obstacle1

53 ms·

481.
by obstacle1 14y ago
"As you are probably aware, this web site was recently hacked into illegally numerous times by a terrorist group ." Wow, really? If this guy turns out to be guilty of possession, this is a glaring example of how meaningless the term "terro
482.
by obstacle1 14y ago
The programmer in question wasn't selling gambling services to consumers, he was selling gambling software to "retailers and wholesalers" who in turn served gambling consumers.
483.
by obstacle1 14y ago
Do you disagree with anything specific, or are you just done discussing it? I've not heard many people seriously argue that the TSA's mandate is to alleviate fear, much less argue that the TSA carries out said mandate successfully.
484.
by obstacle1 14y ago
"They kinda come close to my views w/r/t one small aspect of national policy" is a pretty terrible reason to vote for a party. If you're correct that many citizens vote this way, you'd all be better off withholding from participation until
485.
by obstacle1 14y ago
Without explaining what "System 1" and "System 2" are, this is a pretty useless reply.
486.
by obstacle1 14y ago
Nothing, since the writer is a freelancer and doesn't represent said website.
487.
by obstacle1 14y ago
50% is an arbitrary number, not an actual threshold demarcating theft. Why is 49% not theft but 50% is?
488.
by obstacle1 14y ago
Are you drunk? What a vile, illogical, and empty rant. OP didn't say he doesn't think it looks like social proof. He stated that it wasn't intended to function as social proof, and gave his motives for placing the logos. Seriously, I mean
489.
by obstacle1 14y ago
You ignored the last clause of the sentence. The author doesn't plan to not replace drives because they are SSDs, rather because they are covered by AppleCare.
490.
by obstacle1 14y ago
>I have no idea where it came from or why. It was very likely a product of the Reformation, and almost certainly had nothing to do with debt. Specifically, the ethic arose from the philosophies of Luther and Calvin in the 16th century.
491.
by obstacle1 14y ago
>Have you ever heard anyone use a neutral or male identified term in a context like this? How about "brogrammer"? >your choice to resort to personal attacks rather comically undercuts your proclaimed desire for “rational discourse”.
492.
by obstacle1 14y ago
The only sexism evident here is your own. Why did you assume that "mom" is the dominant descriptor in the term "mommy blogger" rather than "blogger" or the whole term? Why did you jump on the chance to cry sexism without knowing the definit
493.
by obstacle1 14y ago
Out of curiosity, would there be copyright issues to worry about there?
494.
by obstacle1 14y ago
By definition complaining about a panel's being "100% white males" is suggesting the lowest common denominator of skin color and gender. The twitter complainers in this case did not care about the panel's nationalities, ethnicities, first l
495.
by obstacle1 14y ago
That page includes a random sampling of definitions used by some sociologists. One of the definitions explicitly states that racism can only be committed by white people. When you get to the point where such a definition makes sense, you ar
496.
by obstacle1 14y ago
Again, your 'second definition' isn't diametrically opposed to the first, it includes the first. Defining 'racist actions' presupposes a definition race and in turn racism that you can't just toss aside. Defining racism as a systemic disadv
497.
by obstacle1 14y ago
Those aren't separate definitions. The second is simply a justification of certain forms of racism as worth the harm they cause to the victimized group because of the benefit to the disadvantaged group; it uses the first definition you ga
498.
by obstacle1 14y ago
Out of curiosity, why are the complainers in this case not being called out for their own racism/discrimination? The fact that a panel consists of white males, straight males, or purple elephants is not in itself evidence of discrimination.
499.
by obstacle1 14y ago
>It's perfectly possible that the way the TSA works (e.g. knowing that you'll go through body scanners or thorough patdowns) has deterred potentially nasty attacks. Luckily we'll never know. You can't justify national policy by saying "