"Sorry, you do not pass the reading comprehension test."
No, actually, it is your shitty writing that fails.
"The emphasis is on _promising_ ahead of 20+ years."
Perhaps YOU think so, but the way you wrote it leaves said emphasis open to interpretation.
More importantly, you never said what "idea" you " never said was bad" and the discussion is about McCain announcing, not about the policy actually being implemented.
SO, long story short, you were off topic, wrong, and you DID say it was bad, it's just that you're an incredibly bad writer and didn't realize it.
"To sum it up:" you were wrong, got called on it, and are dancing around trying to find a way to avoid acknowledging it.
"If a router is handing out IPs, how is that stealing?"
It isn't. But just getting an IP isn't acessing the network, just like having a phone number isn't making a phone call.
The second you use my bandwidth to up/download something, you've removed my ability to use that bandwidth, and thus, have stolen it from me.
As to the "the router gives permission" garbage, the router doesn't have that authority, I DO and failing to deny you access is not in any way the same thing as permitting access.
Here's a thought exercise, if my router is handing out IP addresses, but my SSID is "NO, YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO USE MY NETWORK SO PISS OFF!", what is the final determinant of whether you feel entitled to access or not?
Are you going to continue pretending the router giving you an IP is permission, even in the face of a clear message that it isn't?
No, every time this argument gets trotted out, people line up to cry out about routers "granting permission" which is hogwash. The router is a doorman, and even if he lets you in the building you are to blame when you start taking things that aren't yours.
"Our gouvernments have a tendancy in Europe to tax a lot to control the behavior of the population"
Fixed that to make it accurate.
"A high price for fuel is an incentive to avoid wasting it and producing CO2."
So it's not about the economy, it's about deterring behaviors you find unpleasant.
"People uses smaller cars and public transports and that's right."
Says who? It's not the government's job to decide what's "right", even if you agree.
"Fuel Tax also reflect the very high cost for the community of the road transports."
Strange when the US certainly has more roads and at least similar costs, yet doesn't tax nearly as much. Hmmm...
Now that I've eviscerated your points, do you honestly believe the tax has ANYTHING to do with the public good? It's a method of controlling you, and you aren't even investing the intellectual capital to examine that possibility.
Since when is an obvious troll with no information in it and slathered with insults in any way informative?
"I have nothing against nuclear power, I just do not trust deregulation-happy business criminals to run them. With proper designs, regular inspections, and a safety-first mentality, nuclear power is clean and safe. With Enron-style profit-raping and criminal evasion of government regulation, we'd be fucked and glowing in the dark. I wouldn't put it past them to try and build crappy Chernobyl-style reactors just to give the finger to the Greenies, the same way they have the hard-on for drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge."
Well? What exactly is contained in there that would cause someone to think that this post had any useful information in it whatsoever?
"Yea, because Carter, the only president to have ever had any formal training in any sort of nuclear technology, and also the only president ever involved in the cleanup after a nuclear accident [wikipedia.org], is all irrational and uninformed where nuclear power is concerned."
When viewed in retrospect, yes, that is exactly how it appears things have shaken out.
Your post is just a reworded argument form authority.
"Don't blame Carter for the hysteria of the day."
Why the fuck not? He, according to YOU, was trained better and more informed, yet he ALLOWED the hysteria, even kowtowing to it in some cases. Why shouldn't I blame him for allowing irrational fear to dominate the discussion, when according to YOU he should have had the information necessary to defuse the hysteria?
History proved his positions wrong. If he was as informed as you think, how did he ALLOW that to happen? And why do you think he gets a pass for it?
"Oh, and I decided to look up your comment history, and I'm not sure who was calling the kettle black here, as most of your comments were of the troll variety in my opinion, which does matter, to me at least..."
Which speaks volumes considering the mods totally disagree with you, as based on my lack of troll mods vs. insightful/interesting/informative.
Currently 4 insightful/interesting/informative vs ONE troll. I guess your opinion has fuck all to do with reality huh? Or maybe you just can't read?
I guess when you posted you didn't realize you were admitting your opinion about what is a troll is worthless, but you had that effect nonetheless.
"The 2007 fuel tax was 0.684 per litre or $ 3.5 per gallon. On top of that is 19% VAT over the entire fuel price, making the Dutch taxes one of the highest in the world."
So we'll have it when we need it? Drilling is not as instantaneous process.
"Let's use up the oil resources of the people who hate us while it's still relatively cheap, then tap our own resources at $300 a barrel and make them come crawling."
Or, we could drill for it now so we'd have it when it reached 300 a barrel, instead of needing 5 years to get at it after it reaches 300 a barrel.
If that is the sum of your objections to drilling, then you have no legitimate objections.
What you said has nothing to do with reality, or my genetic code.
I am the SUM if my genetic code, which is for all intents and purposes, unique. That the mortar and blocks and drywall and carpet are patented by someone else means nothing when I undeniably own the patent on the house.
"If you don't intend to pay the licensing fees"
What exactly am I going to be paying licensing fees for? Or did you throw this bit of fearmongering out there without really having any idea what it meant?
I mean, apart from you being a pedantic ass that picks fights about points which are both well understood and not at issue?
However, if that WAS your point, I apologize, you did a good job of making it.
"If I place an advertisement in a magazine, and say "Send $5.00, and SASE to xyz address" with nothing else in it, then whatever money comes my way, is mine."
FANTASTIC! and completely unrelated to this story, as that isn't what happened.
I'd like to see your sources for this claim, there are a lot of scientists who would be interested in what you seem to think is conclusive proof of something they're still in the process of researching.
So do you have a reputable source, or are you another "I heard it from my friends" scaremonger who will disappear when challenged to back up their assertions?
PS mods, unsourced assertions should be challenged, not modded up "informative" because you like the sentiment
I would respond, but your arrogant dismissal of my point, which is perfectly capable of being true alongside your point, shows you're not interested in anything but spouting your opinion.
There is no function of your point which makes mine impossible, so you appear to be saying "No" to something for no reason than your own self assured arrogance.
Frankly, your point is far less likely than mine, so your "No" there is especially misplaced.
The Duke of Wellington was approached about leading the British army in North America and sent the following letter:
I confess that I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America... You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. you can not on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cessation of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power... Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any.
The Battle of Plattsburgh, also known as the Battle of Lake Champlain, ended the final invasion of the northern states during the War of 1812. Fought shortly before the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, the American victory denied the British leverage to demand exclusive control over the Great Lakes and any territorial gains against the New England states.
In the Battle of Baltimore, one of the turning points in the War of 1812, American forces warded off a British sea invasion of the busy port city of Baltimore, Maryland.
So, congratulations, you burned some buildings in Washington D.C (you DID NOT "burn it to the ground" in any way, shape or form) and pissed us off. I fail to see how an insignificant action in a war you lost is something worth bragging about. And you people are ALWAYS bragging about it, as though we'll forget that you got your asses handed to you in the long run.
"Apparently sarcasm and humor is flamebait nowadays."
It is when there's no sarcasm or humor. Like in your post.
You came off as just another anti-MS troll with no idea what they're talking about. If it was intended to be sarcastic or humorous, you missed badly on both.
"lol wow all I can say is that someone needs to get a life."
Nice, they say the first step is admitting you have a problem.
"Apparently if you say anything ther is always a troll around the corner using childish insults."
Well, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself, you probably can't help it.
"It is bcause of red neck americans who think they are right about everything and believe that making an intelligent conversation is a waste of tim."
I don't know how you'd know that until you become capable of actually making an intelligent conversation, or being right about something. You've done neither so far.
Lastly, read the bolded print
At that point I stopped caring about anything you think, and your scientific ignorance was just confirmation.
The fact that you responded means you still don't get it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sorry, you do not pass the reading comprehension test."
No, actually, it is your shitty writing that fails.
"The emphasis is on _promising_ ahead of 20+ years."
Perhaps YOU think so, but the way you wrote it leaves said emphasis open to interpretation.
More importantly, you never said what "idea" you " never said was bad" and the discussion is about McCain announcing, not about the policy actually being implemented.
SO, long story short, you were off topic, wrong, and you DID say it was bad, it's just that you're an incredibly bad writer and didn't realize it.
"To sum it up:" you were wrong, got called on it, and are dancing around trying to find a way to avoid acknowledging it.
All summed up.
"If a router is handing out IPs, how is that stealing?"
It isn't. But just getting an IP isn't acessing the network, just like having a phone number isn't making a phone call.
The second you use my bandwidth to up/download something, you've removed my ability to use that bandwidth, and thus, have stolen it from me.
As to the "the router gives permission" garbage, the router doesn't have that authority, I DO and failing to deny you access is not in any way the same thing as permitting access.
Here's a thought exercise, if my router is handing out IP addresses, but my SSID is "NO, YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO USE MY NETWORK SO PISS OFF!", what is the final determinant of whether you feel entitled to access or not?
Are you going to continue pretending the router giving you an IP is permission, even in the face of a clear message that it isn't?
No, every time this argument gets trotted out, people line up to cry out about routers "granting permission" which is hogwash. The router is a doorman, and even if he lets you in the building you are to blame when you start taking things that aren't yours.
"Our gouvernments have a tendancy in Europe to tax a lot to control the behavior of the population"
Fixed that to make it accurate.
"A high price for fuel is an incentive to avoid wasting it and producing CO2."
So it's not about the economy, it's about deterring behaviors you find unpleasant.
"People uses smaller cars and public transports and that's right."
Says who? It's not the government's job to decide what's "right", even if you agree.
"Fuel Tax also reflect the very high cost for the community of the road transports."
Strange when the US certainly has more roads and at least similar costs, yet doesn't tax nearly as much. Hmmm...
Now that I've eviscerated your points, do you honestly believe the tax has ANYTHING to do with the public good? It's a method of controlling you, and you aren't even investing the intellectual capital to examine that possibility.
Since when is an obvious troll with no information in it and slathered with insults in any way informative?
"I have nothing against nuclear power, I just do not trust deregulation-happy business criminals to run them. With proper designs, regular inspections, and a safety-first mentality, nuclear power is clean and safe. With Enron-style profit-raping and criminal evasion of government regulation, we'd be fucked and glowing in the dark. I wouldn't put it past them to try and build crappy Chernobyl-style reactors just to give the finger to the Greenies, the same way they have the hard-on for drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge."
Well? What exactly is contained in there that would cause someone to think that this post had any useful information in it whatsoever?
"1. I never said anything about this being a bad idea"
REHEHEALLLLLY?
"but promising things 20+ years into the future is pretty bad."
"Yea, because Carter, the only president to have ever had any formal training in any sort of nuclear technology, and also the only president ever involved in the cleanup after a nuclear accident [wikipedia.org], is all irrational and uninformed where nuclear power is concerned."
When viewed in retrospect, yes, that is exactly how it appears things have shaken out.
Your post is just a reworded argument form authority.
"Don't blame Carter for the hysteria of the day."
Why the fuck not? He, according to YOU, was trained better and more informed, yet he ALLOWED the hysteria, even kowtowing to it in some cases. Why shouldn't I blame him for allowing irrational fear to dominate the discussion, when according to YOU he should have had the information necessary to defuse the hysteria?
History proved his positions wrong. If he was as informed as you think, how did he ALLOW that to happen? And why do you think he gets a pass for it?
"Oh, and I decided to look up your comment history, and I'm not sure who was calling the kettle black here, as most of your comments were of the troll variety in my opinion, which does matter, to me at least..."
Which speaks volumes considering the mods totally disagree with you, as based on my lack of troll mods vs. insightful/interesting/informative.
Currently 4 insightful/interesting/informative vs ONE troll. I guess your opinion has fuck all to do with reality huh? Or maybe you just can't read?
I guess when you posted you didn't realize you were admitting your opinion about what is a troll is worthless, but you had that effect nonetheless.
"Thank you for the personal attack, whoever you are"
You earned it.
"I really couldn't care less what your opinions are"
And yet you responded. Actions speak louder that your typed up lies.
"I was mentioning the fact that there could be a disagreement over whether or not a law had been broken"
And your point was pedantic and meaningless. Restating doesn't change that, listing your reasoning doesn't change that, NOTHING you do changes that.
You replied because you thought my "personal attack" had merit, and in so replying you did nothing more that reinforce what I said and prove me right.
Always pretends to be humor when called out for it ridiculousness?
His comment was stupid. The sarcasm doesn't make it less so, it just makes it sarcastically stupid.
And did it occur to you I was aware of the sarcasm but was addressing the real point behind it (whihc every piece of sarcasm has)?
Perhaps it is YOU who has no understanding of what the fuck he is involving himself in.
No, remove that "perhaps".
Well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax#Netherlands
"The 2007 fuel tax was 0.684 per litre or $ 3.5 per gallon. On top of that is 19% VAT over the entire fuel price, making the Dutch taxes one of the highest in the world."
Fiscal reality FTW.
"Why the hell should we?"
So we'll have it when we need it? Drilling is not as instantaneous process.
"Let's use up the oil resources of the people who hate us while it's still relatively cheap, then tap our own resources at $300 a barrel and make them come crawling."
Or, we could drill for it now so we'd have it when it reached 300 a barrel, instead of needing 5 years to get at it after it reaches 300 a barrel.
If that is the sum of your objections to drilling, then you have no legitimate objections.
You said
"Oil burning plants were eliminated after Carter's oil crisis."
Which is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant#Gas_turbine_combined-cycle_plants
See those? They use oil. And as it happens, a quick search reveals where you can find them, like Texas
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/midlothian/
What you said has nothing to do with reality, or my genetic code.
I am the SUM if my genetic code, which is for all intents and purposes, unique. That the mortar and blocks and drywall and carpet are patented by someone else means nothing when I undeniably own the patent on the house.
"If you don't intend to pay the licensing fees"
What exactly am I going to be paying licensing fees for? Or did you throw this bit of fearmongering out there without really having any idea what it meant?
How about I just make fun of your stupid comment instead?
As an aside, are you genuinely retarded or do you just like to pretend on slashdot?
I mean, apart from you being a pedantic ass that picks fights about points which are both well understood and not at issue?
However, if that WAS your point, I apologize, you did a good job of making it.
"If I place an advertisement in a magazine, and say "Send $5.00, and SASE to xyz address" with nothing else in it, then whatever money comes my way, is mine."
FANTASTIC! and completely unrelated to this story, as that isn't what happened.
"i should be thinking 'how can i prey on stupidity and fear of authority'"
Blame the Republicans, you accomplish both at once.
"and it's now happening to the world as a whole."
I'd like to see your sources for this claim, there are a lot of scientists who would be interested in what you seem to think is conclusive proof of something they're still in the process of researching.
So do you have a reputable source, or are you another "I heard it from my friends" scaremonger who will disappear when challenged to back up their assertions?
PS mods, unsourced assertions should be challenged, not modded up "informative" because you like the sentiment
"But according to the treaty, it was a tie"
No. Your ignorance astounds.
And the truth hurts you, obviously, regardless of the fact that you claim not to be from either country.
"which the US sued for"
Apparently you're very stupid as well, I explained why this is irrelevant, AND this
"its economy was haemorrhaging."
is not why, and also wrong.
Stop posting, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
"Lost?"
Yes. The truth sometimes hurts.
"No, that's what the Navy said..."
I would respond, but your arrogant dismissal of my point, which is perfectly capable of being true alongside your point, shows you're not interested in anything but spouting your opinion.
There is no function of your point which makes mine impossible, so you appear to be saying "No" to something for no reason than your own self assured arrogance.
Frankly, your point is far less likely than mine, so your "No" there is especially misplaced.
"then how did one of their submarines pop up in the middle of one of our Navy carrier groups undetected?"
It didn't, that's what the Navy said to convince people like you to give them more money.
And you fell for it.
Why are you using an example in which you were roundly defeated, even with significant military superiority?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Aftermath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baltimore#Aftermath
So, congratulations, you burned some buildings in Washington D.C (you DID NOT "burn it to the ground" in any way, shape or form) and pissed us off. I fail to see how an insignificant action in a war you lost is something worth bragging about. And you people are ALWAYS bragging about it, as though we'll forget that you got your asses handed to you in the long run.
Well, we won't, and we won't let you either.
http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/8_131041
Bell South tests internet access over fiber.
in 1999.
At&T have laid fiber. Verizon has FIOS all over the place in the southeast
http://www.dslreports.com/gmaps/fios?typ=s
You are wrong.
"Apparently sarcasm and humor is flamebait nowadays."
It is when there's no sarcasm or humor. Like in your post.
You came off as just another anti-MS troll with no idea what they're talking about. If it was intended to be sarcastic or humorous, you missed badly on both.
"lol wow all I can say is that someone needs to get a life."
Nice, they say the first step is admitting you have a problem.
"Apparently if you say anything ther is always a troll around the corner using childish insults."
Well, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself, you probably can't help it.
"It is bcause of red neck americans who think they are right about everything and believe that making an intelligent conversation is a waste of tim."
I don't know how you'd know that until you become capable of actually making an intelligent conversation, or being right about something. You've done neither so far.
Lastly, read the bolded print
At that point I stopped caring about anything you think, and your scientific ignorance was just confirmation.
The fact that you responded means you still don't get it.