in any cohesive manner. Also, it's a bit like "racists" or "misogynists", most of the people you would put in the group probably wouldn't think they belong there. Often, I suspect the term is used to identify "people who have called me racist or sexist".

You don't know if the people exist. I do know they exist - I've observed them and identified them by their actions.

You can dismiss the label all you want - people use words to describe the world as they see it. Your inability to adopt a different perspective does not make that perspective wrong or nonexistent.

As far as I know there is not. There are people who use the terms too freely, but as far as I know, they are not part of any organised effort to police public behaviour.

Organized effort is not part of the definition. Irrelevant objection. Is there a concept of "Social Justice"? Yes/No. Are there people who fight for that concept of Social Justice? Yes/No. An individual fighting for Social Justice is a Social Justice Warrior. He doesn't have to be part of a group to be an SJW. Whether all SJWs are perfectly agreed on every ideological point is also irrelevant. There's a general trend that can be described.

Recently, a scientist was called out for being sexist because he wore a shirt covered with sexually dressed women. Regardless of whether you think that is a good/bad thing - there was action by a group of people to police his behavior, and an effect where he publicly apologized for wearing the shirt.

The people who think that calling for an apology on sexism is more important than landing a spaceship on a comet are most definitely SJWs by action and belief - they value Social Justice over scientific achievement, and they act accordingly.

I'm not arguing that the term needs to be changed. After all, what would be the point? I'm saying it is already effectively meaningless, much the way conservative talking heads have made liberal and progressive meaningless by ascribing it to virtually everything they don't like.

Liberal and progressive are not meaningless labels - do you think "conservative talking head" is a meaningless label? Why would you use that term at all if you think liberal/progressive have become meaningless labels? Only conservative talking heads have preserved meaning?

You yourself criticize groups for being "called on attitude" and "believing ... conspiracy". You certainly believe that groups worth criticizing exist - just not the ones you don't criticize. Why the bias?

Comment: Re:THIS is the kind of thing that GamerGate is abo (Score 1) 473

You've already projected the SJW identity onto them. I don't see how you can label a group and then claim it's not an identity.

By this standard, any label is a "projection".

But if I label the group of people who steal property, "thieves", is this mere projection? Have the actions not fulfilled the very definition of "thief"?

This is your personal definition of SJW, it is not the same as the others I have been given, so it does appear that you are projecting your own personal beliefs about what is wrong onto this group and then dismissing their role in "civil society" based on what you think they have done. It seems like you're doing exactly what I said you would be doing.

Are there or are there not a group of people who go around using "misogyny", "sexist", "racist", and other charged adjectives to police public behavior? Are those words related to the concept of "Social Justice", or not? Labeling the people who fight for "Social Justice", Social Justice Warriors, seems quite apt. If you don't like the label, what would you replace it with?

Or do you wish to say that no word is allowed to label the group, since it's all "personal definitions" and "projections"?

You're welcome to come up with a better label - but in the meantime many people have settled for "SJW". Change the name to anything else, people will still hate the group, because they hate the actions of the group, not the label of the group.

Comment: Re:Meh (Score 1) 257

by SillyHamster (#48404737) Attached to: Internet Sales Tax Bill Dead In Congress

Regulating interstate commerce still does not give the Federal government the authority to force somebody in one state to enforce the laws of another. A "use" tax is a STATE law. The Feds have no legal way to enforce state laws across borders, interstate commerce clause or not.

If the Feds regulate interstate commerce, they will not be "enforcing" one state's law over another. They would be enforcing a federal law that collects sales tax on inter-state commerce.

How that sales tax is then used is up to Federal law, not state law. The federal government could distribute that sales tax revenue to the states, or pocket all of it, or some combination thereof. This is within the Federal government's constitutional scope of authority.

This has all been done before, when mail-order purchases became common.

The cases back then dealt with states, they do not limit federal authority on the matter.

Comment: Re:THIS is the kind of thing that GamerGate is abo (Score 1) 473

Someone who uses SJW as a silencing pejorative? There's no room in a civil society for such an uncivil actor.

Not at all. But since reading or quoting the entire thought is too difficult for you, there's nothing else for me to add.

Comment: Re:THIS is the kind of thing that GamerGate is abo (Score 1) 473

Actually, I'm pretty sure that comments like that make my point. SJW is just another de-humanized group for people to project their personal devils onto.

No projection is needed. SJWs are defined by their actions, not their identities.

Casually and inaccurately use "misogynist" and "racist" to browbeat people while pushing an agenda? SJW - and there's no room in a civil society for such an uncivil actor.

I'm sure though that you'll also find that the majority of people in gamergate are left-libertarians. And the majority of anti-gg are left-authoritarians.

I would suspect that you're suffering from the false-consensus effect and projecting your beliefs onto other people in Gamergate, possibly also the halo effect with respect to the people who don't like Gamergate. Of course, if you are correct about Gamergate having a libertarian base, then everyone else would be relatively more authoritarian, virtually by definition since just about the only group less authoritarian than libertarians are anarchists.

General self-reporting reflects it. Caveat is that this is the Twitter GamerGate population - but it does refute the Twitter accusations of right-wing conservatives being behind #GamerGate.

It also makes sense in that gamers tend to be more socially introverted and thus more "go your own way" in attitude.

Comment: Re:Ya...Right (Score 1) 285

by SillyHamster (#48380111) Attached to: U.S. and China Make Landmark Climate Deal

Not all plants thrive with higher CO2, especially when the CO2 causes increases in temperature at the plant's location which allows pests to attack it.

That does not address the argument. Someone argued that greenhouse gas == pollutant.

I point out that H20 is considered a greenhouse gas.

You seem to agree that CO2 == greenhouse gas => CO2 == pollutant.

Do you agree that H20 == greenhouse gas => H20 == pollutant? Because that's absurd.

You can educate yourself here so you stop making yourself look quite so foolish. Fat chance, right?

What on earth is an "encyclopedic definition" of a word? Have they not heard of word definition lists called "dictionaries"?

Pollutant: a substance that makes land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use

Not safe or suitable to use? CO2 could be considered unsafe at elevated levels ... but at the planet level, it's a key part of the Oxygen Cycle. that is essential to life. Defining a necessary part of life as a pollutant is nonsense.

(Legal definition ignored because it does not change the science)

The graph on your article that claims runaway CO2 levels is invalid - it overlaps 3 different methods over 10,000 years, and the last method showing the worst numbers uses a single location's sample to represent the entire earth's atmosphere. By that standard, the whole earth must have Hawaii weather. Except it doesn't.

Bring a better source. Yours sucks and mal-educates.

Comment: Re:Torso and Head and "Seeing" (Score 1) 136

by SillyHamster (#48374141) Attached to: Study Shows How Humans Can Echolocate

Parallels could be drawn to RADAR or SONAR, because it is SONAR. And RADAR is just SONAR with radio waves instead of sound. It's nothing like Synthetic Aperture RARAR, which relies of phase correlations between many hundreds (or thousands) of separate radar pings.

The important bit of SAR is not that there are hundreds/thousands of separate radar pings, it's that the effective aperture is increased by moving the antenna around to collect signal returns from multiple locations serially.

Note how the ability to move the head/torso (and thus ears) was important to successful navigating. That means the brain is collecting extra information from the movement. Would be interesting to measure how much freedom of motion is needed.

New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.

Working...