Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Scott Mayers

Members
  • Content Count

    1,042
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Scott Mayers last won the day on June 18 2018

Scott Mayers had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

72 Excellent

About Scott Mayers

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

4,046 profile views
  1. I now know that Shaw was definitely intending to purposely destroy the effectiveness of the prior modems: they don't offer the regular routers now! This should be a concern to people here more than it is.
  2. I do have an old one that I might be able to use. I'll have to look at it. But it might slow down access with a noticable delay.
  3. I've already complained before here regarding media issues that while others may agree, I am at a loss of determining what to do... I had a deal with one of our cable companies who appear to be intentionally forcing me to UPGRADE by.... (1)Creating router/modem for Internet to fail. I had sudden failures with the Cisco router that is the LAST box that Shaw will offer that permits direct control. The failure would continue to cut me off and the box would constantly attempt to refresh over and over. So I had to replace it. I accepted them to send me a second box although they wer
  4. There's way too much more wrong than this. A logical argument can be 'valid' but not 'sound'. Humour uses logical dillemas or intentional fallacies to trick us into not distinguishing certain differences that exist or to unspoken but presumed true premises. This argument is related to the dillema: "If God is absolutely all powerful, then can he lift a rock too heavy for him to lift?"
  5. My area is in logic, math, and science. This is NOT universally agreed on and is more of a philosophical issue of contention between differences of interpretation, just as many other related issues in these areas. Numbers represent the real collections and so while the language we use is relatively artificial, numbers are not. We live in a universe run by 'laws' which require accepting that these are real. If the tools we use, like logic and math, are pure fabrications, then you could not trust using logic nor math to prove anything. The first and most significant "science" all of us do
  6. I'm guessing this thread was accidentally placed under "Moral & Ethical Issues"? Does "IME" mean, "in my experience"? I'm not a texter and can't presume meaning to one's words without your clarification. As to math with regards to science, it is just a formal means to relate patterns of logic to nature as it is. I happen to hold that you should begin a logical inspection of total reality by assuming 'nothing' while recognizing that this implies 'everything'. Science is about this particular Universe and we assume consistency postulates for anything we do in science. As such, th
  7. Ohh, what a clever piece of advice!! ?? This is about the politics that permit fraud for the wealthy with ease and with the inability to have sincere accountability to the very public that permits these Lotto Corporations. I'll be keeping your response here in mind if I should find you complaining here regarding politics. Example absurdity of response: "You think taxes are unfair?" ..."You do realize that you don't have to live here, right?"
  8. It is instinctive for any animal to protect THEIR OWN if vulnerable, not merely any vulnerable person. The rhetoric though falsely grants predator-victimhood to whole genetic classes in either racist, sexist, or age-biased terms without recognizing them as such nor the actual causes with respect to the logical independent factors of the individuals involved. My points are about the stupidity and hypocrisy of HOW the protectionist rhetoric appeals to emotional triggers that themselves hint at where the real problems lie: irrational judgements based upon stereotypes, whether positive or not.
  9. What 'authority'? It is "interprovincial" and not bound to neither federal nor provincial oversight or controls. There is no means to assure society that the lotteries are merely frauds here in Canada. While there will be certain 'wins' that are fair, this is only rational of any minimally intelligent orgnaization used to hide the unfair ones. (I should know. I won once but had my ticket stolen from me for being too young and powerless to do anything about it...and this was by family! The lack of means to get the details of the lottery prevented me from discovering information that could ha
  10. No, I am not. I opened this to question if anyone notices how this occured: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/mega-millions-1-point-5-billion-winner-stays-anonymous-why-thats-smart.html#:~:text=Luckily for this Mega Millions,lottery winners to remain anonymous.&text=If you live in a,entity to receive your winnings. But you and some others are responding to this as though it should be normal for all when I was questioning whether even one case like this exception and the States that permit it should be permitted given the risks of fraud. Here's one from here in Canada: https://
  11. 'stardom' is a winfall as is a lottery winner. What makes you think winners are not elible to be the 'crooks'??
  12. I don't get why people trivialize 'trust' issues here. We are in an era where hacking is easily being done because of odd faith people place in shit like this. If you buy a lottery ticket, you give up your right to privacy precisely because hacks can, are, or will be used by such 'faith' being expected as a standard of behavior by those who uniquely CAPITALIZE on such weaknesses. Do not trivialize this issue. This is not overcomplicating the issue. If you GAIN a severe benefit through such permitted forms of gambling, AND 'anonymity' is assured, that is a perfect way for criminals
  13. When one becomes a famous star, they too 'suffer' from the loss of anonymity. But when one selects the BENEFITS gained by such an interest, you have to accept the loss and the burden of having to deal with the schemers who might attempt to use them. And they DO get the same problem and worse than a mere lottery winner. As such, when you buy a lottery ticket, the loss of anonymity is necessary and relatively smaller 'debt' the the 'profit' of winning. I doubt our lottery systems are secure. They also set up ours in Canada as "Interprovincial", a technical way of preventing either provinc
  14. I posted this a long time ago and so don't remember all of what I said. But basically I question the trust of the lotteries if they should keep the winner anonymous because we cannot determine publicly whether it is fraudulent or not, whether the statistics of the winners are actually relatively poor people (who invest in such things more per their income) or due to wealthy people exploiting the way you CAN cheat using the math and having the capital to purchase them. For instance, if you are an accounting firm, say, with lots of money you might have available even for a short time, you
  15. I cringe everytime I hear even the most unintentional biased conventions in the way we speak about reported events that alert us to suffering of "women and children' as though women are naturally linked with adolescent innocence. This is done by most people regardless of politics. I agree to most of what you guys asserted above. What troubles me is how most cannot recognize that ALL OF US created the differences. By the way, on the 'children' part, I also think we place too much emphasis on assuming them more valuable as though being naive and relatively stupid is itself a virtue! Should
×
×
  • Create New...