Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Pure Rubbish! (Score 1) 192

Not surprisingly, you are still wrong. A slippery slope can be expressed as "if A then B or C". No matter how you read that expression, "A" always exists and "B" and "C" are potential outcomes. We can measure the probability of these outcomes based on historical facts (which should not be confused with predicting an outcome).

Your error in logic is claiming that a Slippery Slope is the same thing as a prediction ("if A then B or C" therefor "A then B").

You further claim incorrectly that the person you responded to said "if A then B" when no such thing was stated.

the slippery slope is a simple logical fallacy like all the others, asking us to trust to fear instead of reason

No, a slippery slope is not an appeal to emotion. Further, a fallacy is not the same thing as something being illogical or irrational. For the second time, a fallacy does not prove the conclusion. That is not the same thing as being an invalid argument or statement.

Comment Half bullshit (Score 0) 192

I return your claim of misunderstanding and raise you a "Stop selective reading!". You completely omitted and ignored my first two paragraphs (I'm only quoting my first).

Say what? No, there is no reason to blanket pardon pedophiles. In most cases pedophiles are found due to committing crimes such as rape and child abuse. A person who may have been curious and saw a movie charged as a pedophile is not the same as the pedophile filming a rape.

If we want to follow your logic (and the logic of the person I responded to) any person who forcefully rapes a person in ANY way must also be unable to control their own behavior. They are born with that preference, which you and the other person use as an attempt to excuse the pedophile.

In fact we could follow your logic to any crime and claim that nobody should ever be punished for any crime, because they are born that way.

Alternatively, we could say what I started with. Which happens to match the justice system we envision the US should have. There is no blanket judgement, including a pardon for what society deems is criminal activity.

Comment Re:Yeah, great (Score -1) 192

like drug addiction, we should not incarcerate pedophiles, we should treat them as having a healthcare issue. pedophiles, once identified, should be treated, not jailed

Say what? No, there is no reason to blanket pardon pedophiles. In most cases pedophiles are found due to committing crimes such as rape and child abuse. A person who may have been curious and saw a movie charged as a pedophile is not the same as the pedophile filming a rape.

We could say the same for drug addicts. There are various levels of crime associated with drugs. Possession and purchase are not the same thing as larceny, mugging, or other crimes associated with drug addiction. Sure, we can treat addiction in the medical system to a large degree. No, we should not pardon all crimes associated with someone being a drug addict.

being a pedophile marks you as fundamentally incompatible with human society in a truly horrible way. i feel sorry for pedophiles, i'd rather have painful cancer than be a pedophile, it is a truly life destroying, life hobbling vile affliction

Being a _criminal_ marks you as fundamentally incompatible with human society. You say horrible in sympathy for a pedophile, and ignore the victims completely. You feel sorry for the pedophile, I feel sorry for the children and families destroyed by their crimes.

pedophilia, like homosexuality, is merely a genetic aberration in the formation of sexual attraction. but while homosexuality is fine because it involves consenting adults, pedophilia will never be ok because it involves one party that can never consent

Pedophilia will never be okay because it requires RAPE.

Your repeated minimizing, apologizing for, and sympathizing with, pedophiles makes me very suspicious. Perhaps you don't have orders to stay clear of school and just fail to realize you sound like you do..

Comment Pure Rubbish! (Score 1) 192

I must correct your rubbish, because you dumped out quite a truckload..

the very concept of the slippery slope is a logical fallacy that instantly marks the argument as invalid. it is used to make fear-based demagogue arguments

False! A Slippery Slope is not automatically an invalid argument, it simply an argument which does not prove the conclusion. In other words, we can't prove mass censorship _will_ result from an initial block which defies law, but we can review history and say "it always happens progressively" and be accurate. You proved in a single paragraph that you are either a blatant liar or completely ignorant.

I won't bother correcting anything else. You either repeat this same bad logic mistake or pull crap from the air to argue against GP.

Comment Re:Barking at the wrong tree (Score 1, Insightful) 108

Ironically, the problem the author is attempting to address is not about the Hyperlink but the failure of people to process anything beyond a meme.

You refuse to read, then make up your own summary. Proving once again that the mentally handicapped can use a computer and write sentences.

Comment Easy Stuff! (Score 4, Insightful) 275

Media of all kinds pushes, and has pushed Facebook. I have almost never heard any celebrity, actor, "news" caster, etc.. say "G+" in a positive context, only negative as in "nobody ever uses it" or "only tinfoil hatters and basement dwellers use it."

Media made Facebook by doing just the opposite. "follow us" is still heard more often than "visit us at our site".

Comment Not those leaks (Score 1) 367

While good information for the person wanting to know how crappy a company can be, the leaks I'm referring too are much more recent. Last 5 years maybe, and were regarding how MS saw the future and how to cash in with an internet based Kernel and downloadable content.

The leaks from 1998 were from a bit before 98, when MS still thought that the Internet would fail.

Comment I have wondered.. (Score 1) 478

About how much money corporations spend to cause fragmentation and put people into positions to make shit decisions (Gnome). Yup, I'm sure some of that is simply paranoia. That said, watching some of the shit that gets made on projects like Gnome.. I have no other way to explain what they do.

Paranoia out of the way, I have converted countless people to Linux. They know they are running Linux and don't care. They have KDE so a very nice Desktop, Web Browser, a stack of basic games, GIMP for photo editing, and of course Email. My Kid uses that with Libre Office for College, his professors don't know he does not write things in MS Word.

FUD stops conversions much more than fragmentation. Like GPs claim that there is no Desktop. That claim is complete bullshit, but look at how he's rated up for spinning shit like that.

Comment Re: Not lock down, "cash in!" (Score 2) 367

Garbage as in Microsoft? You surely can't be claiming that internal leaks are garbage, especially since they have already started their attempt to "cash in" on some of what those memos discussed.

You also can't be claiming that history is garbage. MS was found to treadmill from Win3.11-98B, that is factual. Applications like Netscape and Bordland Compilers received scarce resources and would randomly be crashed by the Kernel. Binaries with a Microsoft copyright header received favorable resource allocation.

Oh, I get it. You claim paranoia hoping that people are stupid enough to ignore reality. The NSA does not spy on US citizens, the US Defense system does not commit war crimes or torture people, and of course all of our politicians are honest, and Microsoft really has the consumer's best interests in mind. Isn't that right shill?

Comment Not lock down, "cash in!" (Score 2) 367

I remember reading an article several years ago which covered some internal leaked MS memos. In essence it said that MS was going to monetize every component of an OS, including hardware access. Have a high end graphics card? Want graphics acceleration in a game? Pay the subscription rate for DirectX. Want an update, pay the subscription rate for the portion of the OS you want to update. Have 2x8 core CPUs and want to use them? That is an extra fee. Have memory you want to use? Past a certain point it costs money, even if you have the hardware installed. The leaks wanted to go back to a full blown Windows95 like treadmill system, but instead of shaking down other companies for money they shake down end users (mostly due to the monopoly and lack of competition, they can't shake down Bordland and Novell any longer..)

The difference between the current trend and the leaks is that in the leaks, MS wanted to have the majority of the OS download at system boot time.

That same article may have had some influence on the Steam on Linux project, I forget now...

Comment What did you read? (Score 4, Informative) 484

It could not have been TFA because there are only 2 mentions of Google in the whole post. One of those is a disclaimer that the person has consulted for Google but is not doing so presently. The other is: Being careful with your data isn't just a Microsoft thing. My views of Microsoft and Google are pretty much diametrically opposed -- I have enormous faith in Google and Googlers doing the right thing with respect to protecting the data I share with them, but even in the case of Google -- with whom I share a great deal of data -- I'm selective about what I do share.

I put the parts you didn't read or didn't pay attention to in bold so that even a moron can find them.

You would have been okay if you had said she favored Google in the article, but to claim it's a shill is completely dishonest.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1182

No, it was no longer the first owners property once in someone else' private property! There is a reason that we have the saying "Possession is 9/10ths of the Law."

Example: Kid hits a baseball and it goes into "that person's" yard. "That" person happens to see it and puts the ball in their house on the mantle. This is perfectly legal, even if it may be what we would call "dickish" behavior.

If the Drone remained on the original owners property, or we being flown in public property, destroying the drone might be illegal. As soon as the drone entered someone's private property the original owner lost their property. Willingly lost their property I'll add.

Comment Try again (Score 1) 1182

I demonstrated that you were wrong attempting to equate to unequal objects, so you move the goal post. Not surprising, this tactic is common with irrational and/or unreasonable people.

Your move attempts to incorrectly paint a picture of a person firing a weapon in a crowded area. It is not against the law to defend your property, in fact this is a fundamental right given to us by the Constitution. Read it, understand it, and enjoy it. If you dislike the Constitution you are free to leave the country and find somewhere else to live. Start your own Utopia, but don't try to convert everyone else to a system which is impossible to achieve.

To iterate is human, to recurse, divine. -- Robert Heller