I've told my family I would be willing to go on a one-way mission to Mars. Providing I'm the first to do it, not the twentieth or so. And providing that they are given a house and my daughter's education is paid through college.
So I wouldn't do it if it left my family destitute, but otherwise, what's the problem with this choice?
No, the term "denier" has been used for years now, lumping skeptics in with those who deny the Holocaust. I'd say that in that frame of reference, alarmist nazis is a logical choice for a group that wants its opponents to vanish.
Wow, you really are following me around this story, aren't you? How many more of my posts are you going to comment on, Mr. AC Stalker?
As to your incorrect claim, there are hundreds of scientists who disagree with the AGW theory. You conveniently ignore them, because of who signs their paychecks. Here you pretend they don't even exist. You can't decide who is a scientist and who isn't. You can only deny their existence because it doesn't fit your belief system.
Do you post similar responses to everyone who uses the term "denier"?
After all, you read one of my other posts with the "global warming alarmist" bit, and came to this one to respond to. You think you're being clever, or whatever, but honestly it is just weak.
As to your actual claim here, I see plenty of posts from the AGW side of this issue that do no more than call names, or disparage anyone who tries to address the real points of contention in the process of the science.
Yet the scientists who "poke holes" in the AGW theory are accused of being nothing more than shills for big oil and other corporations. Then their reputation is smeared to keep them from making any other future objections, such as what Karmashock has alleged. And you have similarly smeared him, with no cause at all other than you don't want him to have a voice.
So, wanting to avoid that fate, other scientists have decided to ignore the issue, or join the 'winning team', whether they believe it or not.
You are proving his point beautifully. Sad as that is.
I like how someone described the Libertarians a few years ago.
"I'd support the Libertarians, if they weren't all a bunch of whiny, bible-thumping, tax-dodgers."
Despite accepting that as a generally accurate description, I support the Libertarian ideals. But I have never voted for anyone with an 'L' after their name, and can't say if I ever will.
Well, let's see if I can figure out what you mean. Your post I responded to was this:
Damn right! The republicans are always clamoring for "limited" government. We should hold them to it.
This is usually the rallying cry for liberals/leftists/Democrats/whatever-label-you-choose-to-use.
There are many similar posts across all the blogs and message boards I read. The general sense one gets from reading similar posts is that the person (I will use the label "liberal" hereafter, but see the list above) wishes the Republicans would act according to their stated interest in small government. However that liberal also realizes that in the real world, the Republicans are pushing for a larger and stronger government, both at the federal and state levels. So, the interpretation is that the liberal would support a bona fide conservative-small-government Republican, at least in the sense of honestly debating him and recognizing his right to his own beliefs even though they are different than the liberal's beliefs.
Therefore, I posted the rhetorical question:
So you support the Tea Party and Libertarian wings of the Republican party, right?
I then assumed you response would be in the negative, and give my response to that:
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Now, why (you may ask yourself) am I so sure of your answer, having only seen a few of your posts here on Slashdot? How can I presume to know what is in your heart? That is explained in the next sentence of my initial post.
You guys are so predictable.
Again, I have seen your rhetoric in many forums from many users, and have analyzed what it actually means. The analysis is based on actually drawing out further statements from the liberal posters, and also using statements liberal posters made in other threads within a forum.
From reading several posts of yours, to ascertain if I happened to overlook something in your initial post above, I have confirmed you fall in line with the common liberal ranter who bemoan the lack of 'genuine conservatives' in the Republican party. You can't stand the fact that 'genuine conservatives' exist. Actually, you don't accept the fact that genuine conservatives exist. You feel they are all fakes who want to use the government to discriminate against your recognized protected classes.
Now, you may be assuming that I place all liberals into the same category, but that isn't the case. I have conversed with many liberals who do not use this false sincerity gambit. Some of them do genuinely wish there were more 'loyal opposition' in the Republican party, as opposed to power-grubbing weasels. They actually want people who don't share their views to be represented. Other liberals don't want any genuine conservative at all in elected office, and state it clearly. They hate the fact that people who have power to make law don't think exactly like they do. Of those two groups, my view of government is in line with the first one, and you have shown in many posts that your view is line with the second one.
This is the root of why I said I have no idea why my nickname, I'm New Around Here, is appropriate. Despite the sound of it, I have been having these discussions with people from all political and social backgrounds for a couple decades. I can tell when someone is being sincere, which most people are. I certainly have your angle figured out. It's the same as the last half dozen people I've told basically the same thing to over the years. Both online, and in real life.
Really, I'm not even telling it to you, since you know all this. I'm actually telling everyone who reads your posts what you will act like in your discussions. Some of them actually believe you are sincere in your desire to have genuine conservative, small-government Republicans elected to office. They will spend a lot of time debating you, only to have you throw their arguments away and call them racists and b
It's not like we are outraged that something in Linux doesn't work quite right. Or that something has never worked quite right. And it certainly isn't something that a 'special interest group' wants added. It was a previously-working feature that was broken for some reason. The/.er that wrote the original story was very candid and reserved, considering the personal nature of what he was addressing.
And the response were "well, that's free software for you", "fix it yourself" "the rms says blahblahblah", and "derp".
We know the first two or three posts are going to be trolls, generally, but every single response was either crap or simply unhelpful overall. If we have to specifically bring geek-shaming into the discussion, I'll do it. It's not like my karma matters when rent is due.
It should be the job of whoever made the change that broke the system a year ago.
We defend Linus going postal on someone for breaking the user interface about music (or whatever that was last year), but are supposed to accept some douche breaking the ability of handicapped people to use their keyboard?? That's fucked up, with no pulling the punches.
I've used Linux various times over the years, and my daughter's laptop has Linux Mint on it. I'm not a programmer or Linux guru, and have never claimed I was. I also don't particularly like how some in the the disabled community have subverted the Americans With Disabilities Act. But I will call bullshit on this type of bullshit every time.
That aspect did occur to me. But the few who seemed genuinely sincere in support of Linux were not any more helpful than the ones who were simply trolling. Only zombie and roc were supportive in a meaningful way. And when I initally saw the article, there were only 8 messages. It went up to 13 when I refreshed the display for more accuracy. Spitzak finally linked to the patch and showed that it was being committed to git, but his initial post, which I saw as I was typing my own post, only showed that there was a bug report. We knew there was a bug report; that's what the story is about.
So, all that fueled my feeling of disgust in the Linux community, and led to my post.
Anyway, thanks for the honest response/challenge. It's good to keep people's feet to the fire.
Even that poster, spitzak, calls the process he went through "painful", and the lack of completion "shocking". I glad the patch is available, and am happy that the people who really need it will be able to get it after upgrading from their unsupported versions of software they been forced to use because of the issue.
By the way, he posted one minute before I did. So while I was typing and previewing my post. And after I refreshed my screen before typing my post, to be more accurate. Don't make it seem like I was half a day behind.
Hi Zombie. Your posts were in the group that wasn't "unhelpful drivel". Sorry if you thought I was attacking you.
My share of outrage grew as I was reading the initial responses, quoting Stallman and saying 'go fix it yourself'. I refreshed the screen before posting, to get an accurate count, and saw your responses then.
I thought about specifying the ones that were or weren't drivel, but decided it would dilute the message, and after 30 more minutes, no one would know which were in those initial groups.
Anyhow, I also have no way to help the situation directly, but hope my geek shaming has a beneficial effect overall.
Slashdot Mirror
I've told my family I would be willing to go on a one-way mission to Mars. Providing I'm the first to do it, not the twentieth or so. And providing that they are given a house and my daughter's education is paid through college.
So I wouldn't do it if it left my family destitute, but otherwise, what's the problem with this choice?
No, the term "denier" has been used for years now, lumping skeptics in with those who deny the Holocaust. I'd say that in that frame of reference, alarmist nazis is a logical choice for a group that wants its opponents to vanish.
Wow, you really are following me around this story, aren't you? How many more of my posts are you going to comment on, Mr. AC Stalker?
As to your incorrect claim, there are hundreds of scientists who disagree with the AGW theory. You conveniently ignore them, because of who signs their paychecks. Here you pretend they don't even exist. You can't decide who is a scientist and who isn't. You can only deny their existence because it doesn't fit your belief system.
Do you post similar responses to everyone who uses the term "denier"?
After all, you read one of my other posts with the "global warming alarmist" bit, and came to this one to respond to. You think you're being clever, or whatever, but honestly it is just weak.
As to your actual claim here, I see plenty of posts from the AGW side of this issue that do no more than call names, or disparage anyone who tries to address the real points of contention in the process of the science.
What? Why do you want to look under the bumper of the car tailgating you?
Not on MY Slashdot, you fascist bastard.
Personally I would have saved several bikes and skate boards over the years.
The rest of us learned to put our toys away after playing. And also learned not to put our toys behind cars parked in the driveway.
As to your friend, we can all sympathize, yet still feel this is not the solution to the problem.
Wow, a brand new system of GPS has a higher resolution than one that has been in use for a couple decades. That surely proves the earth is heating up.
Unfortunately, the pseudo-scientific types are on both sides of this issue. And they all have mod points.
Yet the scientists who "poke holes" in the AGW theory are accused of being nothing more than shills for big oil and other corporations. Then their reputation is smeared to keep them from making any other future objections, such as what Karmashock has alleged. And you have similarly smeared him, with no cause at all other than you don't want him to have a voice.
So, wanting to avoid that fate, other scientists have decided to ignore the issue, or join the 'winning team', whether they believe it or not.
You are proving his point beautifully. Sad as that is.
They're all cowards! Let them flee back to their mothers' bosoms and feel protected.
Real geeks love a good fight over scientific interpretations. ;^)
What you're seeing is weather, not climate.
Now, if it continues like that for another ten-fifteen years, our models were wrong and you'll see me running in the street, celebrating.
Wasn't that what the AGW alarmists said back in the 90's, and then kept adding years to it as the warming trend "paused" for the last 18 years?
Again, thanks for proving my point of your real intent.
I like how someone described the Libertarians a few years ago.
"I'd support the Libertarians, if they weren't all a bunch of whiny, bible-thumping, tax-dodgers."
Despite accepting that as a generally accurate description, I support the Libertarian ideals. But I have never voted for anyone with an 'L' after their name, and can't say if I ever will.
You make a good point or two. But if you think a little talk is going to make me feel better, ... just kidding. It helps quell the rage. ;^)
Hope your hospital stay goes well.
I'll concede I misread your point. But you buy the first round at the beer summit. Fair?
Well, let's see if I can figure out what you mean. Your post I responded to was this:
Damn right! The republicans are always clamoring for "limited" government. We should hold them to it.
This is usually the rallying cry for liberals/leftists/Democrats/whatever-label-you-choose-to-use.
There are many similar posts across all the blogs and message boards I read. The general sense one gets from reading similar posts is that the person (I will use the label "liberal" hereafter, but see the list above) wishes the Republicans would act according to their stated interest in small government. However that liberal also realizes that in the real world, the Republicans are pushing for a larger and stronger government, both at the federal and state levels. So, the interpretation is that the liberal would support a bona fide conservative-small-government Republican, at least in the sense of honestly debating him and recognizing his right to his own beliefs even though they are different than the liberal's beliefs.
Therefore, I posted the rhetorical question:
So you support the Tea Party and Libertarian wings of the Republican party, right?
I then assumed you response would be in the negative, and give my response to that:
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Now, why (you may ask yourself) am I so sure of your answer, having only seen a few of your posts here on Slashdot? How can I presume to know what is in your heart? That is explained in the next sentence of my initial post.
You guys are so predictable.
Again, I have seen your rhetoric in many forums from many users, and have analyzed what it actually means. The analysis is based on actually drawing out further statements from the liberal posters, and also using statements liberal posters made in other threads within a forum.
From reading several posts of yours, to ascertain if I happened to overlook something in your initial post above, I have confirmed you fall in line with the common liberal ranter who bemoan the lack of 'genuine conservatives' in the Republican party. You can't stand the fact that 'genuine conservatives' exist. Actually, you don't accept the fact that genuine conservatives exist. You feel they are all fakes who want to use the government to discriminate against your recognized protected classes.
Now, you may be assuming that I place all liberals into the same category, but that isn't the case. I have conversed with many liberals who do not use this false sincerity gambit. Some of them do genuinely wish there were more 'loyal opposition' in the Republican party, as opposed to power-grubbing weasels. They actually want people who don't share their views to be represented. Other liberals don't want any genuine conservative at all in elected office, and state it clearly. They hate the fact that people who have power to make law don't think exactly like they do. Of those two groups, my view of government is in line with the first one, and you have shown in many posts that your view is line with the second one.
This is the root of why I said I have no idea why my nickname, I'm New Around Here, is appropriate. Despite the sound of it, I have been having these discussions with people from all political and social backgrounds for a couple decades. I can tell when someone is being sincere, which most people are. I certainly have your angle figured out. It's the same as the last half dozen people I've told basically the same thing to over the years. Both online, and in real life.
Really, I'm not even telling it to you, since you know all this. I'm actually telling everyone who reads your posts what you will act like in your discussions. Some of them actually believe you are sincere in your desire to have genuine conservative, small-government Republicans elected to office. They will spend a lot of time debating you, only to have you throw their arguments away and call them racists and b
Exactly.
It's not like we are outraged that something in Linux doesn't work quite right. Or that something has never worked quite right. And it certainly isn't something that a 'special interest group' wants added. It was a previously-working feature that was broken for some reason. The /.er that wrote the original story was very candid and reserved, considering the personal nature of what he was addressing.
And the response were "well, that's free software for you", "fix it yourself" "the rms says blahblahblah", and "derp".
We know the first two or three posts are going to be trolls, generally, but every single response was either crap or simply unhelpful overall. If we have to specifically bring geek-shaming into the discussion, I'll do it. It's not like my karma matters when rent is due.
It should be the job of whoever made the change that broke the system a year ago.
We defend Linus going postal on someone for breaking the user interface about music (or whatever that was last year), but are supposed to accept some douche breaking the ability of handicapped people to use their keyboard?? That's fucked up, with no pulling the punches.
I've used Linux various times over the years, and my daughter's laptop has Linux Mint on it. I'm not a programmer or Linux guru, and have never claimed I was. I also don't particularly like how some in the the disabled community have subverted the Americans With Disabilities Act. But I will call bullshit on this type of bullshit every time.
Thanks for the response.
Typical partisan hack commie; your ticket would bring only serfdom.
Huh? What ticket? I'm talking about Linux, not going to the movies.
I, and any true American lover of liberty, demand a Libertarian president and Green Party vice president! ;-)
OMG!! roflmao
You got me good. :^)
But in the end, you are completely wrong and are the whole reason we can't have nice things. :^P
That aspect did occur to me. But the few who seemed genuinely sincere in support of Linux were not any more helpful than the ones who were simply trolling. Only zombie and roc were supportive in a meaningful way. And when I initally saw the article, there were only 8 messages. It went up to 13 when I refreshed the display for more accuracy. Spitzak finally linked to the patch and showed that it was being committed to git, but his initial post, which I saw as I was typing my own post, only showed that there was a bug report. We knew there was a bug report; that's what the story is about.
So, all that fueled my feeling of disgust in the Linux community, and led to my post.
Anyway, thanks for the honest response/challenge. It's good to keep people's feet to the fire.
Well, thank you. However, I have no idea what you mean by that.
Even that poster, spitzak, calls the process he went through "painful", and the lack of completion "shocking". I glad the patch is available, and am happy that the people who really need it will be able to get it after upgrading from their unsupported versions of software they been forced to use because of the issue.
By the way, he posted one minute before I did. So while I was typing and previewing my post. And after I refreshed my screen before typing my post, to be more accurate. Don't make it seem like I was half a day behind.
Hi Zombie. Your posts were in the group that wasn't "unhelpful drivel". Sorry if you thought I was attacking you.
My share of outrage grew as I was reading the initial responses, quoting Stallman and saying 'go fix it yourself'. I refreshed the screen before posting, to get an accurate count, and saw your responses then.
I thought about specifying the ones that were or weren't drivel, but decided it would dilute the message, and after 30 more minutes, no one would know which were in those initial groups.
Anyhow, I also have no way to help the situation directly, but hope my geek shaming has a beneficial effect overall.
So far 13 posts, and most of them are unhelpful drivel.
Way to prove Linux is superior.
Did he mention the system used to work as expected, and now is broken?
If I was a Linux advocate, I'd be ashamed of the community over stupid crap like this situation.