I hope people mod you insightful instead of funny.
I am in my 40's. And I can honestly say that as I've gotten older my BS detector has gotten more sensitive and my tolerance threshold has shrunk.
I don't think of myself as a "grumpy old man" (although I love the show). I am actually happier than I've ever been. I just think that I was born with a finite amount of patience and I'm conserving the amount I have left for when I really need it:-) I no longer feel the need to suffer fools as much as I used to.
To those that love Twitter, please don't be offended by remarks - I don't wish to characterise all Twitter users as fools.
Fair enough. I take your point (and that of several other posters) that its all about following the right feeds (or whatever they're called). But as a massive user of RSS, I find it more than adequate and get a much better signal to noise ratio.
Sure, with Twitter I may get good info (on the right "channel"), but do I really care about all the "me too's"? 140 characters doesn't seem like enough for thoughtful responses, and however much we might bag sites like Slashdot, at least there is the the opportunity for reasoned responses and if I'm interested in reading them then I can.
Technically, its DIY IRC channel meets party-line SMS. Cool. The "how" I get.
But WHY? The "why" completely escapes me. Is Twitter more profound than the inanity of IRC and the incessant texting of pubescent students on public transport?
At best it looks like a way to share spontaneous brain dumps with mates, at worst it seems like a pathetic attempt at social closeness between a bunch of strangers you wouldn't even look at if you bumped into them.
Whatever it is - if Twitter is humanity's triumph then we're f**ked.
> I'm, might be fooled between the Lagavulin and Laphroig
Really? I *love* the the peaty smokiness of the Lagavulin, but the Laphroaig, while similar, is considerably smoother (to my palate) and the finish is brilliant - talk about a slow burn!
Of course its likely the real winners are somewhat more discreet and protective of their privacy than that lot. Gotta make yourself scarce when the pitchfork wielding rabble are seeking swift justice.
By and large, though, markets are unpredictable, and they need to stay that way. If markets were predictable, they would cease to exist... some one or a few would run off with all the money. To the extent that it has been "predictable" and made some corporations lots of money recently... as we have seen, that was largely due to manipulation and corruption, not the effects of free markets.
A few have run off with all the money. Who was on the other side of those massively leveraged positions that the banks lost on? It seems to me that the fact the losers are now being bailed out by the government means that effectively there has been a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the "winners" of those bets.
Manipulated, corrupt and un-free markets indeed.
My suggestion to the submitter is to try a more honorable career, like record-company executive or drug-dealer.
Whole-heartedly agree. Skim has made getting through my Master's degree much easier. The ability to highlight (markup in many ways) and add text notes directly on the page make this awesome.
"So whats the plan?" "Galahad, Lancelot, and I will leap out of the rabbit. Catching them completely off guard, and by surprise" "Who jumps out of the rabbit?" "Galahad, Lancelot,... and.... well perhaps if we built a giant badger..."
Pesonally, I always thought that OS X on top of the Solaris kernel would kick some serious ass. Far cleaner and more multi-core performant than the Frankenstein kernel they've got now.
> Political concessions? Errr...what are these, pray tell?
Primarily trade and aid related. While 90% of their trade is with the PRC they get significant amounts of aid from south and Western donors. Believe it or not, they have (in their own misguided way) tried to attract foreign investment in the past (they setup a couple of "special economic zones" in the last 20 years). These have been spectacular failures.
I don't disagree that they are a nasty bunch. However their leadership's attitude is one of maintaining the appearance of strength internally, while manipulating the external situation such that the concessions they wring are enough to perpetuate their hold on power. Nothing more nothing less. Any other objectives they may cherish are pure fantasy.
I tend to agree with you regarding the levels of trust with Iran and Cuba - indeed, the whole point of nuclear weapons is NOT using them.
However I think there is a lot of needless worry here in this post.
1. Being able to trigger nuclear fission successfully on the ground is a far different proposition from having a weaponised, miniature warhead that you can successfully deliver with an ICBM.
2. Don't confuse evil with madness. The leadership of the DPRK may be a nasty bunch, however, they have found that manufacturing "crises" every so often is a handy tactic for wringing political concessions from South Korea, the US, Russia, China and Japan. They know precisely how their actions play out in the West and use their "scariness" to great effect (as it seems to them).
The real threat here is in the possibility of them doing an A.Q.Khan and selling technology to interested parties (whose delivery vehicle is more likely to be a pickup truck than an ICBM). This is what the Western powers fear most from the DPRK - that they will no longer see value in their little crises and decide to take the commercial route.
Probably the most pragmatic tactic with the DPRK is to string the them along with minor carrots, while attempting to sabotage their research, all the while waiting for the local populace (perhaps led by some generals?) to do something.
Not that "Black Sabbath" is much of a non-anonymous identity either...
Everyone's identity here is anonymous (except to the admins and the authorities if they cared). The difference is that everyone with an ID carries the history of their postings which forms a record of their discourse. Whether I disagree with others here or not, I respect those that have the balls carry with them their past opinions. AC's wipe the slate clean with every post. With AC's I can't tell if I'm dealing with one or many. While there are definitely valid reasons for posting AC, as a longtime slashdotter I much prefer posts by IDs than ACs.
Anyway, I think I better stop before I disappear up my own arse.
The name's Mike by the way. I live in Melbourne, Australia. And that's about as un-anonymous as its gonna get online (my surname is quite unique, to the point where everyone in Australia with my surname is a direct family member and everyone in the world with my surname is clan related).
I tried to bring light to Afghanistan for the Unocal Central Asian oil pipeline in 2002.
So that's the reason we invaded Afghanistan? Makes me wonder what Maj.Gen.Smedley Butler was leaving out of the original version.
I take it you're referring to the attack on the Twin Towers. That was certainly a reason to go after Al-Qaeda - which was never a state or state instrument. Afghanistan however is not Al-Qaeda. The Taleban were certainly standing by Al-Qaeda when the world demanded they be handed over, yet invasion of a historically unconquerable place was never going to achieve the goal of routing Al-Qaeda out (perhaps leaning on the Saudi's to reign in the mullah's and Pakistan's ISI may have been more effective). By the way, where is Osama these days? Sunning himself in the Swat valley in Pakistan perhaps? Oddly, we've failed at both the overt and covert goals in Afghanistan. The Talebanisation of Pakistan continues apace while thugs like Baitullah Mehsud threaten new attacks on US soil. In fact, there are so many past lessons that have been ignored in Afghanistan they will provide future historians with ample fodder for a great many books.
Hilarious. The guy was twice decorated with the Congressional Medal of Honour and literally dedicated his life to the service of his country, while you snipe at his contribution from the safety of an AC shield. Chickenshit. You think he earned those medals because daddy was a congressman? I don't think so.
These days of course, Generals tend to end up on the boards of the companies whose interests they serve so the embarassment that could arise from a new Smedley is vastly reduced.
While poignant, I hardly think a quote from damn near a century ago is particularly relevant. You might as well be quoting Shakespeare.
Because the world is so different now?
Let's update it a little then: "I helped make Iraq a decent place for the Haliburton boys to collect revenues in....I tried to bring light to Afghanistan for the Unocal Central Asian oil pipeline in 2002."
The first step in repeating history is failing to see the relevance of past lessons. Whenever someone says "but things are SO different now" my bullshit detector goes off. Human beings aren't any different now than they were a thousand years ago.
> It gives you the feeling that the FBI is acting as a collection agency for AT&T and Verizon.
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." - Maj.Gen.Smedley Butler, 1935, awarded 2xCMOH
Discuss the use of Federal agencies in protecting commercial intersts of large corporations. 2000-3000 words. Citations in Harvard style.
> So worst case, many people have to move? Over the course of many decades?
"Many people" may translate into many millions, and even over the course of several decades this is a massive change. How would the US respond to and additional 5 million South American refugees trying to get in? I believe that there is already an outcry in the US over immigrant numbers. How would Europe cope with an extra 10 million Africans trying to emigrate? I think it highly likely that their will be significant armed conflicts over people movements, water rights (especially), grazing land, etc over the next 30-60 years.
> Its a hoax.
By whom and for what purpose? (please don't mention any NWO conspiracies). Let's say there is a hoax going on. Which is the hoax? That there is AGW or that there isn't? If you don't trust the scientists and unless you're in on the scam you can only identify the hoax indirectly. Let's try then. Which is more likely?
A) That there is a massive global conspiracy of scientists across many related disciplines who are faking results at the behest of a global political cabal pushing a some sort of NWO-like totalitarian agenda? Or...
B) That a bunch of VERY well-off companies in whose interest it is to maintain the status quo are funding a very effective obfuscation/PR campaign (including buying off a few select politicians)?
Me, I've read some of the science, try to keep up with the current state of research and pretty much believe the scientists. I guess I can't accept option A. I don't necessarily believe option B however the circumstantial evidence for it is pretty high in my estimation.
> emitting lots and lots and lots of CO2 might be costly, as people might need to relocate. Reducing CO2 emissions is absolutely costly - very very much so
Well, there has been the Stern report as well as (in Australia) the Garnaut report. Both by well respected economists. They both try and put a figure on the direct and indirect effects on the economy of GW as well as the costs and benefits of various mitigating strategies. Their main conclusion is that its cheaper (in the long run) to act. But I guess if you believe in the global scientific conspiracy, then believing that the economists are in on the scam is pretty easy.
By the way, both the science and the economic studies are all openly available for your edification and critique. However, what I see VERY little of is criticism of the science (or economics) and a lot of irrelevant arguments based on politics, conspiracies, personalities etc. When the temperature rises - it does so for those of all political persuasion.
> Stop trying to force other people to share your values and lifestyle!
I'm guessing your an American. My sympathies to those of your countrymen that aren't complete whack-jobs. You will notice that neither I nor most scientists reporting on AGW are telling anyone WHAT to do. They are just saying DO SOMETHING! Politicians and their constituencies must decide what if anything to do.
> People really think there will be no more humans or we will be in a new stone age after the effect of climate change.
Those people are deluded. However, consider Africa. In many parts, people are subsisting as is. A few degrees for them might mean that the current "trickle" of immigration out of Africa becomes a flood. Many countries are already struggling trying to throttle their refugee intake. How will they cope with an order-of-magnitude or two increase in people knocking at the door? Also, the economic effects on largely agrarian economies can be massively destabilising (if a countries prime cash crop collapses for example). Things are definitely going to get interesting.
"A few feet of water" - can mean massive problems for those in the Pacific islands, Holland, London and other very low lying areas, or where they are already fighting to keep water out.
"a few degrees" - of the *average*. Says nothing about minima/maxima. But can be the difference between crops being viable or not. Can be the difference between methane laden permafrost staying frozen or not. Can mean much less Arctic sea ice, massively reducing the albedo/reflectivity provided by the ice cover (the last two we are actually seeing and are reinforcing GW).
"some rain pattern changes" - can mean that rainfall no longer falls over catchment areas (we're seeing this a lot in south-east Australia). Urban areas can easily become unviable in such circumstances (or alternatively resort to building massive desal plants like we are).
No one is predicting the "end of the world". But claiming that "a few degrees" has no effect just trumpets your ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
"Go ahead. Make my day!"
I hope people mod you insightful instead of funny.
I am in my 40's. And I can honestly say that as I've gotten older my BS detector has gotten more sensitive and my tolerance threshold has shrunk.
I don't think of myself as a "grumpy old man" (although I love the show). I am actually happier than I've ever been. I just think that I was born with a finite amount of patience and I'm conserving the amount I have left for when I really need it :-)
I no longer feel the need to suffer fools as much as I used to.
To those that love Twitter, please don't be offended by remarks - I don't wish to characterise all Twitter users as fools.
Fair enough. I take your point (and that of several other posters) that its all about following the right feeds (or whatever they're called). But as a massive user of RSS, I find it more than adequate and get a much better signal to noise ratio.
Sure, with Twitter I may get good info (on the right "channel"), but do I really care about all the "me too's"? 140 characters doesn't seem like enough for thoughtful responses, and however much we might bag sites like Slashdot, at least there is the the opportunity for reasoned responses and if I'm interested in reading them then I can.
Twitter. Triumph of humanity
I admit I don't get the fascination.
Technically, its DIY IRC channel meets party-line SMS. Cool. The "how" I get.
But WHY? The "why" completely escapes me. Is Twitter more profound than the inanity of IRC and the incessant texting of pubescent students on public transport?
At best it looks like a way to share spontaneous brain dumps with mates, at worst it seems like a pathetic attempt at social closeness between a bunch of strangers you wouldn't even look at if you bumped into them.
Whatever it is - if Twitter is humanity's triumph then we're f**ked.
Either that or I'm an old fart.
> Frankly, I'd like to see a "cults in finance" list.
Me too.
Oh I'm sorry. You said "cuLts". My mistake.
> I'm, might be fooled between the Lagavulin and Laphroig
Really? I *love* the the peaty smokiness of the Lagavulin, but the Laphroaig, while similar, is considerably smoother (to my palate) and the finish is brilliant - talk about a slow burn!
This is true of some. The ones I'm talking about are more like some of the guys on this list:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/03/10-people-who-are-profiting-global-economic-crisis
Of course its likely the real winners are somewhat more discreet and protective of their privacy than that lot. Gotta make yourself scarce when the pitchfork wielding rabble are seeking swift justice.
While I'm all for good mathematical modeling, the notion that our financial problems are caused by bad math is a distraction at best.
Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful Oz!
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
By and large, though, markets are unpredictable, and they need to stay that way. If markets were predictable, they would cease to exist... some one or a few would run off with all the money. To the extent that it has been "predictable" and made some corporations lots of money recently... as we have seen, that was largely due to manipulation and corruption, not the effects of free markets.
A few have run off with all the money. Who was on the other side of those massively leveraged positions that the banks lost on? It seems to me that the fact the losers are now being bailed out by the government means that effectively there has been a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the "winners" of those bets.
Manipulated, corrupt and un-free markets indeed.
My suggestion to the submitter is to try a more honorable career, like record-company executive or drug-dealer.
Whole-heartedly agree. Skim has made getting through my Master's degree much easier. The ability to highlight (markup in many ways) and add text notes directly on the page make this awesome.
"So whats the plan?" ... and.... well perhaps if we built a giant badger..."
"Galahad, Lancelot, and I will leap out of the rabbit. Catching them completely off guard, and by surprise"
"Who jumps out of the rabbit?"
"Galahad, Lancelot,
Pesonally, I always thought that OS X on top of the Solaris kernel would kick some serious ass. Far cleaner and more multi-core performant than the Frankenstein kernel they've got now.
> Political concessions? Errr...what are these, pray tell?
Primarily trade and aid related. While 90% of their trade is with the PRC they get significant amounts of aid from south and Western donors. Believe it or not, they have (in their own misguided way) tried to attract foreign investment in the past (they setup a couple of "special economic zones" in the last 20 years). These have been spectacular failures.
I don't disagree that they are a nasty bunch. However their leadership's attitude is one of maintaining the appearance of strength internally, while manipulating the external situation such that the concessions they wring are enough to perpetuate their hold on power. Nothing more nothing less. Any other objectives they may cherish are pure fantasy.
I tend to agree with you regarding the levels of trust with Iran and Cuba - indeed, the whole point of nuclear weapons is NOT using them.
However I think there is a lot of needless worry here in this post.
1. Being able to trigger nuclear fission successfully on the ground is a far different proposition from having a weaponised, miniature warhead that you can successfully deliver with an ICBM.
2. Don't confuse evil with madness. The leadership of the DPRK may be a nasty bunch, however, they have found that manufacturing "crises" every so often is a handy tactic for wringing political concessions from South Korea, the US, Russia, China and Japan. They know precisely how their actions play out in the West and use their "scariness" to great effect (as it seems to them).
The real threat here is in the possibility of them doing an A.Q.Khan and selling technology to interested parties (whose delivery vehicle is more likely to be a pickup truck than an ICBM). This is what the Western powers fear most from the DPRK - that they will no longer see value in their little crises and decide to take the commercial route.
Probably the most pragmatic tactic with the DPRK is to string the them along with minor carrots, while attempting to sabotage their research, all the while waiting for the local populace (perhaps led by some generals?) to do something.
Not that "Black Sabbath" is much of a non-anonymous identity either...
Everyone's identity here is anonymous (except to the admins and the authorities if they cared). The difference is that everyone with an ID carries the history of their postings which forms a record of their discourse. Whether I disagree with others here or not, I respect those that have the balls carry with them their past opinions. AC's wipe the slate clean with every post. With AC's I can't tell if I'm dealing with one or many. While there are definitely valid reasons for posting AC, as a longtime slashdotter I much prefer posts by IDs than ACs.
Anyway, I think I better stop before I disappear up my own arse.
The name's Mike by the way. I live in Melbourne, Australia. And that's about as un-anonymous as its gonna get online (my surname is quite unique, to the point where everyone in Australia with my surname is a direct family member and everyone in the world with my surname is clan related).
I tried to bring light to Afghanistan for the Unocal Central Asian oil pipeline in 2002.
So that's the reason we invaded Afghanistan? Makes me wonder what Maj.Gen.Smedley Butler was leaving out of the original version.
I take it you're referring to the attack on the Twin Towers. That was certainly a reason to go after Al-Qaeda - which was never a state or state instrument. Afghanistan however is not Al-Qaeda. The Taleban were certainly standing by Al-Qaeda when the world demanded they be handed over, yet invasion of a historically unconquerable place was never going to achieve the goal of routing Al-Qaeda out (perhaps leaning on the Saudi's to reign in the mullah's and Pakistan's ISI may have been more effective). By the way, where is Osama these days? Sunning himself in the Swat valley in Pakistan perhaps? Oddly, we've failed at both the overt and covert goals in Afghanistan. The Talebanisation of Pakistan continues apace while thugs like Baitullah Mehsud threaten new attacks on US soil. In fact, there are so many past lessons that have been ignored in Afghanistan they will provide future historians with ample fodder for a great many books.
Hilarious. The guy was twice decorated with the Congressional Medal of Honour and literally dedicated his life to the service of his country, while you snipe at his contribution from the safety of an AC shield. Chickenshit. You think he earned those medals because daddy was a congressman? I don't think so.
These days of course, Generals tend to end up on the boards of the companies whose interests they serve so the embarassment that could arise from a new Smedley is vastly reduced.
While poignant, I hardly think a quote from damn near a century ago is particularly relevant. You might as well be quoting Shakespeare.
Because the world is so different now?
Let's update it a little then:
"I helped make Iraq a decent place for the Haliburton boys to collect revenues in....I tried to bring light to Afghanistan for the Unocal Central Asian oil pipeline in 2002."
The first step in repeating history is failing to see the relevance of past lessons. Whenever someone says "but things are SO different now" my bullshit detector goes off. Human beings aren't any different now than they were a thousand years ago.
Or you are a selfish tool who is unappreciative of the advantages that the rich are already sharing with you
chuckle,chuckle :-)
especially in terms of income tax, for which the rich pay more than 30% of their income and the poor pay none
Hahahahaha :->
I hope one day you realize that—preferably before the rich break the shackles of slavery you have placed on them.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! $->
That was the funniest troll I've ever read dude! Seriously!
> It gives you the feeling that the FBI is acting as a collection agency for AT&T and Verizon.
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
- Maj.Gen.Smedley Butler, 1935, awarded 2xCMOH
Discuss the use of Federal agencies in protecting commercial intersts of large corporations. 2000-3000 words. Citations in Harvard style.
MacOSX is just FreeBSD
No.
webmin
> So worst case, many people have to move? Over the course of many decades?
"Many people" may translate into many millions, and even over the course of several decades this is a massive change. How would the US respond to and additional 5 million South American refugees trying to get in? I believe that there is already an outcry in the US over immigrant numbers. How would Europe cope with an extra 10 million Africans trying to emigrate? I think it highly likely that their will be significant armed conflicts over people movements, water rights (especially), grazing land, etc over the next 30-60 years.
> Its a hoax.
By whom and for what purpose? (please don't mention any NWO conspiracies). Let's say there is a hoax going on. Which is the hoax? That there is AGW or that there isn't? If you don't trust the scientists and unless you're in on the scam you can only identify the hoax indirectly. Let's try then. Which is more likely?
A) That there is a massive global conspiracy of scientists across many related disciplines who are faking results at the behest of a global political cabal pushing a some sort of NWO-like totalitarian agenda? Or...
B) That a bunch of VERY well-off companies in whose interest it is to maintain the status quo are funding a very effective obfuscation/PR campaign (including buying off a few select politicians)?
Me, I've read some of the science, try to keep up with the current state of research and pretty much believe the scientists. I guess I can't accept option A. I don't necessarily believe option B however the circumstantial evidence for it is pretty high in my estimation.
> emitting lots and lots and lots of CO2 might be costly, as people might need to relocate. Reducing CO2 emissions is absolutely costly - very very much so
Well, there has been the Stern report as well as (in Australia) the Garnaut report. Both by well respected economists. They both try and put a figure on the direct and indirect effects on the economy of GW as well as the costs and benefits of various mitigating strategies. Their main conclusion is that its cheaper (in the long run) to act. But I guess if you believe in the global scientific conspiracy, then believing that the economists are in on the scam is pretty easy.
By the way, both the science and the economic studies are all openly available for your edification and critique. However, what I see VERY little of is criticism of the science (or economics) and a lot of irrelevant arguments based on politics, conspiracies, personalities etc. When the temperature rises - it does so for those of all political persuasion.
> Stop trying to force other people to share your values and lifestyle!
I'm guessing your an American. My sympathies to those of your countrymen that aren't complete whack-jobs. You will notice that neither I nor most scientists reporting on AGW are telling anyone WHAT to do. They are just saying DO SOMETHING! Politicians and their constituencies must decide what if anything to do.
> People really think there will be no more humans or we will be in a new stone age after the effect of climate change.
Those people are deluded. However, consider Africa. In many parts, people are subsisting as is. A few degrees for them might mean that the current "trickle" of immigration out of Africa becomes a flood. Many countries are already struggling trying to throttle their refugee intake. How will they cope with an order-of-magnitude or two increase in people knocking at the door? Also, the economic effects on largely agrarian economies can be massively destabilising (if a countries prime cash crop collapses for example). Things are definitely going to get interesting.
> I never said the effects would be small either.
Fair enough. My apologies.
"A few feet of water"
- can mean massive problems for those in the Pacific islands, Holland, London and other very low lying areas, or where they are already fighting to keep water out.
"a few degrees"
- of the *average*. Says nothing about minima/maxima. But can be the difference between crops being viable or not. Can be the difference between methane laden permafrost staying frozen or not. Can mean much less Arctic sea ice, massively reducing the albedo/reflectivity provided by the ice cover (the last two we are actually seeing and are reinforcing GW).
"some rain pattern changes"
- can mean that rainfall no longer falls over catchment areas (we're seeing this a lot in south-east Australia). Urban areas can easily become unviable in such circumstances (or alternatively resort to building massive desal plants like we are).
No one is predicting the "end of the world". But claiming that "a few degrees" has no effect just trumpets your ignorance.
Me too.
Now, where's me bottle o' rum? Aaaarrrrrr!