"Blackballed", eh? Bollocks. Getting a book published isn't easy, and it shouldn't be. The manuscript needs to be either good or commercially viable, preferably both, and most are neither. Most wannabe writers fail. It's not common to create conspiracy theories to explain one's failure, though.
And regarding the used book market: it's not much of a competitor to the traditional publishers. In fact, it's a vital part of the market for out of print books, books that the publisher doesn't want to or can't keep in storage forever -- although they do want them circulating. It's not different to a library. I don't know how common it is, but I know of one medium sized publisher that had a second-hand bookshop themselves. It still exists, independently of the publisher.
And if you think traditional publishers are useless, you probably also think proof-reading and editing is useless. Perhaps that's why no one will bother publishing your stuff.
The U.S. economy was built on protectionist policies. It's funny how they would get there if protectionist actually was all that harmful. Or take England, as another example: previously protectionist. Is it possible that selective protectionism may be good for a developing economy and bad for a developed economy, as empirical evidence would suggest? And that free markets would be good for -- wait for it! -- the proponents of free markets, i.e. rich nations?
Were you born an idiot or did it come with your ATT subscription plan? iPhone usage is less than 1% of all web users. It does absolutely nothing whatsoever to Flash usage except in your irrelevant little Cupertino-centric universe. iPhone usage is, at most, half the amount of Linux usage. It hardly even registers. Only web sites catering specifically to Apple fans care about that negligible user base. Being one of them, you probably observe empirically what you're saying. But in the real world, the iPhone's lack of Flash support doesn't mean anything.
You're doing it again. I cut a bit of his comment for brevity, which was "is a genuine Unix workstation", implying OS X; in fact all of the comment implied OS X. Besides, if he really did mean that the Mac hardware had better hardware support than Linux (see how absurd this gets?), it would still be wrong.
Let's see. Someone claimed that OS X supports the hardware it runs on better than Linux does.
No, the claim was "A Mac... has much better software and hardware support than Linux.", which (for the hardware part) is simply untrue. I suggest you should stop lying, it really is annoying.
One would assume you were trolling from the blatant dishonesty of your post. OS X isn't a particularly good BSD for the desktop; the only thing that makes it decent is the proprietary non-BSD stuff running on top of Darwin. As a BSD, Darwin is pretty damn poor, in almost all respects. There's a reason why no one uses it except as part of OS X, you know.
And insofar as other BSDs support a bunch of other platforms, that has nothing to do with the fact that Linux has far superior hardware support compared to OS X. Basically, you argue like a delusional fanboy. and when that doesn't work you try an appeal to authority. Well, you may be an authority, but you're also a liar.
You didn't even bother reading your own links. The earth and humanity will do fine without the king penguin and most other species. Numerous species are endangered. Species go extinct every year, unnoticed. Most of them also have really small populations (which is how the go extinct, incidentally). That's not doom-mongering, that's fact.
Or perhaps you find facts unpleasant?
At any rate, this is cause for concern, but won't cause human extinction any time soon, which is what christian eschatology is all about, and something you couldn't find one single link pointing to. You're wrong, QED.
You're wrong. His point (A) is that there's an equivalence between Christian doom prophets and global warming alarmists. He backs this up with bullshit (B), or "hyperbole" in your words. If (B) by necessity is hyperbole, then (A) is hyperbole, and his claim is incorrect. The fact that you think his point can be both valid and wrong says everything it needs to say about your intelligence. You're an idiot. Please stop posting.
I'm going against one specific and dishonest claim made by tritonman and backed up by Anonymous Coward, alexj and genner. Why should I be the one to back up and allow them to make fallacious claims when they are in the wrong? The doom-sayers I claim not to exist do not exist. Others do, of course, and I've done nothing to defend them or deny their existence.
Your argument is the equivalent to saying: "OK, so change unicorns to horses, and admit that there are in fact equines that you claim do not exist." My reply is: go fuck yourself.
Apparently you're incapable of discerning the difference between the end of the world and the end of the north polar ice cap. Sadly, this is the expected level of accuracy from so-called "climate sceptics".
Yes, it needs one. I can think of three different ways of passing on these traits (and there may be more): 1) through hormonal influence in the womb, 2) through teaching (mouse mnemonics?) and 3) through some unknown non-DNA genetic mechanism. If it's 1), the traits will likely only last for one generation, if 2), the traits will likely mutate more from one generation to the next, if 3) it may last as long as the family tree.
Perhaps you could argue that. Perhaps. But you specifically said "driver support", and Linux has always had much better driver support than BeOS. In fact, XFree86 4.0, with DRI, was released the same month as BeOS 5. It had about the same basic driver support, but actually had accellerated OpenGL for some cards (Matrox? 3dfx?), BeOS never got that, unless you count the Dano beta (which didn't boot on my computer).
You mean it wasn't autoconfigured. Sorry, but mouse wheels worked fine in Linux back then (since XFree86 3.3.2, released early 1998), but needed a couple of lines in/etc/X11/XF86Config or whatever it was called back then, and often needed application specific support (for Netscape and Emacs, at least). You would have known how if you spent a minute plugging a query into Alta Vista. So, if you couldn't get it to work, you either didn't try, or you used a release prior to 1998. Compared to a BeOS release of 2000. And if you did that, then it's no wonder why some of your hardware wasn't supported: it wasn't made yet when the software was released.
Better for you. In real numbers, the driver support wasn't nearly as good. Besides, since you couldn't get Linux to support your mouse of CD player, you obviously never even tried. In other words: you lie.
Good on you to be the first to post that very common opinion that you no doubt have read here several times in the past. This will no doubt get you a well deserved +5, insightful.
In the context of the article, "the tools" was meant to refer to e.g. using the term "Darwinism" instead of "evolutionary biology" in order to construct strawmen to attack. The contradiction lies entirely in your choice of interpretation.
Slashdot Mirror
"Blackballed", eh? Bollocks. Getting a book published isn't easy, and it shouldn't be. The manuscript needs to be either good or commercially viable, preferably both, and most are neither. Most wannabe writers fail. It's not common to create conspiracy theories to explain one's failure, though.
And regarding the used book market: it's not much of a competitor to the traditional publishers. In fact, it's a vital part of the market for out of print books, books that the publisher doesn't want to or can't keep in storage forever -- although they do want them circulating. It's not different to a library. I don't know how common it is, but I know of one medium sized publisher that had a second-hand bookshop themselves. It still exists, independently of the publisher.
And if you think traditional publishers are useless, you probably also think proof-reading and editing is useless. Perhaps that's why no one will bother publishing your stuff.
The U.S. economy was built on protectionist policies. It's funny how they would get there if protectionist actually was all that harmful. Or take England, as another example: previously protectionist. Is it possible that selective protectionism may be good for a developing economy and bad for a developed economy, as empirical evidence would suggest? And that free markets would be good for -- wait for it! -- the proponents of free markets, i.e. rich nations?
First time I heard about Linux used for games was when id released their first betas of Quake for Linux before Windows.
Were you born an idiot or did it come with your ATT subscription plan? iPhone usage is less than 1% of all web users. It does absolutely nothing whatsoever to Flash usage except in your irrelevant little Cupertino-centric universe. iPhone usage is, at most, half the amount of Linux usage. It hardly even registers. Only web sites catering specifically to Apple fans care about that negligible user base. Being one of them, you probably observe empirically what you're saying. But in the real world, the iPhone's lack of Flash support doesn't mean anything.
If it lives up to all the hype Apple is giving it, it will still be lacking Noscript and ABP.
The CSS 3 Web Fonts seem rather neat, though.
You're doing it again. I cut a bit of his comment for brevity, which was "is a genuine Unix workstation", implying OS X; in fact all of the comment implied OS X. Besides, if he really did mean that the Mac hardware had better hardware support than Linux (see how absurd this gets?), it would still be wrong.
You're deliberately trying to confuse the debate.
Let's see. Someone claimed that OS X supports the hardware it runs on better than Linux does.
No, the claim was "A Mac ... has much better software and hardware support than Linux.", which (for the hardware part) is simply untrue. I suggest you should stop lying, it really is annoying.
One would assume you were trolling from the blatant dishonesty of your post. OS X isn't a particularly good BSD for the desktop; the only thing that makes it decent is the proprietary non-BSD stuff running on top of Darwin. As a BSD, Darwin is pretty damn poor, in almost all respects. There's a reason why no one uses it except as part of OS X, you know.
And insofar as other BSDs support a bunch of other platforms, that has nothing to do with the fact that Linux has far superior hardware support compared to OS X. Basically, you argue like a delusional fanboy. and when that doesn't work you try an appeal to authority. Well, you may be an authority, but you're also a liar.
You didn't even bother reading your own links. The earth and humanity will do fine without the king penguin and most other species. Numerous species are endangered. Species go extinct every year, unnoticed. Most of them also have really small populations (which is how the go extinct, incidentally). That's not doom-mongering, that's fact.
Or perhaps you find facts unpleasant?
At any rate, this is cause for concern, but won't cause human extinction any time soon, which is what christian eschatology is all about, and something you couldn't find one single link pointing to. You're wrong, QED.
I'm sure you do; you're the one stating Al Gore claimed the world would end in 10 years. Excuse me for not being too bothered with what you "think".
You're wrong. His point (A) is that there's an equivalence between Christian doom prophets and global warming alarmists. He backs this up with bullshit (B), or "hyperbole" in your words. If (B) by necessity is hyperbole, then (A) is hyperbole, and his claim is incorrect. The fact that you think his point can be both valid and wrong says everything it needs to say about your intelligence. You're an idiot. Please stop posting.
It's not hyperbole, it's a strawman.
"Discussing the possibility" is not a prophecy.
I'm going against one specific and dishonest claim made by tritonman and backed up by Anonymous Coward, alexj and genner. Why should I be the one to back up and allow them to make fallacious claims when they are in the wrong? The doom-sayers I claim not to exist do not exist. Others do, of course, and I've done nothing to defend them or deny their existence.
Your argument is the equivalent to saying: "OK, so change unicorns to horses, and admit that there are in fact equines that you claim do not exist." My reply is: go fuck yourself.
Apparently you're incapable of discerning the difference between the end of the world and the end of the north polar ice cap. Sadly, this is the expected level of accuracy from so-called "climate sceptics".
You really need to provide a link to a quote. Of course, you can't realistically do that.
No, Al Gore didn't claim next year would be 1000 degrees or that the world was going to end soon.
[citation needed]. Oh, wait, you just invented those doom mongers yourself, bravely defeating a horrible strawman.
Yes, it needs one. I can think of three different ways of passing on these traits (and there may be more): 1) through hormonal influence in the womb, 2) through teaching (mouse mnemonics?) and 3) through some unknown non-DNA genetic mechanism. If it's 1), the traits will likely only last for one generation, if 2), the traits will likely mutate more from one generation to the next, if 3) it may last as long as the family tree.
Perhaps you could argue that. Perhaps. But you specifically said "driver support", and Linux has always had much better driver support than BeOS. In fact, XFree86 4.0, with DRI, was released the same month as BeOS 5. It had about the same basic driver support, but actually had accellerated OpenGL for some cards (Matrox? 3dfx?), BeOS never got that, unless you count the Dano beta (which didn't boot on my computer).
No, it wasn't.
You mean it wasn't autoconfigured. Sorry, but mouse wheels worked fine in Linux back then (since XFree86 3.3.2, released early 1998), but needed a couple of lines in /etc/X11/XF86Config or whatever it was called back then, and often needed application specific support (for Netscape and Emacs, at least). You would have known how if you spent a minute plugging a query into Alta Vista. So, if you couldn't get it to work, you either didn't try, or you used a release prior to 1998. Compared to a BeOS release of 2000. And if you did that, then it's no wonder why some of your hardware wasn't supported: it wasn't made yet when the software was released.
Better for you. In real numbers, the driver support wasn't nearly as good. Besides, since you couldn't get Linux to support your mouse of CD player, you obviously never even tried. In other words: you lie.
Good on you to be the first to post that very common opinion that you no doubt have read here several times in the past. This will no doubt get you a well deserved +5, insightful.
Ok then:
http://www.hs.fi/english/print/1135228139635
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lund_Report
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/radical-ewan-maccoll-was-tracked-by-mi5-for-decades-468689.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/big-brother-how-mi5-kept-watch-on-orwell-463837.html
In the context of the article, "the tools" was meant to refer to e.g. using the term "Darwinism" instead of "evolutionary biology" in order to construct strawmen to attack. The contradiction lies entirely in your choice of interpretation.