Hypothetically speaking...

Yes, just as some rapists are a little more progressive because they put on a condom before jamming their dick up your ass.

The fundamentals of the situation remain unchanged.

"Elitist" has become what the word "racist" has become: originally it referred to something important that should be understood and resisted. Now it just means "I have decided I don't like what you said, but I can't find any fault with it. Rather than admit my dislike of it is irrational and should be changed, I'll just call you names now."

Lots of childish people waste their energy hating reality, leading them to resent anyone who is mature enough to spend that energy looking for better ways of dealing with reality. The contrast embarasses them. Since these small-minded people are resistant to change and growth, they perform variuos mental gymnastics to convince themselves this is your fault. After all, they could go on pretending that everyone agreed with them ... until you came along.

And yet strangely, the technique and how to recognize it is not taught as a regular part of every school's history or civics class.

In a less dysfunctional society where at least a few important things are not run by sociopaths, "Divide and Conquer" (perhaps taught by reading some Julius Caesar), "Propaganda Techniques", and "Logical Fallacies" would be mandatory courses for every human being.

I've used X11 and later Xorg for about the last 15 years. I've never had issues with tearing or any other visual artifacts. Back in the day I certainly had a real good time with modelines (fun!) but I've never had problems with tearing.

Am I the only one who hears complaints like this and scratches his head wondering what the fuss is all about? Lots of these mysterious complaints have never happened to me. I don't believe you are being dishonest, I just would like a more in-depth explanation about what problem you had, what solutions you tried that didn't work, and what you think the working solution would or should be.

That trick is at least as unnecessary as it is difficult.

I assume you thought to reply to me because of the similarity between your scenario and the mistake GP made?

It really sounds like another instance of regulatory capture, in which the industry encourages or allows an idea to become enshrined into law that just so happens to benefit its bottom line. The fossil fuel industry is one that can bring to bear a nearly unlimited budget for things like lawyers, lobbyists, advertisers, etc. If they ignore or applaud a law, it's because it serves their interests. Otherwise you'd get a demonstration of the clout they wield. I mean, to anyone unfamiliar with this industry, "you keep the first few years' revenue, then you pay" sounds gracefully fair.

So how do you do one without also doing the other? Or to put it another way: if you raise the taxes of all oil/gas companies, what do you think those companies are going to do next?

Comparing the current tax rate to the proposed tax increase is not a "rounding error" at all. It's five percent, just as you say.

Comparing the additional cost of this proposed tax increase to all the other costs involved in obtaining the fuels is what has been identified as a rounding error.

So, while what you say is correct, you're missing the point entirely. This is why context is more important than trying to show everyone how clever you are for finding the obvious "flaw" everyone else "missed". It would be wonderful to see a single Slashdot discussion where your mistake isn't repeated.

That's a useless statement of the obvious until and unless you provide another definition of "fair" that you believe better applies to society. The AC at least provided a line of reasoning.

Personally I'd like to see the IRS eliminated and the Fair Tax Act implemented. The funny thing about that Act: I've never seen someone rail against it who actually understood how it works. Of course total ignorance about its most basic details didn't seem to stop such people from passionately demonizing it. Gotta love that. One could say that a notion of "fairness" includes not opposing something you aren't even slightly familiar with.

What did you observe that led you to that conclusion? And ... where can I go to make the same observations?

Because as we all know, no one would ever use the fact that a word has multiple meanings to make a humorous statement. They can't possibly have done this intentionally, with full awareness of the intended meaning of the word versus the different meaning they are using in their humorous statement.

Thank God that never happens! Therefore you have done a tremendous and necessary public service by pointing this out. All of us would truly be lost without your guidance. You are to be commended, sir.

Between the repetitive memes and endless XKCD links ("obligatory" implies "redundant") on one end, and people who feel a need to spell out the obvious because they think they're so much clever than everyone else on the other (so it doesn't occur to them they might be interpreting it incorrectly), humor on Slashdot is on the decline.

I would never use Sendmail or BIND given their security history. Better tools are available.

That's also a frequent definition of "racist".

Yes because everyone is completely interested in your little quarrel and regards this matter as extremely important and compelling.

I get it, I really do. For most Slashdotters, it's standard procedure to disappear and stop posting to a thread the moment someone conclusively proves them wrong or otherwise calls them out. Heaven forbid someone say a thing like, "you know, that's a really good point and my position is mistaken - I should correct my worldview to accommodate this new information." That requires a certain character and emotional maturity that few possess anymore because the culture at large no longer values these traits. The childish desire to always look good, to save face at all costs has no room for these, you see.

The problem is: if you are in the right, no number of posts you create is ever going to make someone perform the growth and introspection it takes to correct their value system. They'll just find lower-hanging fruit, easier slam-dunk cheap-shot targets, and move on. If you are in the wrong, then you're simply lowering the signal-to-noise ratio with nothing to show for it. Either way, you cannot accomplish anything. The very secrets of the Universe Itself are lost upon those who only value dick jokes.

Meanwhile you're creating lots of irrelevant and off-topic posts that others quickly grow tired of seeing. Even the few who may have been sympathetic to your side will quickly become turned off, and if nothing else, they will lose their desire to be associated with a perceived spammer.

I'm sorry but what you are trying to do here simply can't work and it's not a matter of trying hard enough. Please reconsider your tactics. If you are correct about this person (and I have neither the information nor the interest to judge that), you demonstrate your superiority by being more correct, more classy, and more tasteful than he or she. The belief that only K. S. Kyosuke could ever have posted a complaint is a tad paranoid; therefore I make this post with my pseudonym.

The antidote for bad speech is more (good) speech.

You simply can't have freedom if people aren't allowed to decide for themselves what is worthy and what is disgusting. And in terms of free speech, it's worked out pretty well. Those who seriously express racist sentiments are publically humiliated and villified in our society. In fact I'd rather they be free to speak so that they can be identified and avoided, rather than driving it underground (like our futile efforts to proscribe drugs).

To frame this in terms of "supporting free speech is also supporting racism (because racists might speak too)!" is really very childish of you. If and when your intellect and emotions finally mature and match your chronological age, you will come to understand this for yourself.