The Solar System is Dented! God damn it! That's the last time I let Voyager 2 borrow the Solar System. This is going to have to come out of Voyager 2's allowance!
This is just too funny. Microsoft is admitting that their previous software is crap. Well, they're preaching to the choir oin that one. A lot of us have already decided that MS = crap.
Some good news for a god-damn change. This is great. Hold the Bushies to the fire--make them sweat--let all their high crimes and misdemeanors come to light. Light the torches and throw the ropes over the trees--it's time to get jiggy with W.
Well, though intelligence is important, it is not the most important. That position would be held by creativity. And that ability is not something you can teach. It has to be developed based on curiosity and the ability to make many mistakes without giving up.
Recall that Thomas Edison needed to try 3,000 different filiment elements before he came up with carbonized bamboo. That's creativity. While the IT industry has seen rote tasks easily offshored, the design and invention is the hardest to offshore. Why? Because the Indian and Chinese cultures are not like the American one, which prizes invention and creativity.
So it is not enough to raise smart kids. You have to raise them to be creative risk takers. Failing that, you have a bunch of automatons.
Google wins again--they are so danged smart. They're not only getting a bunch of highschoolers into coding but they're orienting them to like Google. As if that were not already a done deal.
Well, we've been here before. Another Me-too offering from the boys in Redmond. Next I'll be expecting them to come out with a new buggy whip. Is there anything of merit that originated in Redmond? I seriously doubt it. They have produced crap in every area they touch. Zune, anyone?
Yes, you're right and that's why we need the three branches of government. They are supposed to counterbalance each other. Therefore, the Bush administration and its attempt to create the "Unary Executive" is such an abomination. Bush & his cronies have attempted to marginalize the other two branches by withholding information and, essentially, being lying sacks of shit. Bush himself is a lying sack of shit. The man lies all the time and so I am against giving him or his successor the kind of power he wants. I have yet to hear anyone raise an argument against that point.
Why is it that everytime the US government asks for an increase in powers, they always deny that it will be abused. And I defy anyone to come up with an example of a federal power that was granted and NOT abused.
Although I am a political liberal and I do think that government can provide a useful service, I feel that this type of invasive power is an example of government at its worst.
As a proud resident of cochroach-ridden New York City, I can report that the little devils are immune to everything but Boric Acid which--apparently--causes them to become constipated.
We've seen this crap before. Companies buy up their competitors only to bury the technology. If you can't bean 'em, buy 'em. You know--at best--Microsoft would be buying an open source company only for the purpose of closing the source and making money. There is just nothing good that can ever come from Microsoft. It has been too many decades of evil behavior by them to believe they have any altruistic purpose here.
I don't have time to dredge up the studies, frankly. However I would bet that you were more than willing to accept--for example--that Supply-Side Economics was valid without any such proof. That is speculation on my part but I would expect that you would--in keeping with the principle of cognitive dissonance--be much more willing to accept a point of view that coincides with your political bias. Of course the same could be said of me.
What do I do with my free time? Great question. Well, let's see, I have completed six novels and my most recent one is at an agent right now. I am professionally enaged at a high level in Manhattan and that requires that I study. Have never owned an type of video game. Haven't played any since junior high. I of course have read tons of books (your attention span begins to grow the longer you've been away from TV), and I also taught Java at various universities in the midwest. I also do a lot of oil painting. So--dude--if you quit watching TV and quit wasting your life on video games there really is a lot that you can do.
Think of it this way: at the end of your life are you going to wish you watched more episodes of Gilligan's Island?
Folks,
If you are still watching TV in 2007, wake up. Most of the intelligent people that I know--self included--have quit wasting their lives in front of that machine. It's a waste of your life. They did a study once and found that an asleep person has more brain activity than one watching the boob tube. I quit watching it in 8th grade and my life has been much better for it.
I dispute your contention that there is NOT a scientific concensus that human-introduced greenhouse gases are the cause of the observed warming, but I accept that you will not be convinced on anything to do with global warming.
What I do take exception to is your creation of a false choice. So often, we see modern conservatives and Republicans using the built in sense of fairness in the media to their advantage. For example, I saw a report that showed that--although there is really no controversy in the scientific community--meaning that over 95% of climate scientiests in the world agree that human-caused climate change is underway. However, the same study found that newspapers including the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal all gave equal time to the two sides in their articles.
While I grant that equal time seems fair and smart, in fact the lack of balance applies here. Though there are very few scientists who dispute these facts, the "balance" seems to give a much higher weight to the naysayers that seems warranted.
I disagree with your attempt to make the point that the science on Global Warming is not near concensus. In fact, the vast majority of climate scientists in the country do agree that global temperature is rising.
You may not be old enough to remember, but Republicans fought each and every new environmental law including the Clean Air act and the Clean Water act. I even believe it was during a Republican administration that we got the former--but the Republican majority did not support any of those, or the Endangered Species Act.
In short, this is just more of the same from Republicans: they fight anything that will cause them short-term expense.
Setting aside the question of whether humans cause Global Climate Change [which I accept], we cannot fall for the delusion that this would be good for us.
Why? Okay, around the world plants and animals have evolved to match their environment. Plants are located in the spots where they are because--overall--the climate at that location is appropriate for that plant or that animal. So, if we alter the climate on any timescale beyond a few millenia, all those plants and animals are suddenly not suited for the climate where they live. They die then. Have you ever heard of a thing called a Tree lie on a mountain? Well, that means the point at which trees are suited to their environemtn. The tree line is that place where suddenly the prevailing environment crosses a line where it no longer allows the trees. If we change the climate quickly--all those animals and plants and their evolutionary adaptations are screwed--dead.
Now, if you're someone who doesn't give a damn about the animals or the plants--fine. You of course won't mind the awakened tropical diseases and the insects that will flourish. That means mosquitos. Sound like a lot of fun?
In short, global warming will not be a benefit to anybody. The introduction of greater amounts of energy into the system is expected to make for more severe weather. Now, we were fortunate that hurricanes did not hit the US last year. Well, maybe the prevailing hurricanes would--for the sake of argument--no longer strike Florida, Louisiana or Texas. What, then, if they move North? Say to South Carolina. I'm just using that as a hypothetical example.
The overall point is that nobody should be foolish enough to think that global climate change somehow has an upside. It does not.
What the hell. What WOULD make you happy. The man has basically devoted his life for the past seven years to this problem. If he has introduced some inaccuracies in his movie--so what. The basic science and overall point is not in dispute. The vast majority of what he said in that movie was accurate and meaningful. And, if you read a daily newspaper you might have noticed that climate scientists have been surprised at the speed of the disintegration of the arctic, Greenland [as of 13 days ago, in fact] and antarctica.
What would you expect him to do? The point is not that he's a scientist doing original research--he's not and never claimed to be. The point is not the state and condition of climate science. The point is that Gore used his celebrity and powers of persuasion to raise the visiblity of this issue. You said:
"He also trades in certain mistruths (eg water levels rising) that lose all respect."
He's not teaching a graduate-level class in climate science, dude. He's trying to explain to Joe Sixpack why it's the concensus of the climate science community that we have a problem and that humans are a cause of it. I just find it amazing how people spend their energy whining about niggling issues that are not relevant. Where is your sense of proportion? Do you think that the generally insignificant inaccuracies in the movie proportionally outweigh the benefits of his message? If you say we lose respect--in whose eyes? The GOP? Who the fuck cares what they think? They never cared a damn about the environment--not ever. They just care about staying rich. If you think Gore is the problem--you're a fool.
I will gladly agree with you that Clinton did lie about Monica Lewinsky. However, I find it absurd that you do not mention GW Bush's lies that ended up getting us into this train wreck of a war? [The peace prize went to Gore and so you bringing Clinton into this has as much relevance as me bringing in Bush/]
Sir, your outrage is misguided. In the eyes of history--which will be written long after we are all dead--which lie do you think will seem more egregious?
A lie that caused embarrassment to everyone? [Clinton]
Or
A lie that caused the deaths of thousands of humans, both American and Iraqi?
I speak as someone who lives in Manhattan and travels by the World Trade Center site daily. Despite the deaths there, I find Bush's lies tremendously evil and counter productive. Notice I don't have a problem with Bush's war in Afganistan--that was justified. But Iraq? That was Bush finishing his Daddy's business. GW Bush will live in infamy for the rest of his life and beyond.
Let's see: your first point is about Mr Gore allegedly redefining words. Funny I read several daily newspapers and closely follow this issue and I have not been struck by Mr Gore attempting to redefine words. Is it really that important? More important that the underlying issue of Global Climate Change? Seems to me you're quibbling.
Your second point is merely about Bush and is showing your Republican leanings. So, you're an apologist for the Republicans? That's what's really important to you about this issue, that I may have defamed George Bush by implying that he did not win the presidency? Is that really your take away point from this? I am so bored with Republicans...
So you're worried about the poor, eh? Okay. How about Bangladesh. You should know that any rise in sea levels would innundate this country. Does that qualify as affecting the poor? You're for DDT. Have you not heard that the primary problem with DDT was its chemical resemblance to sex-selection hormones? I find it amazing to have to again convince people it's a dumb idea polluting the environement on which you depend.
You mention that others have said pollution is bad. So you think that's the sum total of what Mr. Gore has done? Mentioned pollution?
As for your insistence on hypothesis that can be tested--I totally agree. But speaking anecdotally, haven't you noticed a change in the weather over your lifetime? I have lived all over the United States and locals everywhere comment on the virtual disappearance of winter. Agreed, though, this is merely anecdotal evidence.
I agree that it sucks how this is going to affect poorer countries. But anything negative always affects the poor the worst. However, if the effects that are threatened by global warming happen, the poor will get the worst of that. I think this is the lesser of evils. Granted, we do not have a smoking gun on this issue, owing to the complexity of the science. Using that uncertainly as a reason to assume there is no problem is foolish. Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? If we reduce greenhouse gases, can't you see that as an opportunity for business to step in and sell products that fit that model? By the way, corporations are already taking global warming seriously.
I just find it despicable how Republicans and right-leaning Americans use this temporary scientific uncertainty as a justification that the problem is fictional. Funny how the GOP always spins anything that happens in a way that they can get even richer than they are. Funny how the Republicans always push the view that allows the business community that supports them to pollute without controls or abandon. Funny how that works.
Oh, I get it. Your problem is with semantics. So, dude, is it really that important? Is whining that the name of the award is not a perfect fit for his actions really that meaningful? Some here have noticed that Rush Limbaugh was up for this award. Would you have been so agitated if he won? I think not. No, you just don't like anything to do with the left and are still licking your wounds from 2006. Give it up dude. Have you not noticed that your president has a dismal approval rating? Go back in your hole and hug your Club For Growth blankie. The Republicans are rich people trying to stay rich. Either you are that or you are trying to make sure that you'll get yours when you do--theoretically--become rich. Republicans really don't care about anything about "getting theirs". Hopefully, 2008 will show America has learned its lesson in regard to the Greedy Old Parasites.
Slashdot Mirror
The Solar System is Dented! God damn it! That's the last time I let Voyager 2 borrow the Solar System. This is going to have to come out of Voyager 2's allowance!
This is just too funny. Microsoft is admitting that their previous software is crap. Well, they're preaching to the choir oin that one. A lot of us have already decided that MS = crap.
The truest sign that this DBA was none too bright? He admitted it!
Oh great. I have to match my wild-ass guess of a past time with the precise values I chose in my WAG. Sounds like a nightmare.
Some good news for a god-damn change. This is great. Hold the Bushies to the fire--make them sweat--let all their high crimes and misdemeanors come to light. Light the torches and throw the ropes over the trees--it's time to get jiggy with W.
Well, though intelligence is important, it is not the most important. That position would be held by creativity. And that ability is not something you can teach. It has to be developed based on curiosity and the ability to make many mistakes without giving up.
Recall that Thomas Edison needed to try 3,000 different filiment elements before he came up with carbonized bamboo. That's creativity. While the IT industry has seen rote tasks easily offshored, the design and invention is the hardest to offshore. Why? Because the Indian and Chinese cultures are not like the American one, which prizes invention and creativity.
So it is not enough to raise smart kids. You have to raise them to be creative risk takers. Failing that, you have a bunch of automatons.
Google wins again--they are so danged smart. They're not only getting a bunch of highschoolers into coding but they're orienting them to like Google. As if that were not already a done deal.
Can you say, Microsoft apologist?
Well, we've been here before. Another Me-too offering from the boys in Redmond. Next I'll be expecting them to come out with a new buggy whip. Is there anything of merit that originated in Redmond? I seriously doubt it. They have produced crap in every area they touch. Zune, anyone?
Yes, you're right and that's why we need the three branches of government. They are supposed to counterbalance each other. Therefore, the Bush administration and its attempt to create the "Unary Executive" is such an abomination. Bush & his cronies have attempted to marginalize the other two branches by withholding information and, essentially, being lying sacks of shit. Bush himself is a lying sack of shit. The man lies all the time and so I am against giving him or his successor the kind of power he wants. I have yet to hear anyone raise an argument against that point.
Why is it that everytime the US government asks for an increase in powers, they always deny that it will be abused. And I defy anyone to come up with an example of a federal power that was granted and NOT abused. Although I am a political liberal and I do think that government can provide a useful service, I feel that this type of invasive power is an example of government at its worst.
Well, we know how this will go. First M$ invests in them, and they start to suck. G'bye Facebook!
As a proud resident of cochroach-ridden New York City, I can report that the little devils are immune to everything but Boric Acid which--apparently--causes them to become constipated.
We've seen this crap before. Companies buy up their competitors only to bury the technology. If you can't bean 'em, buy 'em. You know--at best--Microsoft would be buying an open source company only for the purpose of closing the source and making money. There is just nothing good that can ever come from Microsoft. It has been too many decades of evil behavior by them to believe they have any altruistic purpose here.
I don't have time to dredge up the studies, frankly. However I would bet that you were more than willing to accept--for example--that Supply-Side Economics was valid without any such proof. That is speculation on my part but I would expect that you would--in keeping with the principle of cognitive dissonance--be much more willing to accept a point of view that coincides with your political bias. Of course the same could be said of me.
What do I do with my free time? Great question. Well, let's see, I have completed six novels and my most recent one is at an agent right now. I am professionally enaged at a high level in Manhattan and that requires that I study. Have never owned an type of video game. Haven't played any since junior high. I of course have read tons of books (your attention span begins to grow the longer you've been away from TV), and I also taught Java at various universities in the midwest. I also do a lot of oil painting. So--dude--if you quit watching TV and quit wasting your life on video games there really is a lot that you can do.
Think of it this way: at the end of your life are you going to wish you watched more episodes of Gilligan's Island?
Folks, If you are still watching TV in 2007, wake up. Most of the intelligent people that I know--self included--have quit wasting their lives in front of that machine. It's a waste of your life. They did a study once and found that an asleep person has more brain activity than one watching the boob tube. I quit watching it in 8th grade and my life has been much better for it.
I dispute your contention that there is NOT a scientific concensus that human-introduced greenhouse gases are the cause of the observed warming, but I accept that you will not be convinced on anything to do with global warming.
What I do take exception to is your creation of a false choice. So often, we see modern conservatives and Republicans using the built in sense of fairness in the media to their advantage. For example, I saw a report that showed that--although there is really no controversy in the scientific community--meaning that over 95% of climate scientiests in the world agree that human-caused climate change is underway. However, the same study found that newspapers including the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal all gave equal time to the two sides in their articles. While I grant that equal time seems fair and smart, in fact the lack of balance applies here. Though there are very few scientists who dispute these facts, the "balance" seems to give a much higher weight to the naysayers that seems warranted.
I disagree with your attempt to make the point that the science on Global Warming is not near concensus. In fact, the vast majority of climate scientists in the country do agree that global temperature is rising.
You may not be old enough to remember, but Republicans fought each and every new environmental law including the Clean Air act and the Clean Water act. I even believe it was during a Republican administration that we got the former--but the Republican majority did not support any of those, or the Endangered Species Act.
In short, this is just more of the same from Republicans: they fight anything that will cause them short-term expense.
Setting aside the question of whether humans cause Global Climate Change [which I accept], we cannot fall for the delusion that this would be good for us.
Why? Okay, around the world plants and animals have evolved to match their environment. Plants are located in the spots where they are because--overall--the climate at that location is appropriate for that plant or that animal. So, if we alter the climate on any timescale beyond a few millenia, all those plants and animals are suddenly not suited for the climate where they live. They die then. Have you ever heard of a thing called a Tree lie on a mountain? Well, that means the point at which trees are suited to their environemtn. The tree line is that place where suddenly the prevailing environment crosses a line where it no longer allows the trees. If we change the climate quickly--all those animals and plants and their evolutionary adaptations are screwed--dead.
Now, if you're someone who doesn't give a damn about the animals or the plants--fine. You of course won't mind the awakened tropical diseases and the insects that will flourish. That means mosquitos. Sound like a lot of fun?
In short, global warming will not be a benefit to anybody. The introduction of greater amounts of energy into the system is expected to make for more severe weather. Now, we were fortunate that hurricanes did not hit the US last year. Well, maybe the prevailing hurricanes would--for the sake of argument--no longer strike Florida, Louisiana or Texas. What, then, if they move North? Say to South Carolina. I'm just using that as a hypothetical example.
The overall point is that nobody should be foolish enough to think that global climate change somehow has an upside. It does not.
What the hell. What WOULD make you happy. The man has basically devoted his life for the past seven years to this problem. If he has introduced some inaccuracies in his movie--so what. The basic science and overall point is not in dispute. The vast majority of what he said in that movie was accurate and meaningful. And, if you read a daily newspaper you might have noticed that climate scientists have been surprised at the speed of the disintegration of the arctic, Greenland [as of 13 days ago, in fact] and antarctica.
What would you expect him to do? The point is not that he's a scientist doing original research--he's not and never claimed to be. The point is not the state and condition of climate science. The point is that Gore used his celebrity and powers of persuasion to raise the visiblity of this issue. You said:
"He also trades in certain mistruths (eg water levels rising) that lose all respect."
He's not teaching a graduate-level class in climate science, dude. He's trying to explain to Joe Sixpack why it's the concensus of the climate science community that we have a problem and that humans are a cause of it. I just find it amazing how people spend their energy whining about niggling issues that are not relevant. Where is your sense of proportion? Do you think that the generally insignificant inaccuracies in the movie proportionally outweigh the benefits of his message? If you say we lose respect--in whose eyes? The GOP? Who the fuck cares what they think? They never cared a damn about the environment--not ever. They just care about staying rich. If you think Gore is the problem--you're a fool.
I will gladly agree with you that Clinton did lie about Monica Lewinsky. However, I find it absurd that you do not mention GW Bush's lies that ended up getting us into this train wreck of a war? [The peace prize went to Gore and so you bringing Clinton into this has as much relevance as me bringing in Bush/] Sir, your outrage is misguided. In the eyes of history--which will be written long after we are all dead--which lie do you think will seem more egregious?
A lie that caused embarrassment to everyone? [Clinton]
Or
A lie that caused the deaths of thousands of humans, both American and Iraqi?
I speak as someone who lives in Manhattan and travels by the World Trade Center site daily. Despite the deaths there, I find Bush's lies tremendously evil and counter productive. Notice I don't have a problem with Bush's war in Afganistan--that was justified. But Iraq? That was Bush finishing his Daddy's business. GW Bush will live in infamy for the rest of his life and beyond.
Let's see: your first point is about Mr Gore allegedly redefining words. Funny I read several daily newspapers and closely follow this issue and I have not been struck by Mr Gore attempting to redefine words. Is it really that important? More important that the underlying issue of Global Climate Change? Seems to me you're quibbling. Your second point is merely about Bush and is showing your Republican leanings. So, you're an apologist for the Republicans? That's what's really important to you about this issue, that I may have defamed George Bush by implying that he did not win the presidency? Is that really your take away point from this? I am so bored with Republicans...
So you're worried about the poor, eh? Okay. How about Bangladesh. You should know that any rise in sea levels would innundate this country. Does that qualify as affecting the poor? You're for DDT. Have you not heard that the primary problem with DDT was its chemical resemblance to sex-selection hormones? I find it amazing to have to again convince people it's a dumb idea polluting the environement on which you depend.
You mention that others have said pollution is bad. So you think that's the sum total of what Mr. Gore has done? Mentioned pollution?
As for your insistence on hypothesis that can be tested--I totally agree. But speaking anecdotally, haven't you noticed a change in the weather over your lifetime? I have lived all over the United States and locals everywhere comment on the virtual disappearance of winter. Agreed, though, this is merely anecdotal evidence.
I agree that it sucks how this is going to affect poorer countries. But anything negative always affects the poor the worst. However, if the effects that are threatened by global warming happen, the poor will get the worst of that. I think this is the lesser of evils. Granted, we do not have a smoking gun on this issue, owing to the complexity of the science. Using that uncertainly as a reason to assume there is no problem is foolish. Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? If we reduce greenhouse gases, can't you see that as an opportunity for business to step in and sell products that fit that model? By the way, corporations are already taking global warming seriously.
I just find it despicable how Republicans and right-leaning Americans use this temporary scientific uncertainty as a justification that the problem is fictional. Funny how the GOP always spins anything that happens in a way that they can get even richer than they are. Funny how the Republicans always push the view that allows the business community that supports them to pollute without controls or abandon. Funny how that works.
Oh, I get it. Your problem is with semantics. So, dude, is it really that important? Is whining that the name of the award is not a perfect fit for his actions really that meaningful? Some here have noticed that Rush Limbaugh was up for this award. Would you have been so agitated if he won? I think not. No, you just don't like anything to do with the left and are still licking your wounds from 2006. Give it up dude. Have you not noticed that your president has a dismal approval rating? Go back in your hole and hug your Club For Growth blankie. The Republicans are rich people trying to stay rich. Either you are that or you are trying to make sure that you'll get yours when you do--theoretically--become rich. Republicans really don't care about anything about "getting theirs". Hopefully, 2008 will show America has learned its lesson in regard to the Greedy Old Parasites.