Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:If the shoe were on the other foot... (Score 1) 35

Funny how you apply that label every single time you accuse anyone of lying. Why are you uniquely entitled to determine what claims are "unsubstantiated" and which are not?

You're lying. I never stated or implied that. When I call something unsubstantiated, it is only because either (this is the usual case) no substantiation was even offered at all, or what was offered was very very clearly shown to not amount to the slightest bit of substantiation. I don't have a ready example of the latter, but your posts are filled with the former.

So you admit there are no facts to back up your statement.

False. Please stop lying.

Easily half the sentences you have written in this thread support my statement, and pretty well none of them support yours.

You're a liar.

You already stated that just a couple quotes ago.

You're a liar.

Your own statements above refute that notion.

You're a liar.

you admit to not having facts to back up your assertions.

Only in one case: when my assertion is simply stating that an argument, without any evidence provided, is false. If you say "2+3=4", I do not have to provide any facts. I just say you're wrong. That is sufficient. It is up to you to provide the facts. There is nothing wrong with not providing facts, when there is no reason to do so.

Now granted, you don't know who is the person behind damn_registrars, but you certainly know that you are replying to damn_registrars.

No, at the time I wrote that, I did not.

You are lying on that matter.

You're a liar.

You write differently when you are spouting lies in front of me than you do when you are spouting lies in front of other people.

You're a liar. In fact, my responses are generally not to people, but to their words. Anyone using your terribly dishonest and ignorant words would get the same response. It's your words, not your nickname or anything else about you, that influence my reaction.

Comment Re:If the shoe were on the other foot... (Score 1) 35

You accuse me of lying all the time and never provide evidence to back it up.

We've gone over this.

When you make an unsubstantiated claim, I need no evidence to say you're lying. The burden of proof is on you. That is the only time I do not back up my claims of lying, when it is in response to such a claim.

You haven't provided any links for your allegations

My main "allegation" is a statement of reason, not of links or facts. It is very clear that this sort of fraud is simple to execute, and hard to detect. It is therefore necessarily true that the number of specific allegations of fraud can be vastly outnumbered by the actual incidents of fraud, so the data you cite of allegations necessarily doesn't tell us the actual story.

Argue against my reasoning if you want to, but don't pretend I need to provide "links" for it.

you aren't here to have a discussion

You're a liar.

How would voter id prevent that?

*facepalm*

You could borrow his id (because, as you said, he doesn't care) and vote on his behalf.

We're talking about photo ID, remember? And maybe we look the same, but most people don't look the same as the people they might be voting for. You're being intentionally obtuse.

There you go, making things up again.

Uh. You really think most people in the bottom two quintiles don't have government photo IDs? Wow. Even the leftist Brennan Center says merely 11 pecent of people don't have it. Even if 100 percent of the top three quntiles have it (it's not that high), that means still well over half of the bottom two quintiles (almost three-fourths) have one. And even if you only want to talk about the bottom quintile, and we put all 11 percent of those people in that quntile, it'd still be just under half of them (45%). But we know that not all 11 percent are in that quintile. Even if as much as 95% of the other four quintiles have ID, that means 65% in the bottom quintile have one.

So at *worst* it is 45% of the bottom quintile that have the ID already, and it is really probably closer to 60% or more.

Sorry, who is making things up?

You said these laws make it much harder for poor people to vote. But the facts show most of them are unaffected, and most of the rest are given ample opportunity to engage in the free and easy process to get the ID.

You said the facts show there is not much fraud, but the facts actually show -- when applying reason -- that the facts are incapable of showing that, because so much of the fraud is undetectable.

Of course, you've shown before that you aren't afraid to make shit up out of thin air when you can't support your argument with facts.

You're a liar.

Did you somehow not notice I wrote it?

Actually, I still don't know who I am talking to. I cannot be bothered to scroll up to see. And I don't care.

Comment Re:Lucky I wasn't there (Score 1) 35

...I was commenting on your standard response to people who refuse to stick to your narrative... which you just confirmed again in your last post. TNX

So you say that you were not commenting on this guy, but in general, but then you say this case confirmed it, which is only possible if you are commenting on this guy.

You suck at this.

Comment Re:If the shoe were on the other foot... (Score 1) 35

An unregulated market encourages shoddy development and production

Probably, but there is no such thing as an unregulated market. Every market, including the most theoretically free market imaginable, is regulated. And such a theoretically free market has much better and more effective regulation than a government-regulated market. In fact, government-regulated markets encourage poor goods and services much more than a free market. Look at the housing crisis, banking crisis, energy crisis, medical insurance crisis, college cost crisis, and so on. These are all problems created almost wholly by government regulation, because where government regulates, government decreases competition, and consumers -- not government -- are the main driver for low costs and high quality.

A well regulated market will drive deaths from shoddy products as close to zero as possible

Agreed, where "well-regulated" means "consumers are able to determine the products and services they are offered and purchase," which happens best in a free market.

a completely unregulated market will just consider those to be part of the cost of doing business

Again, no such thing exists, even theoretically, but that actually happens far more in a government-regulated market than a free one, where government protects businesses from their failures. Google "moral hazard," which generally doesn't exist in a free market (so long as that free market has lots of information available to consumers, and civil actions to recoup losses).

Comment Re:If the shoe were on the other foot... (Score 1) 35

Stop lying.

Show me evidence. You have none.

Just because you disagree with something - even when the facts clearly support the statement that you disagree with - doesn't mean that you are entitled to discard it as "bullshit".

Correct. However, the facts in fact do not support your view, but mine, and I explained clearly how.

No. I have been looking at state numbers, and looking for the total number of allegations of fraud. Many of the states that have been pushing for voter id laws haven't had even an allegation of fraud or irregularities since the 70s at the most recent.

Show me. That you haven't linked to it is telling. But I will reiterate my argument, since you ignored it: most such fraud will never be detected if you don't check for ID. If I vote for my cousin who says he doesn't want to vote because he doesn't care, how will anyone ever know? How will there ever be an allegation of fraud? The data of specific allegations, because of the nature of the fraud, is necessarily going to be a small portion of the actual cases.

In order for your claim to make sense getting the additional voter ID card - which the states want to have examined by another bureaucracy - would need to be an automatic feat that requires no additional time from the voter.

False. You're lying. You said it is "far more difficult" for people who "make less money working longer hours." I said it's not. For my claim to be true, it can still be slightly more difficult for a small number of people who make less money working longer hours. Given the fact that most of those people already have government-issued photo IDs, you have already lost the defense of your claim before we get into any more specifics.

Being as many states don't even have their DMV offices open on Saturdays any more, a voter id would nearly without exception require people to take time off of work.

Yes. And this does not justify your claim that it is "far more difficult" for those people. This only justifies a claim of being slightly more difficult for a small number of those people, as most of them have a day off they can take here and there over the months and years of lead time they have. Yes, some people cannot get time off, or it would be an unbearable economic burden to do so. But that is a tiny number of people, and you said it was far more difficult for all people who work longer hours and make less money.

And -- again -- most of them already have photo IDs. (And funny that we don't say it's racism when we require people go into the DMV to get a driver's license. ...)

It doesn't matter if it is free or not.

False. If there were a cost, you'd complain it. Please stop lying.

I have not seen a single voter id movement that had that provision in it

In fact, every single state has the provisional ballot requirement. You just don't know what you're talking about. It's part of federal law.

as it is counter to the goal of prohibiting (nearly inexistent) fraud.

No, it's not. You don't understand provisional ballots at all. It is perfectly in line with the goal. All it means is you fill out a ballot, and it is set aside and later checked for validity. So the jurisdiction would accept the ballot and then validate your identity at a later time, and it would not be counted until they could validate it. It doesn't mean your vote will count, it means you have additional opportunity to validate your identity, which is the whole point of the fraud prevention.

First, I wasn't lying.

False. You lied, and it was a big whopper of a lie. And it is very clear that it was a lie. You said this law made it "far more difficult" to vote for people who work longer hours for less money. But most of the people you said it is "far more difficult" for are completely unaffected by the law. You lied. I can't find the stat right now, but a bit less than half of people in the lowest quintile had a driver's license, and more than half of the next quintile. Over half of the groups combined. And even if it is less than half, it is still a very large percentage that are completely unaffacted by the law.

At that point there is no right to strike.

You're lying.

The strike has no purpose if it cannot get the attention of the employer and encourage them to negotiate.

So? You still have the right to do it. Stop lying.

You're lying. The free market has never caused any harm or death, ever. We know this, because we know it is not even capable of doing so.

You're simply full of shit there. There have been millions of cases of people who have purchased goods on the free market which resulted in their deaths, which could have been prevented had there been even the most basic of safety concerns from the manufacturer.

So you admit I am right, and you're wrong. The only "evidence" that you provide is not of the market causing death at all. Your argument is like saying that breathing causes death.

Comment Re:Lucky I wasn't there (Score 1) 35

Check out the name of the class. Creative Writing.

I feel like you are trying to make a point, but I don't actually see one.

Regardless, I wasn't commenting on him.

False. Please stop lying. You were criticizing my response to him, which only makes any sense whatsoever if my response to him wasn't valid.

Comment Re:Nice summary (Score 2) 278

Actually, the case is not about the amount. The case is about whether companies negotiating a patent licensing deal should have to negotiate, or whether they can get a jury to set a rate (or deny one) for them (after the court wisely decided not to do so).

Microsoft was the company that *proposed* the 2.5% rate, and then had the temerity to call it exorbitant after Google accepted their offer.

Comment Re:Oh yes, store the waste (Score 3, Insightful) 74

We don't *need* to "work things out." We already *have* them worked out. You burn your actinides in a breeder reactor until all that's left is negligibly dangerous. You get more power out of a given unit of fuel and you end up with far less waste. What's not to like? Oh, I forgot...the Carter Era put an end to that due to "proliferation concerns." Yeah, we can't have nasty dictators in places like Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan getting nuclear weapons... ...oh, wait...

Comment Re:One man's garbage (Score 3, Interesting) 74

I call bullshit. I work in the nuclear power industry. The amount of screening and safeguards in place to prevent a single contaminated Kleenex from getting offsite is beyond belief. And by "contaminated" I mean something that might have a millirem's worth of stuff on it, not something seriously crapped up like you're hinting at. To intimate that substantial hunks of contaminated metals might systematically get offsite and somehow get smelted into a consumer product is so ridiculous as to be easily dismissed. Can you cite an example of "lots of radioactive steel parts" becoming cars?

Comment Re:If the shoe were on the other foot... (Score 1) 35

a professor making up bullshit about Republicans being racist

Making up bullshit?

Yes.

Who has been actively suppressing voters?

No one.

Don't give me bullshit about the voter ID laws being about preventing fraud when there are damn near zero cases of actual fraudulent voting occurring in any of the states and jurisdictions that are trying to force arbitrary new requirements on voters that quite nearly without exception make voting easier for middle and upper economic classes who work 9-to-5 and far more difficult for those who make less money working longer hours.

Again: making up bullshit.

First, your stat on "actual fraudulent voting" is bullshit. The numbers the left cites are the wrong ones. They cite the number of prosecutions or convictions. But even a tiny bit of thought will lead you to understand that if someone votes for someone else without an ID, that person will most likely never be prosecuted, because they won't be caught. Hell, the fraud might never even be detected, because that would require the real voter trying to vote and then being denied. And by then, the perpetrator is long gone. But often, people would be more likely to vote on behalf of friends or family who cannot, thereby never getting caught, thereby never being included in the stats.

Indeed, we know -- as a matter of near-certainty, based on common sense -- that whatever the number of prosecutions we've had for such fraud, the actual number of fraud cases must be much larger, because the fraud is so easy to commit without being caught. Surely you cannot believe that if we aren't checking photo IDs, that we are likely to catch someone who commits such a fraud ... ? That'd be terribly stupid.

Second, there is simply zero basis for your claim that voter ID makes voting easier for anyone, let alone "without exception." It actually makes legal voting easier for no one at all, "without exception."

Third, there is simply zero basis for the claim that it makes voting "far more difficult" for the overwhelming majority of people who "make less money working longer hours." They are notified, multiple times, months or years in advance of the change, and have ample opportunity to get the (free) ID. And even if they don't before election day, they can fill out a provisional ballot, which will be counted upon providing the proper (free) qualifications.

Even for the very few people who, with all those opportunities, cannot get a photo ID, they can still vote. And for the overwhelming people who can get the photo ID, it is a simple (and free!) process, and not "far more" difficult at all. On the contrary, they generally bend over backward to make it as easy (and free!) as possible.

Plus -- again, more lies from you -- most people who work longer hours for less pay still have a driver's license already.

Considering the republicans have led the charge to permanently revoke workers' right to strike

You're lying again. That has never happened that I am aware of, and certainly there is no serious effort afoot. Perhaps you mean that Republicans are against special protections for unions which disallow employers from firing workers who strike? That is true, of course, but it is completely different from having the right to strike. I think every employee should have the right to strike ... and every employer should have the right to fire any employee at any time for any reason.

Actually, I take that back. Every employee and employer has that constitutional, and natural, right. It's just that the government doesn't always recognize these obvious rights that we have.

The free market ... causes harm and death.

You're lying. The free market has never caused any harm or death, ever. We know this, because we know it is not even capable of doing so.

Comment Re:Lucky I wasn't there (Score 1) 35

So you say he wasn't -- very clearly and obviously -- lying?

Because if he was lying, your criticism of me makes no sense. If he was not lying, then please defend his claim that asking for a voter ID is for the purpose of suppressing black votes. Or that Republicans are all white. (?) Or that Romney hid his money in the Cayman Islands (he paid taxes on that money, as federal law requires; nothing was "hidden"). He lied.

It's not enough for me to say "I disagree." That's bullshit. He is not saying, "I think the free market doesn't work, and here's why." That would be something to disagree with. He is stating, as facts, things which are false, which he either does or should know are false, as a teacher promoting these ideas in a classroom.

It's typical and sad that you criticize me for not being "sociable" for calling a lie a lie, whereas this guy gets no criticism for telling those lies.

Comment Re:Lesson not learned (Score 1) 331

That's sort of the point though. Most of Yahoo's properties have been stagnant for years, some even for over a decade.

I've been playing fantasy football on yahoo since 2000. The update is awful, and most of the users hate it. It's added no discernible functionality, but changed a user interface that has been in place for at least ten years. While you can deride users for being 'change resistant', the fact is a consistent, usable interface is a feature.

Lots of times power users, or IT workers don't realize just how offputting a major UI revamp can be. While we get caught up in things like, "Agile", "Features", "Web x.0" most users just want to be left alone.

Really, though, I think this whole "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude is quite dumb. If you're willing to leave and learn a new platform in protest, why not stay and learn the new upgraded platform where your data already lives?

Users will stay with a platform they know, even if it isn't feature rich. The opportunity cost of switching to another platform is losing the time they've invested in learning the original platform. Once that cost is forced upon them, they might as well investigate other platforms, either out of spite, or simply because they've got to learn something new anyway.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada

Working...