Re:Let's not forget synthetics...and politics...
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
Yes, one person who can't be bothered to comprehend a simple/. post knows more than an executive at the company, whom you have never met & have no knowledge of.
> we have found enough oil for 1 1/3 years! if that is a big find then we are fucked.
Are you truly that ignorant, or did you just decide to deny that he said anything else? It's not even in context.
1.3 years, IN ONE FIELD. ONE FUCKING FIELD. They find more than one field a year! If they find another the same size, or a combination of some to equal that size, once a year, the amount of known oil reserves GOES UP. Is that hard to understand?
I may not agree with Rei's sentiment overall, but shit, man, come up with an argument that MAKES SENSE. You're not helping at all by arguing things that aren't there.
You make very good points, which for the most part, I agree with. But when you say shit like:
> in her own selfish interest as well
It makes you pointedly one-sided and you begin to lose credibility as a reliable source of information, and instead look like a left-wing crackpot. If you had left off "-ish" & left the war thing out, it would have been as good a post as I have seen in a long while. The way it is now, you appear to be pushing an automatically anti-American agenda.
> The point I was trying to make is that you don't need cars/highways to have vibrant and fun places to live.
Sure, if we all moved to big cities. Unfortunately, that's not an option. The U.S. is too large & spread-out for public transportation to be realistic any time soon.
> Cartels like Major League baseball and monopolies like Microsoft do have price changes, of course
I have no knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of any oil cartel. That said, MLB & MS don't have the captive customer base that oil does. A good indication is the low turnout for baseball games. Ticket prices have gone up ridiculously and then they complain that no one is coming to see their games. Duh. MS's products are already so horribly overpriced that there's no point in any more price gouging. Regardless, there are alternatives to MS's product & they know that.
Gasoline, OTOH, is currently a necessity. People are FORCED to pay whatever the price is. People HAVE to get to work, to the grocery store, to the doctor's office. They HAVE to use the same amount of gasoline to get these places, otherwise their health suffers or they lose their job, at which point they can't afford any more gasoline -- again, not an option.
> WHAT we drive which is still just totally out of hand if you ask me.
Ah yes, the problem with freedom. Why is it that freedom of speech is still important when you disagree, but freedom of choice is only important when the purchaser agrees with you? Statements like yours keep us on the wrong track by insinuating yours is the only true answer. That's just another form of fascism.
I agree that nearly 100% of people who own those ridiculously large vehicles own them as status/"penis envy" symbols, and they are usually irresponsible, egotistical assholes, but just because I disagree with them does not mean they have to listen to me or even SHOULD listen to me.
> it certainly seems, from sunny Australia, to be a mainstream _American_ idea.
Then you are listening to a person with something to prove, instead of reality. I live in a VERY religious area and do not know a single person who believes that crap.
It is not a mainstream American idea, and it is not even a PREVELANT American idea. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, or lieing to push their faith onto you. Probably the second.
So you base your judgements of a religion or science based on the attitudes of ONE of its followers, rather than using your brain? Regardless of the conclusion you derive, that's extremely stupid.
> What I mean by "no value" is a very, very long story
Unless God is interventionist, he cannot change anything, so belief or nonbelief is irrelevant to the Earthly future? Or is it more complex/completely different than that?
> I can't understand this - I never could. How can people choose to believe something?
I also cannot understand how people choose to believe in God, but I think a basis for it is ignorance -- and I don't mean that in a condescending way. The universe is so amazingly complex & HUUUGE, we believe it may be infinite. We cannot grasp infinity, so people think if they can't explain it, it can't be explained -> *poof* God. Sure, it's a stretch, but so are subatomic particles.
> the purpose of existence is to smell fresh basil leaves, which i may have already mentioned, is a really pleasant thing to do.
Which, in a sense, is my "religion." Fresh Basil is pleasant. The purpose of existence, put simply, is procreation -- continuing the species. Past that, there is no point, so to derive anything from it, you must find or make pleasure. The point is to be comfortable, and if sniffing Basil is what makes you happy, you are living life to its fullest.
It's kind of ironic, however, that I am depressed. But I know that it's because I don't live life to its fullest, I make myself suffer in an office all day and at night I look at patterns of light on some plastic, metal, & glass boxes. I especially like the box that lets me manipulate the patterns, it's pretty cool. (what, like a lite-brite?)
> It seems sad, however, to imagine looking out at our beautiful world and see it as nothing more than the result of quamtum fluctuations, all sound and fury signifying nothing
So, if there is no God, you cannot feel awe for the amazing complexity and (perceived) efficiency? I'm atheist, but am still amazed by things, even though they are perfectly natural. Even when I understand the theory behind why a lightbulb works, I am still amazed that it does (when I choose to be mindful of such things). Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning.
>/earth is 98% full. move everyone you can to/luna or/mars
If it's only 98% full, the other 2% must be a vacuum. I wonder why the vacuum "bubble" has not collapsed on itself. Or maybe that's what earthquakes are...
> I'll leave the research into my assertion as an exercise for you.
You can, but I have never heard of anything, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to affirm what you already know, and what I already know -- that a lot of stories are based in reality, but are not a realistic reflections of it. Ignorant nomads trying to explain wierd shit they have seen. Sure, someone might be able to find a big boat on Mt. Sainai. I doubt very highly that it would be big enough to hold two (or seven, depending on which chapter of Genesis you are reading) of each animal on the planet. It is simply not true. It brings up a problem that I recently found in Mahayana Buddhist thought, according to the Dalai Lama: he stated that Buddhist texts that follow reason are to be taken as fact, and the ones that do not follow reason are to be taken as parable. How inconsistent is THAT? So I could just make blind statements, and they're all true, just maybe in different ways. I don't accept it as an excuse where I am currently studying, and I don't (and didn't) accept it as an excuse where I was before.
It's kind of funny, but his explanation of "reason" is not reasonable to my mind, which is another hangup. You find the Bible's whacked-out (IMO, of course) stories reasonble, while for the most part, I do not. We just have different ideas to base our reason off of. Yours relies more on faith of supernatural, and mine relies more on faith of observation (which, as you pointed out, we still cannot be sure of, but if we can't rely on observation, we cannot rely on anything.. AT... ALL...).
> There are very few (if any) instances of fiction being recorded prior to the greeks.
That couldn't have anything to do with the lack of an abundant recording material, like paper...? What if Tolkien had to write LotR on stone tablet. First off, he'd have had huge forearms, and secondly, it would probably be a lot shorter. He may have even been less likely to record it at all, instead telling it as a story himself. Stories were probably passed on by word, which could explain many inaccuracies in historical documents (stories, existence of dinosaurs, etc).
> How can you prove J.R.R.Tolkien existed?
Hell, I can't prove YOU exist, but I can go to a gravesite that says he is buried there. There are also books that have supposedly been written by him and there are people that claim to be his family that say he existed & wrote them. I don't know if I ever read anything about Tolkien in a book, no, although I understand what you mean. I have probably read about him in a magazine, which is close enough. The magazine, however, has editors which check it for inaccuracies. The Bible has people assigned to make sure you believe exactly what is written. Changing the people to believe wrong info, rather than change the info to reflect the truth.
The problem is, I have to have some reasonable evidence before assuming something exists. I have quite a bit of evidence that he wrote a book or ten. I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence that God has done a damn thing, let alone, exists at all.
> The joke falls under the category flamebait/funny [+1].
It's flamebait if it's to incite an individual's ire. In this case, the only thing that could be perceived to be even slightly offensive to anyone at all is the mention of drag queen, which isn't at all the "butt" of the joke, just a participant.
The kernel itself, yes, of course it is. Amateur project != bad quality, however, so many professionals use the "Amateur kernel" in professional projects, due to its high quality.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, one person who can't be bothered to comprehend a simple /. post knows more than an executive at the company, whom you have never met & have no knowledge of.
> we have found enough oil for 1 1/3 years! if that is a big find then we are fucked.
Are you truly that ignorant, or did you just decide to deny that he said anything else? It's not even in context.
1.3 years, IN ONE FIELD. ONE FUCKING FIELD. They find more than one field a year! If they find another the same size, or a combination of some to equal that size, once a year, the amount of known oil reserves GOES UP. Is that hard to understand?
I may not agree with Rei's sentiment overall, but shit, man, come up with an argument that MAKES SENSE. You're not helping at all by arguing things that aren't there.
You make very good points, which for the most part, I agree with. But when you say shit like:
> in her own selfish interest as well
It makes you pointedly one-sided and you begin to lose credibility as a reliable source of information, and instead look like a left-wing crackpot. If you had left off "-ish" & left the war thing out, it would have been as good a post as I have seen in a long while. The way it is now, you appear to be pushing an automatically anti-American agenda.
> The point I was trying to make is that you don't need cars/highways to have vibrant and fun places to live.
Sure, if we all moved to big cities. Unfortunately, that's not an option. The U.S. is too large & spread-out for public transportation to be realistic any time soon.
> Cartels like Major League baseball and monopolies like Microsoft do have price changes, of course
I have no knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of any oil cartel. That said, MLB & MS don't have the captive customer base that oil does. A good indication is the low turnout for baseball games. Ticket prices have gone up ridiculously and then they complain that no one is coming to see their games. Duh. MS's products are already so horribly overpriced that there's no point in any more price gouging. Regardless, there are alternatives to MS's product & they know that.
Gasoline, OTOH, is currently a necessity. People are FORCED to pay whatever the price is. People HAVE to get to work, to the grocery store, to the doctor's office. They HAVE to use the same amount of gasoline to get these places, otherwise their health suffers or they lose their job, at which point they can't afford any more gasoline -- again, not an option.
Captive customers.
> WHAT we drive which is still just totally out of hand if you ask me.
Ah yes, the problem with freedom. Why is it that freedom of speech is still important when you disagree, but freedom of choice is only important when the purchaser agrees with you? Statements like yours keep us on the wrong track by insinuating yours is the only true answer. That's just another form of fascism.
I agree that nearly 100% of people who own those ridiculously large vehicles own them as status/"penis envy" symbols, and they are usually irresponsible, egotistical assholes, but just because I disagree with them does not mean they have to listen to me or even SHOULD listen to me.
Free will is a beeyotch.
> Austria: There are no kangaroos in our country
Don't you have any zoos?
> Did their God teleport them or something?
Well, since Earth is only 6000 years old, it was Pangea (all land was a single continent) at the time, so they walked there.
> [Fossils] can appear fairly quickly. google for mt st helens fossils and judge for yourself.
I can't find a single link that has any resemblance to your theory. Can you be a bit more specific?
> Otherwise it's 2000 years worth of hearsay.
Hearsay is Heresy! Of course, so is the truth, sometimes.
> it certainly seems, from sunny Australia, to be a mainstream _American_ idea.
Then you are listening to a person with something to prove, instead of reality. I live in a VERY religious area and do not know a single person who believes that crap.
It is not a mainstream American idea, and it is not even a PREVELANT American idea. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, or lieing to push their faith onto you. Probably the second.
> I'll take parent's view based on that, any day.
So you base your judgements of a religion or science based on the attitudes of ONE of its followers, rather than using your brain? Regardless of the conclusion you derive, that's extremely stupid.
> What I mean by "no value" is a very, very long story
Unless God is interventionist, he cannot change anything, so belief or nonbelief is irrelevant to the Earthly future? Or is it more complex/completely different than that?
> your words is a quaint example of correlation without causation.
He didn't say it was causation, just a probable indicator, which certainly IS scientific.
> He has been so unforthcoming about releasing the Source Code
True, but at least he gave us the tools to reverse-engineer it (intelligence).
> I can't understand this - I never could. How can people choose to believe something?
I also cannot understand how people choose to believe in God, but I think a basis for it is ignorance -- and I don't mean that in a condescending way. The universe is so amazingly complex & HUUUGE, we believe it may be infinite. We cannot grasp infinity, so people think if they can't explain it, it can't be explained -> *poof* God. Sure, it's a stretch, but so are subatomic particles.
> the purpose of existence is to smell fresh basil leaves, which i may have already mentioned, is a really pleasant thing to do.
Which, in a sense, is my "religion." Fresh Basil is pleasant. The purpose of existence, put simply, is procreation -- continuing the species. Past that, there is no point, so to derive anything from it, you must find or make pleasure. The point is to be comfortable, and if sniffing Basil is what makes you happy, you are living life to its fullest.
It's kind of ironic, however, that I am depressed. But I know that it's because I don't live life to its fullest, I make myself suffer in an office all day and at night I look at patterns of light on some plastic, metal, & glass boxes. I especially like the box that lets me manipulate the patterns, it's pretty cool. (what, like a lite-brite?)
> Oddly enough if you don't care whether god exists or not you are a budhist.
It takes a hell of a lot more than that to be a true Buddhist. It that was it, I'd be a monk already.
> It seems sad, however, to imagine looking out at our beautiful world and see it as nothing more than the result of quamtum fluctuations, all sound and fury signifying nothing
So, if there is no God, you cannot feel awe for the amazing complexity and (perceived) efficiency? I'm atheist, but am still amazed by things, even though they are perfectly natural. Even when I understand the theory behind why a lightbulb works, I am still amazed that it does (when I choose to be mindful of such things). Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning.
> /earth is 98% full. move everyone you can to /luna or /mars
If it's only 98% full, the other 2% must be a vacuum. I wonder why the vacuum "bubble" has not collapsed on itself. Or maybe that's what earthquakes are...
> (It can only alloctae whole pages, though)
I don't know if this makes a difference in any way, but this chip would set NX on whole pages as well.
> I'll leave the research into my assertion as an exercise for you.
You can, but I have never heard of anything, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to affirm what you already know, and what I already know -- that a lot of stories are based in reality, but are not a realistic reflections of it. Ignorant nomads trying to explain wierd shit they have seen. Sure, someone might be able to find a big boat on Mt. Sainai. I doubt very highly that it would be big enough to hold two (or seven, depending on which chapter of Genesis you are reading) of each animal on the planet. It is simply not true.
It brings up a problem that I recently found in Mahayana Buddhist thought, according to the Dalai Lama: he stated that Buddhist texts that follow reason are to be taken as fact, and the ones that do not follow reason are to be taken as parable. How inconsistent is THAT? So I could just make blind statements, and they're all true, just maybe in different ways. I don't accept it as an excuse where I am currently studying, and I don't (and didn't) accept it as an excuse where I was before.
It's kind of funny, but his explanation of "reason" is not reasonable to my mind, which is another hangup. You find the Bible's whacked-out (IMO, of course) stories reasonble, while for the most part, I do not. We just have different ideas to base our reason off of. Yours relies more on faith of supernatural, and mine relies more on faith of observation (which, as you pointed out, we still cannot be sure of, but if we can't rely on observation, we cannot rely on anything.. AT... ALL...).
> There are very few (if any) instances of fiction being recorded prior to the greeks.
That couldn't have anything to do with the lack of an abundant recording material, like paper...? What if Tolkien had to write LotR on stone tablet. First off, he'd have had huge forearms, and secondly, it would probably be a lot shorter. He may have even been less likely to record it at all, instead telling it as a story himself. Stories were probably passed on by word, which could explain many inaccuracies in historical documents (stories, existence of dinosaurs, etc).
> How can you prove J.R.R.Tolkien existed?
Hell, I can't prove YOU exist, but I can go to a gravesite that says he is buried there. There are also books that have supposedly been written by him and there are people that claim to be his family that say he existed & wrote them. I don't know if I ever read anything about Tolkien in a book, no, although I understand what you mean. I have probably read about him in a magazine, which is close enough. The magazine, however, has editors which check it for inaccuracies. The Bible has people assigned to make sure you believe exactly what is written. Changing the people to believe wrong info, rather than change the info to reflect the truth.
The problem is, I have to have some reasonable evidence before assuming something exists. I have quite a bit of evidence that he wrote a book or ten. I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence that God has done a damn thing, let alone, exists at all.
> The joke falls under the category flamebait/funny [+1].
It's flamebait if it's to incite an individual's ire. In this case, the only thing that could be perceived to be even slightly offensive to anyone at all is the mention of drag queen, which isn't at all the "butt" of the joke, just a participant.
> what the hell, I can't get MORE spam, can I?
That's like saying "Matrix 3 CAN'T get worse than Matrix 2, can it?"
> So the linux kernel is an amateur project?
The kernel itself, yes, of course it is. Amateur project != bad quality, however, so many professionals use the "Amateur kernel" in professional projects, due to its high quality.
> Threads like this make me smile in the mornings.
But in the afternoon, I just shake my head -- the morning coffee effect is long gone.