You're making all that up out of whole cloth. You have no proof, because there is no proof, because it isn't true. You don't even understand what "Survival of the fittest" really means. But I'm sure you wouldn't mind if we came up with some sort of final solution to all these inferior people who are dragging down the true humans. You sick fuck.
No tinfoil hat. In the words of Boots Riley from The Coup, "They're tryin' to kill the movement with the new CoIntelPro." You think that went away when congress shut it down? Yeah, right.
Third party drivers. Even signed drivers. If operating systems didn't have to deal with drivers and hardware, they would all run fine. And yeah, drivers can blow chunks on Linux, too. Still. Call me prejudiced but I would never use Windows for virtualization. But then, I've been administrating a huge VMware installation for the past five years. I can make it jump through hoops. I wouldn't even know where to start with Hyper V.
A lot, but who applies patches automatically to production servers? Most of those patches were for IE anyhow. But I'm not trying to make excuses for Windows, I wouldn't use Windows as a server unless the software I needed to use required it. Luckily for me, I work for a state agency that has embraced open source. We have less than a handful of Windows servers.
I'm just saying this: "Windows. It doesn't suck quite as much as the most rabid open source zealots would have you believe." Hey! I think we found their new slogan!
My new home computer runs Windows 7 quite well, it hasn't blue screened or locked up once since I bought it a year ago. My coworker's Window's box locks up at least once a week. Just because Windows runs fine on your computer does not mean it will run well on everyone's.
You are trying to rules-lawyer a community. There is only one rule, piss us off and we will fuck with you. Switch nicks if you want. Do whatever the fuck you like, but don't expect that you will gain acceptance, respect, or even tolerance. You seem to think that tolerance, acceptance and respect are your birthright, that your own choices and actions should not influence how others see you. This is not the case.
Why do you complain? Who are you whining to? Who do you think is going to swoop in and say, "Hey! Be nice to cpu6502!"? Do you believe that the community simply does not have all the facts, and if we understood your side of the story, we would all love you?
Some people figure out social interaction by watching others and learning. Others figure it out the hard way, by making mistakes, pissing people off, and then learning what not to do. Other people never learn from their mistakes and continue acting in an anti-social manner. It may not seem fair that people will judge you like this, a group imposing its will on an individual, but the alternative is the individual imposing his will on the group, and that is even less acceptable.
We do not have to like you. We are not required to respect you. We don't even have to tolerate you. If you want to be accepted here, then you must earn it through your actions. Despite what Saturday morning television might have told you, you are not the most important person in the whole wide world. You are not unique. You are not special. You are just one of nearly seven billion human beings with an opinion and a big loud mouth.
If you find yourself in a situation where you are not accepted or tolerated by a group, there is a good chance that the problem is with you, not the group.
Now that the precedent is set, the US government can shutdown Bitcoin or any other form of non-Reserve currency.
Now that the precedent has been set?!? You may be surprised to learn that countries have been forbidding people from making their own currency since currency was invented. But you should never let the facts get in the way of a good anti-government rant.
Well, yeah, THAT is what I actually figured. Anti corporate. So am I, but there's no reason to go off half cocked and scream epithets at every corporation out there. It dilutes your message if you are just angry at anything with a corporate charter.
You might not control your privacy, but you could at least try to, control, your use, of commas. And I just have to ask, who controls your hardware and service provider?
Oh please, I'm the guy who invented calling his opponent a corporate shill. Don't try my own tricks on me, Mister. Nobody needs protection from your harsh vitriol, because you don't know how to aim it, and it's not very effective. You are just another loud mouth with an opinion. There are billions just like you. You are not fighting the good fight. You are not advancing the cause of human freedom, you are not defending open source, you are just yelling inanities.
Obviously, you are a shill for Apple, trying anything to take down your corporate rival, Google. Nice try, but no one is buying what you are selling.
Hey, guess what, we had a meeting while you were out, and we, uh, decided that you aren't the one guy who gets to say what is and what is not open source. Is the Apache license an Open Source Initiative approved license? Yes. Are the companies in question following the requirements of that license? Yes. Then the products licensed under the Open Source Initiative approved Apache license are in fact open source, and your opinion is meaningless. Open source is a big tent, and the different licenses focus on expanding freedoms for different classes of people in different ways, but that's okay. In fact, it's a good thing, we would never have come this far if we stuck to pure dogma.
You know, you don't have to just announce to the world that you don't understand the issue, you could educate yourself.
For example, is the percentage of Hispanics in the southwest US growing because they are having more children, because they are immigrating, or because whites aren't having enough children to keep their population constant? And what about wealth, that is the link that I claimed made the difference in population growth, are middle class Hispanics having as many children as poor Hispanics? The data you link to doesn't say.
Oh how I love this generic style of argument. I call it, "I know you are but what am I?" Basically, any concern, problem, or issue can be summarily dismissed if it or something similar occurs anywhere else.
Check it, dingbat, nobody said all other power sources were safer. Nobody is trying to get rid of nuclear power. All I am trying to do is point out that there are problems with this power source (that may affect other power sources as well) that need to be addressed. Bringing up the fact that other power sources are unsafe does not make nuclear safe. Making it safe makes it safe. "Not the worst thing out there" is never a ringing endorsement.
But neither side appears to want to listen to the guys who actually know. Certainty is a gut feeling, not arrived at through logical processes, indeed, if we are being honest about the limits of deductive reasoning, then in most cases certainty can not be arrived at through logical processes. Gut feelings aren't amenable to change through logical processes, either, in fact, gut feelings not only take precedence over logic, they direct it towards their own ends: justifying the certainty.
Where did all the water go? It isn't even touching the fuel rods, they couldn't be turning it into steam. Lack of water is evidence of containment failure. Evidence of, not proof of.
Greenpeace and their ilk are complicit as well, but the way to fight them is not to call them idiots and simply dismiss their concerns. Indeed, the only way to fight their kind is to appear to take their concerns very seriously. Having been a Greenpeace canvasser in my radical youth, I know how their minds work. They love having something to fight against, so if you won't fight them, it takes all the wind out of their sails.
I never said there was a containment leak, I said there was evidence of one. Exactly how cold fuel rods in the core be exposed to air unless their were a containment leak? Where is all the water going? I believe there is evidence of a leak, that doesn't mean there is a leak, there could be other explanations for the evidence that had caused the company itself to worry about containment failure. Personally, my evidence is that the company is worried. Without any evidence, the company would not be worried about a leak.
As I've said before, I want safe nuclear power, like the pebble bed type reactors, and all this bullshit from people like you is only getting in the way of us getting there.
No, I'm saying that, according to the article, there is evidence of a containment failure. But couldn't you get your English teacher to help you with your reading comprehension problems?
Slashdot Mirror
You're making all that up out of whole cloth. You have no proof, because there is no proof, because it isn't true. You don't even understand what "Survival of the fittest" really means. But I'm sure you wouldn't mind if we came up with some sort of final solution to all these inferior people who are dragging down the true humans. You sick fuck.
No tinfoil hat. In the words of Boots Riley from The Coup, "They're tryin' to kill the movement with the new CoIntelPro." You think that went away when congress shut it down? Yeah, right.
Third party drivers. Even signed drivers. If operating systems didn't have to deal with drivers and hardware, they would all run fine. And yeah, drivers can blow chunks on Linux, too. Still. Call me prejudiced but I would never use Windows for virtualization. But then, I've been administrating a huge VMware installation for the past five years. I can make it jump through hoops. I wouldn't even know where to start with Hyper V.
A lot, but who applies patches automatically to production servers? Most of those patches were for IE anyhow. But I'm not trying to make excuses for Windows, I wouldn't use Windows as a server unless the software I needed to use required it. Luckily for me, I work for a state agency that has embraced open source. We have less than a handful of Windows servers.
I'm just saying this: "Windows. It doesn't suck quite as much as the most rabid open source zealots would have you believe." Hey! I think we found their new slogan!
My new home computer runs Windows 7 quite well, it hasn't blue screened or locked up once since I bought it a year ago. My coworker's Window's box locks up at least once a week. Just because Windows runs fine on your computer does not mean it will run well on everyone's.
You are trying to rules-lawyer a community. There is only one rule, piss us off and we will fuck with you. Switch nicks if you want. Do whatever the fuck you like, but don't expect that you will gain acceptance, respect, or even tolerance. You seem to think that tolerance, acceptance and respect are your birthright, that your own choices and actions should not influence how others see you. This is not the case.
Why do you complain? Who are you whining to? Who do you think is going to swoop in and say, "Hey! Be nice to cpu6502!"? Do you believe that the community simply does not have all the facts, and if we understood your side of the story, we would all love you?
Some people figure out social interaction by watching others and learning. Others figure it out the hard way, by making mistakes, pissing people off, and then learning what not to do. Other people never learn from their mistakes and continue acting in an anti-social manner. It may not seem fair that people will judge you like this, a group imposing its will on an individual, but the alternative is the individual imposing his will on the group, and that is even less acceptable.
We do not have to like you. We are not required to respect you. We don't even have to tolerate you. If you want to be accepted here, then you must earn it through your actions. Despite what Saturday morning television might have told you, you are not the most important person in the whole wide world. You are not unique. You are not special. You are just one of nearly seven billion human beings with an opinion and a big loud mouth.
If you find yourself in a situation where you are not accepted or tolerated by a group, there is a good chance that the problem is with you, not the group.
Now that the precedent is set, the US government can shutdown Bitcoin or any other form of non-Reserve currency.
Now that the precedent has been set?!? You may be surprised to learn that countries have been forbidding people from making their own currency since currency was invented. But you should never let the facts get in the way of a good anti-government rant.
Well, yeah, THAT is what I actually figured. Anti corporate. So am I, but there's no reason to go off half cocked and scream epithets at every corporation out there. It dilutes your message if you are just angry at anything with a corporate charter.
Ampersand mdash semicolon — like so.
He should have used an em dash for that purpose.
You might not control your privacy, but you could at least try to, control, your use, of commas. And I just have to ask, who controls your hardware and service provider?
Oh please, I'm the guy who invented calling his opponent a corporate shill. Don't try my own tricks on me, Mister. Nobody needs protection from your harsh vitriol, because you don't know how to aim it, and it's not very effective. You are just another loud mouth with an opinion. There are billions just like you. You are not fighting the good fight. You are not advancing the cause of human freedom, you are not defending open source, you are just yelling inanities.
Obviously, you are a shill for Apple, trying anything to take down your corporate rival, Google. Nice try, but no one is buying what you are selling.
Hey, guess what, we had a meeting while you were out, and we, uh, decided that you aren't the one guy who gets to say what is and what is not open source. Is the Apache license an Open Source Initiative approved license? Yes. Are the companies in question following the requirements of that license? Yes. Then the products licensed under the Open Source Initiative approved Apache license are in fact open source, and your opinion is meaningless. Open source is a big tent, and the different licenses focus on expanding freedoms for different classes of people in different ways, but that's okay. In fact, it's a good thing, we would never have come this far if we stuck to pure dogma.
You know, you don't have to just announce to the world that you don't understand the issue, you could educate yourself.
For example, is the percentage of Hispanics in the southwest US growing because they are having more children, because they are immigrating, or because whites aren't having enough children to keep their population constant? And what about wealth, that is the link that I claimed made the difference in population growth, are middle class Hispanics having as many children as poor Hispanics? The data you link to doesn't say.
Oh how I love this generic style of argument. I call it, "I know you are but what am I?" Basically, any concern, problem, or issue can be summarily dismissed if it or something similar occurs anywhere else.
Check it, dingbat, nobody said all other power sources were safer. Nobody is trying to get rid of nuclear power. All I am trying to do is point out that there are problems with this power source (that may affect other power sources as well) that need to be addressed. Bringing up the fact that other power sources are unsafe does not make nuclear safe. Making it safe makes it safe. "Not the worst thing out there" is never a ringing endorsement.
No, it is not.
If you were around 40 years ago when GE was fucking up the design of this plant, you may have had a chance.
Now, you're just being a monday-morning nuclear engineer.
As is everyone else here, so get off your high horse or stop posting.
But neither side appears to want to listen to the guys who actually know. Certainty is a gut feeling, not arrived at through logical processes, indeed, if we are being honest about the limits of deductive reasoning, then in most cases certainty can not be arrived at through logical processes. Gut feelings aren't amenable to change through logical processes, either, in fact, gut feelings not only take precedence over logic, they direct it towards their own ends: justifying the certainty.
Where did all the water go? It isn't even touching the fuel rods, they couldn't be turning it into steam. Lack of water is evidence of containment failure. Evidence of, not proof of.
Greenpeace and their ilk are complicit as well, but the way to fight them is not to call them idiots and simply dismiss their concerns. Indeed, the only way to fight their kind is to appear to take their concerns very seriously. Having been a Greenpeace canvasser in my radical youth, I know how their minds work. They love having something to fight against, so if you won't fight them, it takes all the wind out of their sails.
I never said there was a containment leak, I said there was evidence of one. Exactly how cold fuel rods in the core be exposed to air unless their were a containment leak? Where is all the water going? I believe there is evidence of a leak, that doesn't mean there is a leak, there could be other explanations for the evidence that had caused the company itself to worry about containment failure. Personally, my evidence is that the company is worried. Without any evidence, the company would not be worried about a leak.
As I've said before, I want safe nuclear power, like the pebble bed type reactors, and all this bullshit from people like you is only getting in the way of us getting there.
The question is, how many willdie because of this. No one was claiming anything about the death toll, so why did you bring it up?
Nice comeback, I'll have to remember that one. As they say, brevity is the soul of wit.
No, I'm saying that, according to the article, there is evidence of a containment failure. But couldn't you get your English teacher to help you with your reading comprehension problems?
"Sounds like" = "is" now?
Good to know.