My mistake. Here is your link.

Yes, I would actually like to cite precedent when forming my arguments. It seems like a reasonable way to do things. After all, if one are not arguing from precedent, one is simply pulling facts out of one's ass.
The fact that some precedents are flawed is no excuse for throwing out all precedents. I genuinely can't believe that anybody would put forth such a fallacious argument so I'm just going to leave that one be. You obviously hadn't thought it through and now I'm thinking it through for you. You're welcome. Obviously you would never have been in danger of being burned.
The facts that I laid before you, and which I will lay before you again, are that, culinarily speaking, a plant's biological purpose has nothing to do with how is is used in the kitchen. To argue that tomatoes and carrots are primarily found in sweet dishes or that pineapples and plums are normally found in savory dishes is to argue dishonestly. If you would make that argument, I would really see no point in replying to you. Citing aberrations only emphasizes the creativity of chefs and does nothing to change the culinary category under which something falls. Further, to call a pizza a "pizza pie" shows your ethnocentrism, as it is only a "pie" in English.
Tomatoes are the ovaries of plants. Biologically speaking, ovaries are fruits. The point that I have been trying to make all along is that chefs, for the most part, really could give two shits what a particular ingredient's biological purpose is. Does it go well in a salad? Then it's probably a vegetable. Does it make a good dessert? Then it's probably a fruit. "But wait!" I can hear you thinking, "What about fruit salads?"
I just got done arguing with one.

P.S. Slashdot isn't a "tech site." It is a "news for nerds" site. If you would like the tech section, here's a handy link for you. A chef can be every bit as nerdy as a physicist and he doesn't even have to give a shit about science to do it.

Well, I suppose I could point out all the ways in which you are wrong, but it would be a lot easier to point out the fact that you clearly don't know what you are talking about. See, I'm not the one who initially made the determination that tomatoes are not traditionally eaten with the dessert course and are rather served with the main course of a meal. I'm not the one who put a tax on fruits and then didn't tax tomatoes because they are not, traditionally, fruits. (That one would be the US Supreme Court.) I am, however, just relaying facts as they are, and you are getting all pedantic and trying to split hairs and ultimately it makes no difference because, again, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. As stated above, botanically speaking tomatoes are, yes, fruits because of their biological function. However, completely separate from that issue and backed up by centuries of tradition (and the fact that they taste fucking disgusting in a pie) is the fact that any chef worth his salt - hell, anybody who has any clue how to find his way around a kitchen - would know better than to conflate the biological function with a part of a plant with its proper usage in a dish. Now, if you could find me a savory lemon or a bag of mixed nuts that didn't contain a single peanut, maybe I would be willing to concede that there is a one-to-one mapping between biological and culinary function, but I really doubt whether that's going to happen.

Botanically, as tomatoes are the ovary of the tomato plant, they are considered to be fruits. However, culinarily, as they are not sweet and are primarily used in savory dishes, tomatoes are considered to be vegetables. The upshot of this is that no matter what you call them, you are wrong. Thanks, science!

And each micro data furnace would be nano data furnaces, which would be even smaller data furnaces still. It's data furnaces all the way down.

Yes. He called it Chain World.

Yet another perfectly logical idea that will be ignored if we're lucky, mocked and derided and turned into a talking point if we're not, just because of the messenger. The fact that this comes from a high-profile democrat means that so-called conservatives throughout the US will dismiss the idea out of hand without paying it any thought, and will go on to turn it from a cheap and eminently viable way of conserving energy into a laughingstock through the sheer force of their ignorance.
Don't believe me? What do you think of the notion of filling your tires up a little more to improve fuel efficiency?

So in essence what you are saying is that you refuse to read the justices' opinions in the recent decision, you refuse to read established case law, you refuse to accept the classification of video games as speech, and you support the expansion of government power over citizens at the expense of the taxpayer... yet somehow you expect me to believe that you are actually an ideological conservative who is capable of a rational discussion? I'm sorry but I have given you the benefit of the doubt for long enough. I'm done here.

To be honest, I see no more need to respond to your facile example than to respond to allegations that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater constitute free speech. Regardless of the numerous rulings that have taken place surrounding school speech and the protection thereof (and I suggest that you start reading with Bethel School District vs. Fraser in which justices found, for example, that

) the protection of speech in school simply is not an applicable example. You keep looking at this as a ruling on a child's right to purchase video games. That is not an example of speech. What is considered speech, as was supported by the Supreme Court, is the publication of a video game. If you could tell me why video games should not be considered speech in the way that literature, movies, music, or any other type of media are, I suppose I might agree that the government would be within its mandate to regulate them. However, as the Supreme Court ruled that video games fall under the umbrella of speech, they are protected by the first amendment. Pushing all of that aside, however, you are still a shitty conservative for wanting to cede the rights of citizens to choose what type of media to consume to the government.

Firstly, "states' rights" refers to, and I quote, "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States." As curtailing free speech, which includes production and publication of video games (as found in this case,) is expressly prohibited by the first amendment, I don't understand why you think that states' rights is even an applicable term here. Furthermore, to call yourself a conservative because you support gross expansion of the power of state government over the lives of the citizenry is so laughable on its face that I don't even know how to respond. Conservative vs. liberal is not simply a question of whether the federal government or the state government is the one creating laws limiting rights. Once again, I suggest that you look up the definition of a conservative. Pay attention to the concepts of limited government, personal liberty, and individual rights. Finally, the fact that you still have not picked up on the fact that this is less about the right of a child to purchase a video game and more about the fact that video games themselves are considered speech makes me think that you are too dense to understand this ruling of the supreme court, even though they explained themselves in simple language. Tell me, did you read the individual opinions? Did you even read excerpts? They explain themselves very plainly and in simple speech that even somebody like you should be able to understand.

Finally, pardon me for asking, but would you call yourself a Christian conservative? I'm just a little curious, that's all.

Also, it made me laugh when I realized that you haven't picked up on the fact that this isn't about a child's right to purchase a video game, it's about video game publishers' right to publish video games similar to the manner in which book publishers and movie publishers and music publishers make their respective media available to the market at large, without the work being ghettoized as somehow not speech and therefore to be regulated by the government. You are so myopic and unable to understand simple situations that left even conservative and liberal justices agreeing, and explaining their agreement in very simple language, that, once again, I'm just laughing.

There are dozens of things that prevent a five year old from purchasing and playing a violent video game. I have listed a number of them in previous posts. Apparently you are too fucking stupid to pick up on them. With a parent like you, god help your poor offspring. These obstacles include, but are not limited to:
1. A five year old should not have $60 with which to buy a video game.
2. A five year old should not be playing video games with no parental supervision.
3. A five year old should not have access to a video game console without any parental controls.
4. A five year old would ALREADY BE UNABLE TO PURCHASE A VIOLENT VIDEO GAME because of the rating system already in place and the fact that stores abide by this policy.
It is clear that you don't understand the simple fact that the government limiting speech is a violation of the constitution. You have also made it clear that your conservative values include expansion of government powers to review and limit the sale of video games. I assume that you want to pay for that rating agency with your taxes. You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what a conservative is, and it truly makes me sad to know that you both vote and are raising a child.

Parents are already responsible for what their kids play. Ignoring the fact that most kids who are under 17 are not legally able to hold jobs and thus do not have the purchasing power to even procure video games without parental consent, any responsible parent (of which it sounds like you are an example) is at least somewhat cognizant of what media his child is consuming. As I am sure you already know, this extends beyond the boundaries of one's own home and into the homes of the child's friends. If you, as a parent, know that little Billy's parents let him watch all of the horror movies that he wants and that is something that you do not approve of your child watching, then it is not only your right but your responsibility as a parent to prevent your child from watching those movies over at little Billy's house, up to and including barring your child from going over to Billy's house to play. That is just common sense.

Now, in the instance of video games, parents actually have much more control than they do over music, literature, pictures, and movies. If a parent doesn't want his kid to play video games, he can simply unhook the console. If he doesn't like his kid playing certain video games, he can either not purchase those games for his kid or disable the ability for the console to play games above a certain rating threshold. To be blunt, a responsible parent already has more than enough means to exercise that responsibility. Beyond that, video game retailers already subscribe to a voluntary system whereby they agree not to sell video games to minors. This system is similar to the system that movie theaters and rental operations have been a part of for decades. In fact, the system in place is already extremely effective.

However, when you want to bring the government into play and give them the power to oversee this entire arrangement, you are not only trampling on the rights of others, you are asking the government to exceed its mandate and limit free speech. It is simply not acceptable in a modern free society to limit the production or distribution of material deemed to be speech simply because one deems it questionable. Aside from the fact that not all people agree on what is or is not questionable, you are asking the government to take on the role of a parent. I fail to see how abdicating one's role as a parent and asking the government to step in and do the job instead is in line with conservative ideals.

The fact of the matter is that conservatives-in-name-only like you are happy to carry the constitution in their breast pockets and flog it at any opportunity in an argument, but when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is and actually support the rights espoused within, you would rather take the easy way out and cede your rights and liberty to the government. That doesn't sound very conservative to me.

Calling oneself a conservative does not make it so. Actually espousing conservative beliefs, on the other hand, would go a long way to actually proving one's conservative leanings. Some of those beliefs might include (but not be limited to) limited power of government to abrogate the rights of the citizenry.

States' rights countermand the constitution? That isn't in line with conservative ideals, that is in line with a dissolution of the federal government. Just give up trying to defend your ridiculous stance as bring ideologically in line with anything related to conseravtism and admit that you want the government to force everybody to abide by your morality. The simple fact of the matter is that the "liberty" that you most likely give lip service to but don't truly believe in means that other people are free to do things that you might not agree with.