deciplex

67 ms·

631.
by deciplex 11y ago
I don't know what it is about this particular topic that compels people to flood the conversation with egregious strawman fallacies, but anyway: I never suggested any of the shit that you're implying I did, so your argument fall
632.
by deciplex 11y ago
I consider it adware because there is no way to get the notification to go away. No obvious way, anyhow, and rather than search around for the "correct" way of doing it, I uninstalled the update and hid it in WU. (Actually I did a
633.
by deciplex 11y ago
They stop doing it when I tell them to knock it off, and they don't creep back in and do it again after a few months, either. The update responsible for the notification, even after I removed it and hid the update within WU , found it
634.
by deciplex 11y ago
You also have to hide the update to prevent WU from reinstalling it for you, but actually not even that will permanently disable it. This is because Microsoft will release "updates" to that package, with the totally unintended s
635.
by deciplex 11y ago
OP implied fuck-all, unless you take the ridiculous view that free speech and the 1st amendment to the US constitution are the same thing. For about the 99th time in this thread, they are definitely fucking not, and any arguments which rest
636.
by deciplex 11y ago
Reminder that Microsoft installed adware on Windows 7/8 machines to encourage users to upgrade to Windows 10. Even if you hid the update from Windows Update, they un-hid it and reinstalled at least once that I know of. Don't rewar
637.
by deciplex 11y ago
Censorship does not require an act of Congress. Private entities are perfectly capable of censorship. How else could the term "self-censorship" have any semantic value?
638.
by deciplex 11y ago
For those defending Github by pointing out that threatening to shut down this repository was not an act of Congress, and therefore not illegal: you would need many km/s of delta-V to miss the point any more than you already have. Your
639.
by deciplex 11y ago
> 1. This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. It is a private company deciding a word was inappropriate. This is about the dumbest argument in favor of censorship theoretically possible, btw. Free speech d
640.
by deciplex 11y ago
I didn't miss your point at all, only tried to add to it. The effectiveness of torture absolutely should be questioned, and happily the real answer aligns with the answer we would like, and contributes to the argument against tortu
641.
by deciplex 11y ago
> Even if it was effective, it is still a terrible idea that should never be entertained by a supposedly modern/advanced society. Are you sure about that? Torture is ineffective: the intelligence you get is very likely to either c
642.
by deciplex 11y ago
How can you stick to the substance if drawing on other examples is out of bounds?
643.
by deciplex 11y ago
Indeed. Minimum wage is a hack on labor that barely worked 60 years ago when full employment was some sort of reasonable goal. It's a ludicrous superstition now - better to just institute a basic income, abolish minimum wage entirely,
644.
by deciplex 11y ago
> People often express opinions like yours when talking about any subject that has to do with the government. Where does this inherent distrust come from? It comes from the fact that until two years before he was hired this permit revi
645.
by deciplex 11y ago
> It's the part that is the usual culprit for wanting to restrict speech. You mean assholes, insecure in their convictions? I don't know that liberals are any more guilty of wanting to restrict speech than anyone else. I do k
646.
by deciplex 11y ago
> it's the fact that Japan doesn't give citizenship to what it considers impure blood Okay, so Japanese treat Zainichi like shit. I'm not going to argue that, because it's obvious. But what you're saying here h
647.
by deciplex 11y ago
It's interesting to think that very probably during the lives of many of the people on HN, we're going to see some pretty massive geo-engineering projects on a global scale. Probably 2040-2050 or thereabouts, once the basic fact o
648.
by deciplex 11y ago
Note that the article is from 1992.
649.
by deciplex 11y ago
Yes.
650.
by deciplex 11y ago
The jobs aren't always real, and the candidates aren't always even remotely qualified for them.
651.
by deciplex 11y ago
Objective criteria which are established... how exactly if not by popularity contest? And if making the criteria ex post facto also wins the popularity contest, then ex post facto it is, regardless of whether that offends your sense of
652.
by deciplex 11y ago
> Progress is the exception, not the rule, so far in human history. You're either cherry-picking your intervals or have a very weird definition of "progress".
653.
by deciplex 11y ago
Well, it does have the meaning "it is widely considered a war crime", which is all I was asserting in the first place. I'm not really interested in a semantic argument with you, nor discussing the topic of whether Americans d
654.
by deciplex 11y ago
For the most part, America stands alone in seeing it that way. It is widely considered a war crime, albeit in a war that was replete with them.
655.
by deciplex 11y ago
Anecdote time: my brother plays baseball for this school and my wife is from Hiroshima. I didn't realize what their mascot is until we visited this past Spring and attended a few games. I was more embarrassed than she was upset, mostly
656.
by deciplex 11y ago
> It's the difference between culturing a microbe to make a vaccine or make a bioweapon. The latter should get your ass droned. As a last resort. Ideally, it would get your ass arrested, your lab destroyed, and a speedy trial.
657.
by deciplex 11y ago
Well only Democrats are supposed to have them. They are acquired easily enough, though. Let me know when you get yours before we continue this utterly fruitless conversation any further.
658.
by deciplex 11y ago
> No they didn't. For Republicans Willie Horton was a story about a guy who killed someone on a weekend furlough. Only for Democrats was it about a black guy who killed someone on a weekend furlough. You act as though it could hav
659.
by deciplex 11y ago
Here is the quote with more context: > Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
660.
by deciplex 11y ago
Right? And it's not like Eric is going to destroy Mozilla or anything.

More ›