*sigh* I'm not getting into a debate with you. Sure, feel free to think "oh, he won't debate me, I'm right, I win", I don't care. I posted my view of 'Global Warming' in a calm, concise way to, hopefully, make it clear that the question/thought I posed about Gore's Nobel Prize was a legitimate one and that I wasn't simply trolling and hating on Gore.
However, in the context of my original post the " 'Global Warming' crowd" is whomever shows up at the "trial" in favor of 'Global Warming' and opposes the group of businesses that is, quite clearly, only pulling this stunt as a poor attempt to save face and skew perceptions to their benefit - it's almost purely for economic gain. I think it's a joke and something like this has no place in a court of law.
Assuming this is done fairly (insert groan of 'yeah right' - I doubt either side will play fair) and this goes against the 'Global Warming' crowd - I wonder what impact, if any, this would have on Al Gore's Nobel Prize for all the work on 'Global Warming'.
I, personally, believe *most* of the 'Global Warming' rhetoric is nonsense and there simply isn't enough data to support Humans are the primary cause of any major changes and that the 'science' fails to take a lot of other things into account. But that's just my opinion, I'm not an expert nor do I claim to be. That does *not* mean I support destroying the environment!
What do you think this is, some kind of democracy?
No, it's not and it never has been. The United States of America is (for now) and has always been a Constitutional Republic. It shares elements with Democracy, and your average American would say we live in a Democracy, but we don't and this country never has been one.
Funny enough, they actually did get into the fallout from the Death Star II's explosion in Star Wars Galaxies. "Funny" because practically after release they started screwing things up...
Shootin' blanks is never fun. Your wife gets all pissy cause you can't have kids, gotta drink herbal teas to boost your count, you feel like less of a man... Wait, what were we talking about again?
And yes "relatively rare" means rare relative to other things. Carbon is just about the most abundant element you touch, but it is "relatively rare" compared to water, for example.
That's like saying this 20 year old car is "relatively new"......as compared to the Model T. To say that it is 'relatively rare' is to suggest that it actually IS, in some fashion, rare. It's not. You'll find it in every active star in the Universe. You'll find it in every (known) living organism. Explain how it's in any way 'rare'. Its ratio to Carbon is only 3:1 (favor Carbon), that's not rare. But yes, compared to the most abundant elements in the universe (Hydrogen and Helium), it's "relatively rare". However on EARTH Helium, the second most abundant element in the universe, is 'relatively rare' compared to Nitrogen.
Your definition of "relatively rare" is a bit off. And I quote: "Nitrogen is the largest single constituent of the Earth's atmosphere (78.082% by volume of dry air, 75.3% by weight in dry air). It is created by fusion processes in stars, and is estimated to be the 7th most abundant chemical element by mass in the universe." But sure, if you wanna go with 'rare'.
And I hate to tell you this, not all environments, chemical or otherwise, were created by supernovae. Do you really believe that our sun went nova in order to create our solar system? Please, take an astronomy class that covers the life cycle of stars and the effects of their creation.
The irony is, that is *exactly* why they'll continue to allow the US to monitor the data. Why do it themselves, then the US will do it for them, on their own dime and time, and take the 'big brother' stigma freely? "Well shit son, if you WANT to stick your head in the lion's mouth, okie dokie hoss, have at'er"
I wish I could mod you up. That's a rather interesting take that I'd never considered before - and I have to say, I think it would work, at least a little bit. No sales and no activity on the boards might just get across the concept of 'no interest' to some of these companies. Unfortunately, however, that only works with crappy games. It would never work for something like Sims 3 - too much 'average user' interest.
First of all, the Boston Tea Party was not *just* because of 'taxation without representation', but we'll skip over that. In that case it was CITIZENS being taxed unfairly and, they felt, unconstitutionally. That situation is not comparable to the issue brought up here, as we're discussing non-citizens paying taxes. It's apples to oranges - overused but apt in this case.
Out of curiosity. You seem to suggest that green card holders should be afforded the right to vote (though I could be mistaken) - why? They aren't citizens, they shouldn't have full rights of a citizen. They have several paths towards becoming citizens, and rightfully so. On another note - the tea party held in the, then, colonies wasn't because those people weren't citizens and not allowed rights, it was because they WERE citizens of Britain and STILL getting crapped upon.
I loved SWG, the original SWG. Sure it didn't *completely* have that Star Wars feel because of all the stuff they left out originally (vehicles, access to space, etc) - but it was fun, I thought. Then they introduced Jedi/Force Sensitives...then the Combate Update...then the 'New Game Experience'. Killed the game. Turned it into a bastardized WoW want to be that sucked.
You really did just jump right into the troll didn't you, without bothering to read the rest of the posts above. I use the internet and the world wide web for work - email, IM, tele-presence, Google searches as needed, the whole nine years. You must also have completely missed the 2-3 times I said the interet and web are EXTREMELY useful tools (and time sinks), both for businesses and personal use. However, my point you seem to be almost intentionally missing, is that you DO NOT NEED the internet/web. There ARE other, completely viable technologies out there - they just aren't as instantaneous as you'd like. The other point was that access to the internet/web is NOT a right. You are no more entitled to access than you are to cable television or a car. You're allowed to have these things unfettered, yes, but you are not *entitled*, they are not *rights*. There is nothing, in ANY constitution on the planet that grants these things to you as basic rights.
I *completely* agree that it is extremely useful, convenient, and practical to have - everyone should have the internet, if for no other purpose than a 'what if' scenario. My point was that it is not a right, as was claimed to be. Prisoners in jail are not entitled to internet access, nor should they be. If it were a 'right', the ACLU would be bitching up a storm on an hourly basis (instead of just daily).
I couldn't care less if you, or anyone else, is like me - exactly or not. If you'd bothered to read and comprehend my posts before trolling, you'd realize that I had two key points: 1) internet access is NOT a right, by any means, and 2) internet access is NOT required for daily life. Need a document - ever hear of a fax machine or same day mail? Need to talk to someone - neat invention called a telephone. That is NOT to say the internet isn't required to do one's job, in some cases - but by and large, most people do not need internet access to do their jobs, it's just super useful. I never, not once, said the internet isn't useful - it's *exceptionally* useful and very, very convenient.
Are you, literally, going to die if you don't have internet access? Do you need net access to do your job (reading/. at work is not 'needing' it to do your job) No? Then you don't NEED internet access.
*rolls eyes* Obviously you're an idiot. I *easily* go days without checking my personal email and check work email only because I'm required to do so. Then there's the weekend trips out of town, the week long vacations 2-3 times a year - all without net access. Maybe if you unplugged once in a while, got out of your mom's basement, you'd find it easier to not check your email every 10 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
*sigh* I'm not getting into a debate with you. Sure, feel free to think "oh, he won't debate me, I'm right, I win", I don't care. I posted my view of 'Global Warming' in a calm, concise way to, hopefully, make it clear that the question/thought I posed about Gore's Nobel Prize was a legitimate one and that I wasn't simply trolling and hating on Gore.
However, in the context of my original post the " 'Global Warming' crowd" is whomever shows up at the "trial" in favor of 'Global Warming' and opposes the group of businesses that is, quite clearly, only pulling this stunt as a poor attempt to save face and skew perceptions to their benefit - it's almost purely for economic gain. I think it's a joke and something like this has no place in a court of law.
It is true that the US is the last best hope of humanity
We're Babylon 5 now? Seriously people, my Inbox is broken, I'm not getting memos...
Assuming this is done fairly (insert groan of 'yeah right' - I doubt either side will play fair) and this goes against the 'Global Warming' crowd - I wonder what impact, if any, this would have on Al Gore's Nobel Prize for all the work on 'Global Warming'. I, personally, believe *most* of the 'Global Warming' rhetoric is nonsense and there simply isn't enough data to support Humans are the primary cause of any major changes and that the 'science' fails to take a lot of other things into account. But that's just my opinion, I'm not an expert nor do I claim to be. That does *not* mean I support destroying the environment!
What do you think this is, some kind of democracy?
No, it's not and it never has been. The United States of America is (for now) and has always been a Constitutional Republic. It shares elements with Democracy, and your average American would say we live in a Democracy, but we don't and this country never has been one.
Funny enough, they actually did get into the fallout from the Death Star II's explosion in Star Wars Galaxies. "Funny" because practically after release they started screwing things up...
The worm called for takeout. Haven't you seen Robot Chicken?
We'll end up slashdotting /.
Boiler Up, baby!
Yeees. That's not bashing at *all*
Shootin' blanks is never fun. Your wife gets all pissy cause you can't have kids, gotta drink herbal teas to boost your count, you feel like less of a man... Wait, what were we talking about again?
That's like saying this 20 year old car is "relatively new"......as compared to the Model T. To say that it is 'relatively rare' is to suggest that it actually IS, in some fashion, rare. It's not. You'll find it in every active star in the Universe. You'll find it in every (known) living organism. Explain how it's in any way 'rare'. Its ratio to Carbon is only 3:1 (favor Carbon), that's not rare. But yes, compared to the most abundant elements in the universe (Hydrogen and Helium), it's "relatively rare". However on EARTH Helium, the second most abundant element in the universe, is 'relatively rare' compared to Nitrogen.
Your definition of "relatively rare" is a bit off. And I quote: "Nitrogen is the largest single constituent of the Earth's atmosphere (78.082% by volume of dry air, 75.3% by weight in dry air). It is created by fusion processes in stars, and is estimated to be the 7th most abundant chemical element by mass in the universe." But sure, if you wanna go with 'rare'. And I hate to tell you this, not all environments, chemical or otherwise, were created by supernovae. Do you really believe that our sun went nova in order to create our solar system? Please, take an astronomy class that covers the life cycle of stars and the effects of their creation.
I'm on board for a reboot of Privateer, Wing Commander, and X-Com!!
The irony is, that is *exactly* why they'll continue to allow the US to monitor the data. Why do it themselves, then the US will do it for them, on their own dime and time, and take the 'big brother' stigma freely? "Well shit son, if you WANT to stick your head in the lion's mouth, okie dokie hoss, have at'er"
Playing a game you've illegally downloaded is.
I wish I could mod you up. That's a rather interesting take that I'd never considered before - and I have to say, I think it would work, at least a little bit. No sales and no activity on the boards might just get across the concept of 'no interest' to some of these companies. Unfortunately, however, that only works with crappy games. It would never work for something like Sims 3 - too much 'average user' interest.
First of all, the Boston Tea Party was not *just* because of 'taxation without representation', but we'll skip over that. In that case it was CITIZENS being taxed unfairly and, they felt, unconstitutionally. That situation is not comparable to the issue brought up here, as we're discussing non-citizens paying taxes. It's apples to oranges - overused but apt in this case.
Out of curiosity. You seem to suggest that green card holders should be afforded the right to vote (though I could be mistaken) - why? They aren't citizens, they shouldn't have full rights of a citizen. They have several paths towards becoming citizens, and rightfully so. On another note - the tea party held in the, then, colonies wasn't because those people weren't citizens and not allowed rights, it was because they WERE citizens of Britain and STILL getting crapped upon.
I loved SWG, the original SWG. Sure it didn't *completely* have that Star Wars feel because of all the stuff they left out originally (vehicles, access to space, etc) - but it was fun, I thought. Then they introduced Jedi/Force Sensitives...then the Combate Update...then the 'New Game Experience'. Killed the game. Turned it into a bastardized WoW want to be that sucked.
You mean "dying", right? Or are the tigers getting cast and molds made of themselves?
You really did just jump right into the troll didn't you, without bothering to read the rest of the posts above. I use the internet and the world wide web for work - email, IM, tele-presence, Google searches as needed, the whole nine years. You must also have completely missed the 2-3 times I said the interet and web are EXTREMELY useful tools (and time sinks), both for businesses and personal use. However, my point you seem to be almost intentionally missing, is that you DO NOT NEED the internet/web. There ARE other, completely viable technologies out there - they just aren't as instantaneous as you'd like. The other point was that access to the internet/web is NOT a right. You are no more entitled to access than you are to cable television or a car. You're allowed to have these things unfettered, yes, but you are not *entitled*, they are not *rights*. There is nothing, in ANY constitution on the planet that grants these things to you as basic rights.
I *completely* agree that it is extremely useful, convenient, and practical to have - everyone should have the internet, if for no other purpose than a 'what if' scenario. My point was that it is not a right, as was claimed to be. Prisoners in jail are not entitled to internet access, nor should they be. If it were a 'right', the ACLU would be bitching up a storm on an hourly basis (instead of just daily).
I couldn't care less if you, or anyone else, is like me - exactly or not. If you'd bothered to read and comprehend my posts before trolling, you'd realize that I had two key points: 1) internet access is NOT a right, by any means, and 2) internet access is NOT required for daily life. Need a document - ever hear of a fax machine or same day mail? Need to talk to someone - neat invention called a telephone. That is NOT to say the internet isn't required to do one's job, in some cases - but by and large, most people do not need internet access to do their jobs, it's just super useful. I never, not once, said the internet isn't useful - it's *exceptionally* useful and very, very convenient.
Are you, literally, going to die if you don't have internet access? Do you need net access to do your job (reading /. at work is not 'needing' it to do your job) No? Then you don't NEED internet access.
*rolls eyes* Obviously you're an idiot. I *easily* go days without checking my personal email and check work email only because I'm required to do so. Then there's the weekend trips out of town, the week long vacations 2-3 times a year - all without net access. Maybe if you unplugged once in a while, got out of your mom's basement, you'd find it easier to not check your email every 10 minutes.