Windows 9 (And Pandora) appreciation thread
-
Wait, my frontal lobe was fully developed but that changed last year and now it's not fully developed anymore?
pwndantry!
-
I better be getting a pedantry one!
Did you know that two back to back flaggings will result in "we have a daily limit on that action. Please try again in 1 second"? Yes, one second later, it will work.
I found TRWTF.
-
-
Really, if judges make rulings without precedent all the time, then how does gay marriage open the door for polygamy?
We're mixing situations here. You said at one point "the precedent changed from 'marriage is one man, one woman' to 'marriage is between two people.'" Obviously there's asterisks there, because it's not just that simple. I took from a previous post of yours that you were suggesting everything a judge does is a precedent. That's not actually true--judges make narrow rulings that they explicitly say don't set precedent all the time. Even then, precedent is not 100% binding. Wikipedia; "In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. "
You're the one who used the word "magical," but that's more your thinking than mine, and plus, you're not accurately retelling my position. Precedents only last until overturned. Someone in favor of polygamy can sue and say that "marriage is between two people" is unfair to triples. Now the government has to actually defend the proposition. When that happens, they can't just say "because." See several of my other posts for the rest of the argument--you haven't acknowledged it yet.
What I'm saying is, gay marriage advocates said "the current system isn't fair" and sued, and the courts said "you're right." You seem to be of the opinion that polyamorists[1] somehow can't just say "the current system isn't fair" and sue, or, since you've repeatedly (as of how far I've gotten in the thread as i write this) ignored my Establishment Clause (and now that I think of it that might not be the right one) argument, that the state can just say "yes it is."
Ugh. What's the clause I'm thinking of. equal process? no...this is annoying. The one that says you have to treat people fairly and can't arbitrarily and capriciously say "i can treat these people different because I feel like it."
You seem to be just saying "marriage is for two people" is the end of it without stating a reason. If I'm wrong, correct me. But it's not the end of it, just like "marriage is for a man and a woman."
[1] just broadening the term used so I don't have to say "polygamists, bigamists, and so on".
-
I said, amend the law to explicitly allow gay marriage. You say... change it to specifically allow gay marriage.
I'm not sure that's exactly what I'm saying, heh. But there's too much going on for me to keep track of it all.
-
Glad to see you first accuse me of doing a too-broad painting of your statements and then you yourself committing to the fallacy you accused me of..
I was doing that to see if you were actually paying attention.
I'm not so egalitarian I don't think some people are smarter and/or more possessed of a sense of self-preservation than others.
-
You said at one point "the precedent changed from 'marriage is one man, one woman' to 'marriage is between two people.'"
I said it WILL, if the law is changed.
But a precedent will have been set that it means TWO PEOPLE ONLY.
-
I'm not accusing you of this but it's funny how, to a leftist[1] anyone to their right is "ultraconservative," but there's not really an "ultraleftist."
Oh no, I'd definitely say they exist. They're the vegan-is-the-only-moral-lifestyle crazy antiGMO hippies who do things like make a creepily overdramatic scene in a restaurant over them serving chicken.
But this is just the relativity of language; to most conservatives, the people to their right are just "conservative"; it never occurs to them that they may already be so far to the right that the people further are actually the lunatics.
But I also noted earlier in another reply that having a single dimension of political affiliation is silly. Having two of them is probably also inadequate.
RACIST!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM
To be more fair, I'd say everyone is also political extreme. For myself, I actually am stupid enough to think that reasonable things could work. That's just insanity.
-
You seem to think UAC triggers whenever a user tries to perform a restricted operation. It doesn't.
Quick test. Use notepad, wordpad, word, openoffice, whatever. Save a document in Program Files.
It fails, access denied, no UAC appears.
UAC only appears when it's asked to. Whether it's needed or not. And it doesn't know why- Although the program making it appear may.
Clearly MS needs to redesign UAC to make more sense, then.
-
It's not all of them. But you only need one.
BTW I probably didn't make this clear before: I'm not advocating you telling students it's OK. More like, if you have one that's not an idiot, and you find out he did something like this and nobody got hurt, maybe you tell him "well, now you've learned something interesting, please don't do it again" instead of freaking out and calling the dean and/or the police.
As I said at the time: the people in my class tried this once, maybe twice, while the teacher wasn't looking. None of us were dumb enough to put our faces near it. We were amused briefly, and then nobody tried it again, because we're not stupid, and also, it's not THAT exciting. No harm, no foul.
-
The teacher stopped his lecture, silently walked over to our corner of the classroom, unplugged the TV, pushed the cart to the other side of the classroom so it wasn't near me, then went back to the front of the classroom and continued his lecture.
Your story involves more dumbery than mine, IMO. We knew that solder melts, so there wasn't likely to be an explosion, for example.
-
It's not even a matter of it being hugely dangerous.
I'm not even disputing that. OTOH on the 80s parents freaking out over a minor injury was much less common. In my story, if someone got a minor burn or something, the parental response would probably be more like "you probably deserved what you got" and not screaming at the teacher.
All I ever (originally) wanted to say was that people these days are sometimes more concerned than they should be.
-
But a precedent will have been set that it means TWO PEOPLE ONLY.
And I'm telling you that's not something the state can put forth, in and of itself, as a defense against a suit to legalize polyamory.
-
Oh no, I'd definitely say they exist. They're the vegan-is-the-only-moral-lifestyle crazy antiGMO hippies who do things like make a creepily overdramatic scene in a restaurant over them serving chicken.
Oh, sure, but you have a hard time to get a regular leftist to admit that, is all I'm saying.
Look, I grew up in Boston as an extremely liberal person, so it's not as if I'm just guessing about this. I knew these people. I was one of them, although not to that extent.
-
You didn't read what I wrote very well.
I echo this back at you. I understand what you wrote plenty well; whether it was what you intended to communicate is an entirely different matter.
The point is that marriage equality has nothing to do with whether people choose to be anything except married.
The crack about black people choosing to be slaves is a poor ad hominem
It isn't an ad hominem; if I wanted to do that I would have typed much less and wouldn't have bothered replying after. What it is is trying to illustrate the hypocrisy inherent in even considering someone changing who they are to suit society.
-
But this is just the relativity of language; to most conservatives, the people to their right are just "conservative"; it never occurs to them that they may already be so far to the right that the people further are actually the lunatics.
I don't really disagree. In my experience, though, leftists don't follow the same logic: they see people to their left as "more or less as normal as me."
-
And I'm telling you that's not something the state can put forth, in and of itself, as a defense against a suit to legalize polyamory.
Which is exactly what the myriad of "change the law to explicitly allow gay marriage" posts are about.
-
To nobody in particular: this is by far the most boring political flamewar I've ever seen on this site.
+1
-
Your story involves more dumbery than mine, IMO. We knew that solder melts, so there wasn't likely to be an explosion, for example.
"likely". Nice. Let me guess: Because it was so "harmless" you also thought that you could forgo protective eye gear?
-
Oh, sure, but you have a hard time to get a regular leftist to admit that, is all I'm saying.
I don't know what exactly is the norm, but most of the lefties I know are meat-eating, GMO-loving, and soap-using. So, it may be that they just don't know any extreme lefties. I usually spend a lot of time arguing with the left-of-lefties about GMOs in particular. In fact, I agree with the vegans about meat being murder and whatnot, I just don't think a dietary change on my part does much to help. I think that, as with most things we need to change, technology is the only thing that will actually help.
Look, I grew up in Boston as an extremely liberal person, so it's not as if I'm just guessing about this. I knew these people. I was one of them, although not to that extent.
Whereas I'm from the gun-loving, red-voting, liberal-hating part of West Virginia (which could mean most of it).
-
A precedent has been set that "marriage doesn't mean one man and one woman." Once you erase the line, any attempt to redraw it will have to be justified. In the US, that means eventually someone will sue under the Equal Protection clause. They may lose. But they may win. If you want them to lose, you can no longer just say "because we said so."
Can the whole country's citizenship marry each other? One big group? Then we can all file one tax return.
-
Can the whole country's citizenship marry each other? One big group? Then we can all file one tax return.
Imagine the lawyers fees, acrimony and alimony of a divorce though
-
The legal system isn't based on math. Or popularity. Haven't you been paying attention?
No reasoning ability is required either. If it was, laws like forbidding moose from having sex in the streets wouldn't ever get passed.
-
I think that, as with most things we need to change, technology is the only thing that will actually help.
Sadly, technology only goes so far when 99% of society is made up of 1 of 4 categories:- "Red-blooded" "conservatives" who are really Right-Wing Authoritarians looking for an Emperor of America to rule them with an iron fist
- "Liberals" (to some, hyper-liberals) who lash out with their emotions and fears at anything they don't understand, yet refuse to actually learn something that carries them outside their warm, fuzzy cubbyhole
- Giant, rotten tomatoheads with pointy hair who desire nothing more than to be said Emperor of America, and
- Groundhogs that just want it all to go away without considering how any of the problems we face would be solved
As to the remaining 1%? They're folks of our kith and kin who actually have a faint clue about things like technology and what it can and can't do, statistical safety vs. emotional perceptions of safety, and how various types of gov't work (or not) vs. how they were/are intended to work. In other words, logical thinkers who managed to scrounge an education from the scraps left behind after the religious nuts in group 1, the hyperemotional drama queens in group 2, and the power-drunk madmen in group 3 have had their turns cutting all the meat they can find out of the cow and throwing it directly into the trash can.
Then, we get shuffled off into a technological priesthood, promised at least a degree of power, wealth, and freedom, while the power-drunk madmen work to deny us all three through the manipulation of information ("IP law", anyone?), the expectancies of a rigged economic game (such as homebuying/property ownership, the use of a personal vehicle for mobility, and the asinine expectation of some companies that employees should be at their beck and call 24/7/365, no matter what), and simple "Oh, what should we do about X?" "We should do so-and-so, because A, B, and C" "LALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU" then taking a bribe to do Y even though it makes problem X worse.
Also...the categories aren't mutually exclusive, as @Magus and @FrostCat helpfully pointed out.
-
"likely". Nice. Let me guess: Because it was so "harmless" you also thought that you could forgo protective eye gear?
That'd be pretty stupid, wouldn't it? I wear glasses.
-
I agree with the vegans about meat being murder
Ugh. That's actually an abuse of language. Also, anyone who really believes that should volunteer to have their front teeth removed.
-
-
"Red-blooded" "conservatives" who are really Right-Wing Authoritarians looking for an Emperor of America to rule them with an iron fist
"Liberals" (to some, hyper-liberals) who lash out with their emotions and fears at anything they don't understand, yet refuse to actually learn something that carries them outside their warm, fuzzy cubbyholeWut.
Most conservatives in the US want a small government that exists to handle law and war, and nothing else. That's currently what 'right-wing' means. We also tend to believe that punishment for offenses works better than restricting ways to get there. We lock our doors, because we believe that people aren't all nice.
And we consider 'liberals' to be people who like Apple and rant about male supremacists. (and generally want to make more laws to ban guns so people become nicer, yet remove as many restrictions from drugs and sex as possible) They tend to believe that everyone can get along if they just try.
This actually makes sense if you think about it. In most other nations, a monarchy was the previous government (or still sort of is), so being conservative would mean having a single ruler, where the opposite is true here.
-
Wut.
My actual issue is that his type 1 applies both to some "liberals" and some "conservatives". Anyone who looks at the new California affirmative consent law and doesn't see that as totalitarianism...well, I dunno what to say, except don't trust him.
-
Most conservatives in the US want a small government that exists to handle law and war, and nothing else. That's currently what 'right-wing' means. We also tend to believe that punishment for offenses works better than restricting ways to get there. We lock our doors, because we believe that people aren't all nice.
This would be true 30-50 years ago, at least to some degree. You're describing a libertarian conservatism that still exists -- it's Ron and Rand's good side -- but has been thrown to the curb by a toxic mix of religious nutjobbery and power-drunkenness that has hijacked the term "conservative".
Also, most "LAW AND ORDER! LAW AND ORDER!" folk forget what the cornerstone of lawfulness is, and that's due process! Punishment does work better than trying to restrict all the ways to get there, if for no other reason that pre-emptive barriers aren't flexible enough to deal with the rights our Constitution + amendments thereto have enshrined; yet, what most folks forget is that punishment only works if it's proportionate and consistent.
And we consider 'liberals' to be people who like Apple and rant about male supremacists. (and generally want to make more laws to ban guns so people become nicer, yet remove as many restrictions from drugs and sex as possible) They tend to believe that everyone can get along if they just try.
Never mind that both sides love to trip over amendment number 1 before they even get to squabble over amendment number 2...
-
Also...the categories aren't mutually exclusive, as @Magus and @FrostCat helpfully pointed out.
Did you Hanzo this? If not, I'm admitting I missed it before.
-
Did you Hanzo this? If not, I'm admitting I missed it before.
Indeed, that was Hanzo's handiwork.
-
I'd like to point out that @FrostCat was using a rhetorical tactic here that I've seen referred to as ‘ironmanning’. The idea is to state a point that is logically unassailable, but is couched in terms such that leaving the point unchallenged would be ideologically unacceptable. The most familiar form of ironmanning is when a statement about 1 or more members of a set is made to look like a statement about the entire set (a ‘sweeping generalization’) i.e.
“Men are assholes”
“Not all men”
“I didn't say all men”Basically, you make a claim that has a strong form and a weak form, and defend the weak form while acting as if you are still claiming the strong form. So, for example, when @frostcat says “I don't think that marriage should be redefined”, which could either mean “I don't want to change my own definition of marriage” or “everyone should change their definition of marriage to match mine”, he's either making a claim so weak that it doesn't need to be addressed, or something that's clearly unreasonable. But when someone points out that second connotation and explains why it's unreasonable, Frostcat says “I shouldn't have to change my own definition of marriage--surely you can see why that's reasonable”. It's an intellectual parlor trick.
-
So you want to redefine an institution as old as mankind is with no concern for what adverse social effects it might have?
Wasn't the same argument used in favour of denying interracial marriage?
-
Most conservatives in the US want a small government that exists to handle law and war, and nothing else.
I'm not even in the US, I don't generally consider myself 'Conservative', and that's what I'd like to see.
I believe I fall somewhere in the 'Libertarian' box.
-
“Men are assholes”“Not all men”“I didn't say all men”
Wow. You just summed up my sister right there. :shocked:
-
It all depends on the Kingdom's Unworthy Adulterous Citizen settings.
Reminded me of this:
Source: http://funnyshit.com.au/image_msoffice.htmlI think you're onto something; might be a variation somewhere.
-
How many flame wars are there in this topic? I'm too tired to count.
-
if you consider marriage to be important, the government is really the last set of people you should want to have in charge of it.
+1
-
the problem is the tight coupling between religion and law, despite the USA's claims to have implemented dependency injection from the design phase
USA was founded by Christians. For separation of church and state to actually occur, but stay in keeping with the beliefs of the time, the laws had to be written separately. Who wrote those laws? The same Christians of course, whose model of right and wrong was their religious viewpoint.
Credit them for having the foresight to set up a system that can (and has) changed with the passage of time without being jailed to that same religion. Criticizing them by claiming a farce of the system because of what they set up seems to me to be a lack of understanding of how it originated in the first place.
Let's try a slight modification that I think shows the flaws in what you seem to be saying in a less loaded manner: "The problem is the tight coupling between culture and law."
Well put.
-
-
I usually spend a lot of time arguing with the left-of-lefties about GMOs in particular.
What's your considered opinion on the risks of making food supplies into something that intellectual property laws apply to?
Mine is that present-day intellectual property laws, especially in the US, are a complete fustercluck bestowing far more power upon middlemen and other rent-seekers than is good for society, and I am horrified by the prospect of giving that kind of person control over anything as basic as the growing of staple foods.
The original purpose of patents was to allow the kind of information formerly hidden as trade secrets to become generally available, in order to facilitate innovation; choosing to patent an innovation rather than keeping it secret would allow the innovator to be compensated for the consequent reduction in competitive advantage by means of license fees.
However, the patent system (especially the US patent system) as it operates today has been so thoroughly gamed as to be socially counterproductive. In particular, I see patents on genes (e.g. Myriad's patent on BRCA1) as just mind-bogglingly wrong.
I don't have much time for the visceral arguments against GM along "you put fish genes in a potato? Ewwww!" lines. But patenting of medical discoveries is already quite problematic enough; there is no way I can ever see myself supporting public policy likely to favour the emergence of widespread reliance on patented lifeforms as a matter of basic survival.
I also don't have much time for the "generally recognized as safe" reasoning used to try to justify allowing GM produce into the food supply chain without clear labelling of origin.
If you've engineered e.g. a strain of canola that expresses a novel protein conferring herbicide resistance (novel in the sense that no such protein has formerly been present in canola at all), it should be on you to provide solid evidence that the level at which this protein ends up in the food supply will cause no trouble. And since this is in general not possible in the short term- proteins being the class of chemical responsible for most allergic reactions- then canola with novel protein expression should not be treated as identical to canola without it for labelling purposes until the GM product has been in general use for long enough to assess its actual safety on an epidemiological basis.
-
I usually ask, "How much less?" And they have no clue. Here's your sign.
Many years ago (How many? I'm not saying) I knew a guy (from the Big Apple end of Long Island, which might be relevant) who would ask quantitative questions for countable objects in a weird way.That is, instead of the more conventional "How many books do you have?", he'd ask "How much books do you have?". He was a uni roommate in freshman year, so I had to put up with this for the whole academic year, and it made my teeth itch every time I heard it. (Then again, that year is the reason why I won't have copies of The Wall in my flat. Ever. A different roommate - there were four of us in a room originally intended for just two - loved it to bits, and the stupid fucker played it loud(1) every (bad word) (bad word) (bad word) day from the beginning of September to the end of June. He was also the guy whose mother once called to talk to him - just to chat - on Sunday morning, at 6 am.)
(1) Yes, yes, I know, "loudly," but it doesn't quite capture what we mean when we say, "Play this record loud."
-
Late to the party! What's wrong with polygamy?
-
I wondered how did a silly UAC thread amass 600 replies in 24 hours. Now I know.
Fucking gays, ruining everything.
Filed under: If that wasn't enough to light the flames, I also disable UAC on my PC-s
-
oh goddess! it burns us! it burns us! why did you use one of that company's ad images?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO-msplukrw
Warning: Contains swearing and drag queens.
And really that's why governments try to limit marriage: their databases couldn't cope with such complexity.
Har har. Someone actually wrote about the problems of creating a marriage database: http://qntm.org/gay
Starts with the fairly (deliberately) stupid schema of:
**One** Let's start with a few really dumb systems which nobody with a brain cell would ever use. How about this? ```sql males - id - forename - surname - birthdate - wife_id (foreign key references column females.id, may be NULL if male is unmarried)
females
- id
- forename
- surname
- birthdate
- husband_id (foreign key references column males.id, may be NULL if female is unmarried)
Great! Everybody is either married or unmarried and it's dead easy to see who is married just from a database lookup. A simple JOIN will give you the husband or wife. Problem? Potential for contradictions. Duplication of information. If Male 45 (Jeff) has `wife_id` 699 then female 699 (Elizabeth) must also have `husband_id` 45. What if she has NULL `husband_id`? Or, even better, has `husband_id` 1078 (Jeff's younger brother)? Oh, imagine the hilarity. </blockquote> And goes on to try and refine it to include gay marriages, polygamy, intransitive marriages. Except they missed a trick with this one: <blockquote> **Eight** ```sql humans - id - forename - surname - birthdate - sex ("male" or "female") marriages - id - partner_1_id (foreign key references column humans.id) - partner_2_id (foreign key references column humans.id) - marriage_date - divorce_date (NULL if marriage not ended)With the advent of gay marriage, however, we have a new problem. What we have now allowed is any human to marry any human. Note the conspicuous absence of the word "other" in that sentence. Marriage is a binary relation. You can't marry yourself.
Granted it was written long before this idiot happened:
Woman marries herself after hearing Björk song
A photographer, who was single for six years, has decided to marry herself to 'pay tribute to her self-discovery'
Grace Gelder proposed to herself on a park bench in Parliament Hill last November, and married herself earlier this year in Devon.
Good luck. I don't even know what "chrooted" means, except it's funny to say.
Think of a chroot jail as a poor-man's virtual machine:
http://wiki.openvz.org/images/thumb/2/2f/Chroot.png/400px-Chroot.png
Here the yellow part is the chroot jail, and anything running in the jail thinks that the top level directory is the top yellow one, not the top blue one - they don't even know that the blue directories exist.
Depends very strongly on how the question is asked.
And what question is asked. Relevant: Klein Sexual Orientation Grid
-
accalia:
oh goddess! it burns us! it burns us! why did you use one of that company's ad images?!Chow Down (at Chick-fil-A)
Warning: Contains swearing and drag queens.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
-
The real crime is that I'm not allowed to marry my database.
Ok, but I think someone has the wrong idea about polygamy (yes I realize they got there in the end).
http://i.imgur.com/OQ8NG.png
-
The legal system isn't based on math. Or popularity.
That's Congress's job! Math because you've got to work out how much you've collected in in campaign donations, and popularity because you've got to appear better than the other guy at the next election.
-
"How much books do you have?"
See, that's the kind of thing I would answer "Probably several hundred pounds and at least a few megabytes."
This would be true 30-50 years ago, at least to some degree. You're describing a libertarian conservatism that still exists -- it's Ron and Rand's good side -- but has been thrown to the curb by a toxic mix of religious nutjobbery and power-drunkenness that has hijacked the term "conservative".
And that is, I believe, one of the things that makes it difficult for political discussion in some public fora to remain rational and civil...the people who assume the term to refer to the hijackers clash with the people who hold the old-fashioned views and still try to resist the hijacking (and therefore apply to themselves terms that the opposing side takes to mean they are claiming to be crackpots).
