Oh, I know. Thus all the ridiculous rhetoric, implying he hates the free market and might be an islamofascist terrorist. I hope I made his tiny brain hurt, just a little.
Shit. Last time I play devil's advocate on an issue like this. I COULD come back and claim, "But that's not the fault of advertising, it's LYING that's to blame!" but I happen to agree with you. It is lying for money.
I can't do it. It hurts my brain to try to defend advertising. Suffice it to say, I'm not particularly annoyed by this instance of it. I also don't think it will be particularly successful, givin the nature of the/. audience.
Actually, you know what I find annoying? The name. Opinion center. As if, of all the sections on slashdot, THIS is the place to go if you want an opinion! It implies that this is the place for IMPORTANT, MEANINGFUL opinions, as opposed to the useless opinions of the unwashed masses elsewhere.
To me, advertising and marketing are on a moral par with masturbating in public. It's not particularly productive, it's offensive and annoying, but it doesn't really harm anyone. This is the equivilant of a nice private room where one can go to masturbate and only other perverts who are into that sort of thing have to watch.
It's one little box in the corner! It's not even an ad until you click it. How is that obtrusive?
My God! I can't believe I'm defending advertising. But I like slashdot, I want to see them make money, and this is one of the least irritating ways they can do that. You're probably right about slahvertisements continuing, though.
Consider this: which would you rather read, a magazine with adds scattered obtrusively throughout the publication, or one where the advertising came in a special supplement you could tear out and throw away?
Still wouldn't work. Humans are naturally curious critters, and flashing lights are an irresistable lure to many. Someone would notice that your bomb-with-flashing-lights was weird way before they even looked twice at that innocuous tattered brown box lying in the gutter.
You accuse your opponents of the fallacies of Ad-Hominem and Appeal to Authority. You claim that you have made an argument, and that no one can logically refute you. Lets analyze your original argument.
No, if is NO and When is NEVER.
The big problem with the whole "Global Warming" hysteria is that is doesn't take into account natural processes. It just looks at our Earth from a static viewpoint and assumes nothing ever changes, while adding in massivley inflated numbers of Human pollution. The models that the scientists are using are so primitive that they can't accurately predict real climate change.
Okay, this is not an argument. It is opinion. You cite no sources. Global warming does take into account natural proceses. It does not assume that the Earth is static. It does not massivly inflate numbers of human polution. The scientists are using a number of models that have made a large number of accurate predictions.
Anyone can claim anything they like, but you can't base an argument on things you made up. I could as easily say that d3ac0n is an alien robot sent here to help make the Earth warmer for his Venusian overlords. Can you logically refute that? No, but you don't have to: I'm the one making the ridiculous claims, I'm the one who has to back them up if I want people to accept my premise.
The truth is, in a real "Global Warming" type of situation, you would have the exact OPPOSITE of what the "experts" are predicting. No rampant hurricanes, no super violent weather at all. What you would have is a "banding" effect of the weather, much like we see on Venus. But our system is doing NOTHING LIKE THAT! In fact, our weather system is typical of what one would expect from a healthy dynamic system; Lots of wild fluctuations, with an overall effect of balancing the weather throughout the globe.
Again, you are stating your opinion. There is no logic here to refute. Your premises are false. The models predict exactly what is hapenning. If the models you refer to are not predicting that, then they need to be revised, don't you think? There would be no banding of weather. There is no banding of weather on Venus. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
You are making things up. How can anyone logically refute a fantasy?
Our Earth has been warming and cooling for MILLENIA, well before we puny humans showed up on the scene. Entire ecosystems have sprung up and been wiped out several times over during the course of our planet's history. We were never there for any of them. The ancient tides of our planet's natural systems are too deep and strong for the insignificant ship of humanity to do a thing about. The most we can do is make small ripples on the surface, which quickly vanish into the vastness of nature, obliterating even a mark that we were there.
When you make statements like this, you need to back them up, or why would anyone believe you? Have you run the numbers? What model are you basing your predicitons on? How many tons of CO2 are we pumping into the atmosphere each year? Do you even know something as basic as that?
You aren't making an argument, you are making things up!
Ultimately, what the "Global Warming" push is about is power. It has become a political point of view, co-opted by socialists and communists who are attempting to force a consensus in the scientific community through control of government and private foundation grant funds. Once they are able to force a consensus and squash all independent thought in the scientific community, they hope to be able to push the government towards socialism and (eventually) all-out communism. While I doubt there is a conspiracy in the classical sense, there are absolutely like-minded groups of people all pushing for similar goals. I, for one, am proud of GW's insistence on real hard science, and not the death of independent thoug
You know, I'm usually the first to jump on the anti-advertising, anti-corporate bandwagon, but I see no problem with this new feature. It's unobtrusive and a great way to seperate out "slashvertisements" from real stories. If I have an interest in seeing product announcements or opinion pieces by Intel, I now have a place to look. Honestly, this is how advertising should work: it's there if you want it, it's unobtrusive if you don't.
That's pretty funny, but seriously, some people actually believe that! I know, who'd be dumb enough to even consider that argument? It's true, though: there are people out there who think that anyone concerned about the environment is socialist! I don't even understand how that works. How does claiming global warming is a threat help "sneak socialism in the back door?" Are you implying that the free market, which can solve ANY problem, can't solve this one, and so we will have to turn to socialism?
You know who likes to deny the absolute, godlike supremacy of the free market system? Socialists. You're not a socialist, are you? Why do you hate the free market?
You know who else hates the free market? Islamofascist terrorists. Did you know that lending money for profit is a sin to muslims? Are you an islamofascist terrorist?
Who has more money, big oil or some small government agency who's entire yearly budget is less than what we spen in Iraq in a day? Any scientist that was only interested in the money would go where the money was and shill for big oil. Scientists live for fame, not money. Anyone who could prove global warming wrong would be rich AND famous.
Your argument is tired and weak, have you considered euthanizing it? I mean, global warming deniers have been trotting out that dead horse and beating it for years. Can't you come up with something new and relevant? I tire of pointing out the flaws in the same old arguments, I'd love to point out the flaws in something new.
Ah, that's cool. On my plan, I need PA for almost anything that doesn't come in generic. Gah, HMOs. Are they really the best way to handle our health? Personally, I think the free market breaks down in situations where people can basically be counted on not to act rationally. Almost anyone with major health concerns can be counted on not to act rationally, and many in the industry take advantage of that fact.
As an industry insider, do you have any thoughts on the best way to handle health care? Do you think the system we have is working, broken but fixeable, or in need of a complete overhaul?
Me too. Here's my favorite Bill Hicks quote, very relevant to the issue at hand:
By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself.
No, no, no it's just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they'll take root - I don't know. You try, you do what you can. Kill yourself.
Seriously though, if you are, do.
Aaah, no really, there's no rationalisation for what you do and you are Satan's little helpers. Okay - kill yourself - seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously. No this is not a joke, you're going, "there's going to be a joke coming," there's no fucking joke coming. You are Satan's spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourself. It's the only way to save your fucking soul, kill yourself.
Planting seeds. I know all the marketing people are going, "he's doing a joke..." there's no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a Yank friend - I don't care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking makinations. Machi... Whatever, you know what I mean.
I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, "Oh, you know what Bill's doing, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart."
Oh man, I am not doing that. You fucking evil scumbags!
"Ooh, you know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar. That's a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We've done research - huge market. He's doing a good thing."
Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scum-bags! Quit putting a godamm dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!
"Ooh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market, Bill's very bright to do that."
God, I'm just caught in a fucking web.
"Ooh the trapped dollar, big dollar, huge dollar. Good market - look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar..."
How do you live like that? And I bet you sleep like fucking babies at night, don't you?
"What didya do today honey?"
"Oh, we made ah, we made ah arsenic a childhood food now, goodnight." [snores] "Yeah we just said you know is your baby really too loud? You know?" [snores] "Yeah, you know the mums will love it." [snores]
Sleep like fucking children, don't ya, this is your world isn't it?
So, do you think that if doctors don't know the alternatives, we should advertise to the patients?
What exactly does a "pharmaceutical consulting group" do, anyway? Something good, like "Facilitate open communication between drug companies and doctors?" Or something bad like "Figure out how to push more drugs whether people need them or not?"
Oh. My. God. We're doomed. If people like you are in the majority, there's no hope for us. Hey, you know what else could be a bomb? Puppies. You could easily put a bomb inside a cute, adorable puppy and NO ONE WOULD EXPECT THAT! Let's kill all the puppies.
You know what else could be a bomb? Shopping carts with blankets over them. Empty cardboard boxes. Soda bottles. Mailboxes. Briefcases. Lunchboxes. Crosswalk timer boxes. Heck, I could get a metal box, strap it to a lightpole at a crosswalk, and no one would think it suspicious.
Why, when there are so many ways to make a bomb truely inconspicuous, would you make one with FLASHING FUCKING LIGHTS?!?
Now, I have my problems with this, too be sure. There are ordinances against this kind of thing. When a kid tags something, they get the book thrown at them. When a corporation does it, nothing happens, or they get a fine that, to them, isn't even a slap on the wrist. But that's the way the law works, and these folks deserve to be charged with vandalism or posting bills without a permit, or whatever.
They SHOULD NOT be held accountable for the massive overreaction of the media and city officials.
Perhaps if the mud deposit is large enough, there are other areas that could be drilled through to help relieve the pressure. The mud could be chanelled away from more economically important areas. Once enough pressure is released, the original hole could be capped.
I find it interesting that proper precautions weren't taken while drilling, as the wiki article on mud volcanoes mentions they are almost always associated with hydrocarbon deposits. You'd think oil companies would have a lot of experience dealing with these things. I certainly hope anyone who's livelyhood has been damaged by this negligence has the means to mount a lawsuit against the company.
Face it, the entertainment industry thrives on mediocrity. Whatever works is endlessly ripped off and stripped of whatever made the original good by committees of overeducated, undertalented hacks. Anything new is shunned and mocked, until it becomes popular at which point everyone is suddenly it's biggest fan.
And don't get me started on the quality of the Britney/Paris upskirt pics....
The posts above and below yours mention how this kind of lens will produce a halo around out of focus highlights. Come on, who wouldn't want to see a naked, wrinkled beaver with a halo? OH GOD I JUST PICTURED IT! BLEACH! I NEED BLEACH FOR MY BRAIN!
Everyone is freaking out based on an obviously sensationalistic headline. Has anyone seen the actual bill? Does it propose to ban incandescents for everyone, or just for government purchases? I googled for it but couldn't find anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I know. Thus all the ridiculous rhetoric, implying he hates the free market and might be an islamofascist terrorist. I hope I made his tiny brain hurt, just a little.
Shit. Last time I play devil's advocate on an issue like this. I COULD come back and claim, "But that's not the fault of advertising, it's LYING that's to blame!" but I happen to agree with you. It is lying for money.
False dichotomy, not a straw man.
/. audience.
I can't do it. It hurts my brain to try to defend advertising. Suffice it to say, I'm not particularly annoyed by this instance of it. I also don't think it will be particularly successful, givin the nature of the
Actually, you know what I find annoying? The name. Opinion center. As if, of all the sections on slashdot, THIS is the place to go if you want an opinion! It implies that this is the place for IMPORTANT, MEANINGFUL opinions, as opposed to the useless opinions of the unwashed masses elsewhere.
To me, advertising and marketing are on a moral par with masturbating in public. It's not particularly productive, it's offensive and annoying, but it doesn't really harm anyone. This is the equivilant of a nice private room where one can go to masturbate and only other perverts who are into that sort of thing have to watch.
It's one little box in the corner! It's not even an ad until you click it. How is that obtrusive?
My God! I can't believe I'm defending advertising. But I like slashdot, I want to see them make money, and this is one of the least irritating ways they can do that. You're probably right about slahvertisements continuing, though.
Consider this: which would you rather read, a magazine with adds scattered obtrusively throughout the publication, or one where the advertising came in a special supplement you could tear out and throw away?
Gmmf! Mmm Hrwrgfmffmmmmmf! Hrmwrmng!
Still wouldn't work. Humans are naturally curious critters, and flashing lights are an irresistable lure to many. Someone would notice that your bomb-with-flashing-lights was weird way before they even looked twice at that innocuous tattered brown box lying in the gutter.
Okay, this is not an argument. It is opinion. You cite no sources. Global warming does take into account natural proceses. It does not assume that the Earth is static. It does not massivly inflate numbers of human polution. The scientists are using a number of models that have made a large number of accurate predictions.
Anyone can claim anything they like, but you can't base an argument on things you made up. I could as easily say that d3ac0n is an alien robot sent here to help make the Earth warmer for his Venusian overlords. Can you logically refute that? No, but you don't have to: I'm the one making the ridiculous claims, I'm the one who has to back them up if I want people to accept my premise.
Again, you are stating your opinion. There is no logic here to refute. Your premises are false. The models predict exactly what is hapenning. If the models you refer to are not predicting that, then they need to be revised, don't you think? There would be no banding of weather. There is no banding of weather on Venus. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
You are making things up. How can anyone logically refute a fantasy?
When you make statements like this, you need to back them up, or why would anyone believe you? Have you run the numbers? What model are you basing your predicitons on? How many tons of CO2 are we pumping into the atmosphere each year? Do you even know something as basic as that?
You aren't making an argument, you are making things up!
You know, I'm usually the first to jump on the anti-advertising, anti-corporate bandwagon, but I see no problem with this new feature. It's unobtrusive and a great way to seperate out "slashvertisements" from real stories. If I have an interest in seeing product announcements or opinion pieces by Intel, I now have a place to look. Honestly, this is how advertising should work: it's there if you want it, it's unobtrusive if you don't.
That's pretty funny, but seriously, some people actually believe that! I know, who'd be dumb enough to even consider that argument? It's true, though: there are people out there who think that anyone concerned about the environment is socialist! I don't even understand how that works. How does claiming global warming is a threat help "sneak socialism in the back door?" Are you implying that the free market, which can solve ANY problem, can't solve this one, and so we will have to turn to socialism?
You know who likes to deny the absolute, godlike supremacy of the free market system? Socialists. You're not a socialist, are you? Why do you hate the free market?
You know who else hates the free market? Islamofascist terrorists. Did you know that lending money for profit is a sin to muslims? Are you an islamofascist terrorist?
Why do you hate our country?
Who has more money, big oil or some small government agency who's entire yearly budget is less than what we spen in Iraq in a day? Any scientist that was only interested in the money would go where the money was and shill for big oil. Scientists live for fame, not money. Anyone who could prove global warming wrong would be rich AND famous.
Your argument is tired and weak, have you considered euthanizing it? I mean, global warming deniers have been trotting out that dead horse and beating it for years. Can't you come up with something new and relevant? I tire of pointing out the flaws in the same old arguments, I'd love to point out the flaws in something new.
Ah, that's cool. On my plan, I need PA for almost anything that doesn't come in generic. Gah, HMOs. Are they really the best way to handle our health? Personally, I think the free market breaks down in situations where people can basically be counted on not to act rationally. Almost anyone with major health concerns can be counted on not to act rationally, and many in the industry take advantage of that fact.
As an industry insider, do you have any thoughts on the best way to handle health care? Do you think the system we have is working, broken but fixeable, or in need of a complete overhaul?
What exactly does a "pharmaceutical consulting group" do, anyway? Something good, like "Facilitate open communication between drug companies and doctors?" Or something bad like "Figure out how to push more drugs whether people need them or not?"
Oh. My. God. We're doomed. If people like you are in the majority, there's no hope for us. Hey, you know what else could be a bomb? Puppies. You could easily put a bomb inside a cute, adorable puppy and NO ONE WOULD EXPECT THAT! Let's kill all the puppies.
You know what else could be a bomb? Shopping carts with blankets over them. Empty cardboard boxes. Soda bottles. Mailboxes. Briefcases. Lunchboxes. Crosswalk timer boxes. Heck, I could get a metal box, strap it to a lightpole at a crosswalk, and no one would think it suspicious.
Why, when there are so many ways to make a bomb truely inconspicuous, would you make one with FLASHING FUCKING LIGHTS?!?
Now, I have my problems with this, too be sure. There are ordinances against this kind of thing. When a kid tags something, they get the book thrown at them. When a corporation does it, nothing happens, or they get a fine that, to them, isn't even a slap on the wrist. But that's the way the law works, and these folks deserve to be charged with vandalism or posting bills without a permit, or whatever.
They SHOULD NOT be held accountable for the massive overreaction of the media and city officials.
so free hookers and blow for everybody!"
We're all in the wrong business, aren't we?
Perhaps if the mud deposit is large enough, there are other areas that could be drilled through to help relieve the pressure. The mud could be chanelled away from more economically important areas. Once enough pressure is released, the original hole could be capped.
I find it interesting that proper precautions weren't taken while drilling, as the wiki article on mud volcanoes mentions they are almost always associated with hydrocarbon deposits. You'd think oil companies would have a lot of experience dealing with these things. I certainly hope anyone who's livelyhood has been damaged by this negligence has the means to mount a lawsuit against the company.
I thought it was something like that. I am still having a lot of trouble visualizing the actual light-path, though.
Face it, the entertainment industry thrives on mediocrity. Whatever works is endlessly ripped off and stripped of whatever made the original good by committees of overeducated, undertalented hacks. Anything new is shunned and mocked, until it becomes popular at which point everyone is suddenly it's biggest fan.
And don't get me started on the quality of the Britney/Paris upskirt pics....
The posts above and below yours mention how this kind of lens will produce a halo around out of focus highlights. Come on, who wouldn't want to see a naked, wrinkled beaver with a halo? OH GOD I JUST PICTURED IT! BLEACH! I NEED BLEACH FOR MY BRAIN!
I think it's more along the lines of how slashdotters are exempted from having sex...
It's a reflector. Don't ask me how it works, the story and illustrations aren't very clear. But it's not a lens, fresnel or otherwise.
Just look at them all. Must have all passed out from the excitement.
Everyone is freaking out based on an obviously sensationalistic headline. Has anyone seen the actual bill? Does it propose to ban incandescents for everyone, or just for government purchases? I googled for it but couldn't find anything.
I bleed easily. And I tend to pee myself in court.
I was hoping for Lenna. Simulate me a steamy Swedish playmate, and then show me what happens when I take her top off.
Never mind that she's over 50 now, married with 3 kids...