it never ceases to amaze me how angry and venomous, yet utterly clueless a few people can be despite the blatant obviousness of the joke.
Uhhh, hate to break it to you, but none of the "jokes" seemed to actually work this year. I mean, most people catch them each April 1, but this years' were even less successful than usual.
The fake stories are the ones that are improbable, derived from obscure news sources, and hard to verify. Oops, wait, you're right, how are we going to tell them from the usual slashdot stories?
Uhhh...you seriously believe listing Xbox games on a list of "GAMES YOU SHOULDN'T PLAY" is an ADVERTISEMENT? I mean, geeze, I like MS-bashing as much as the next guy, but that makes very little sense.
Not at all; of course global temperatures cycled in the past, and of course this wasn't caused by human beings. I'm simply stating just because warming happened before through non-human causes, it DOESN'T logically follow that it can't ALSO happen through human activity.
And I'm simply stating that there's a good chance that it's man's fault, or at least partially man's fault. What's so hard to believe about that? And even if there's a 50-50 chance of it being caused by humans, that warrants reducing C02 emissions right there. You don't buy insurance because you're 100% sure your car is going to be in a wreck.
There's nothing wrong with talking about guns. However, if you're going to tout yourself as the spokesman of the OSS movement, which he definitely does, then stay on freaking topic.
Which scientists? The IPCC? That was mostly signed by environmentalists and politicians. There was a whopping 1 climate scientist that signed it. On the other hand, this petition [oism.org], signed by over 15,000 scientists suggests otherwise.
Whoosh! That's the sound of your credibility flying out the window.
Plenty of other posters have indicated the flaw of listing oism.org as anything other than extremist propaganda. I'll work on your IPCC claim.
Here is a list of the people who compiled the report. Looks like scientists to me. Nobody from Greenpeace, but plenty from NASA.
Get over yourself. There isn't any shortage of ideological blindness on "your side" of this issue either.
Ah, but I don't personally benefit from global warming being true. Actually, I suffer from it. I would LOVE global warming to be a myth; I live in a coastal city, and don't really WANT it to be under water in a few decades.
And I didn't have an opinion one way or the other until I went to college and started taking courses in climatology/metereology. Despite the right-wing FUD, climate is monitored very closely, and there is ample evidence that many climatic factors have anthropogenic sources.
Those that believe that humans are causing global warming fit into the same group of people that, hundreds of years ago, thought you'd fall off the edge of the world if you sailed too far and that the sun circled the earth--both very "human-centric" ways of thinking. They had no proof of either, but it was a part of popular culture nonetheless and to suggest the world was round was considered rediculous.
The fact that humankind has a definite effect on the environment is an established fact. The only people who don't believe it are the scientifically illiterate, and those who are so invested in ideology that they just can't believe in it.
Earth changed constantly over billions of years before the global warming club appeared. They definitely need to get a grip on reality and realize that the world--not even the environment--revolves around humans.
This makes no sense, yet it appears on every global warming story. Non-human factors can effect global climate, therefore human factors never will be able to. Do you see how silly the argument is? There's a huge difference between "A can affect B" and "A and only A can affect B".
The scientists say there's global warming. The business world says there isn't. Now who should we believe? The scientists, or the people who benefit financially from saying there isn't?
Fine, you say, there's global warming, but it can't be industry (again, because there wasn't industry in the past; it still makes no sense). What exactly do you think happens to all the CO2 and other pollutants we pump into the atmosphere? They just disappear? Well we see one effect already in acid rain (or do you think that's a myth, too?) Again, proof that humanity can indeed cause large-scale adverse climate change.
talking about the success of open source and Linux on the desktop
There's a short conversation.
Re:It's not a throwaway line.
on
Stopping Light
·
· Score: 2
Well, I think his point is that this is an incredibly complex and esoteric subject, and to make vague pronouncements on it is a little pompous. I mean, maybe he does have an advanced degree in physics with a concentration in quantum mechanics, but if so why not tell us exactly why it won't result in advances anytime soon?
The power companies pushed for this plan because they thought they'd be able to make out like bandits. The government went for it because they thought they could get the benefit of regulation--stability--with the benefit of privatization--efficiency. Both of them lost out, so the power companies starting pointing figures at the government because the executives didn't want to lose their nice cushy jobs.
Linux is just fine on the desktop, if you don't want to play current games or read.pdf files or use a browser that works with most web pages or drivers for any obscure hardware that you might obtain or technical support or patches for your applications. Other than that it's great.
At least all the arguments that we used to hear from/. posters about how "if you're good at what you do you never have to worry about a job" seem to have quieted down. Suddenly a bunch of very naive young coders have learned that the economy doesn't revolve around their l33t skills.
Back in 1984 I paid a reasonable monthly charge to access Compuserve. I couldn't do the same with the Internet until 1993.
Reasonable? I remember at looking at the compuserv price lists and being astounded at the cost. Of course I was just a kid back then, but it was still pretty pricey.
Re:The oscars aren't about the best films...
on
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
·
· Score: 2
That's quite alright, my uptight friend. I have 50 karma, and don't need any more mod ups.
Slashdot Mirror
Weird.
news.com.COM? Is that different from news.com?
it never ceases to amaze me how angry and venomous, yet utterly clueless a few people can be despite the blatant obviousness of the joke.
Uhhh, hate to break it to you, but none of the "jokes" seemed to actually work this year. I mean, most people catch them each April 1, but this years' were even less successful than usual.
What's REAL and What's FAKE today?
The fake stories are the ones that are improbable, derived from obscure news sources, and hard to verify. Oops, wait, you're right, how are we going to tell them from the usual slashdot stories?
Like that "Taco Bell is buying the liberty bell" hoax of a few years ago. Now THAT was a masterfully done April's fool prank...
I must say, none of them were particularly clever this year.
Uhhh...you seriously believe listing Xbox games on a list of "GAMES YOU SHOULDN'T PLAY" is an ADVERTISEMENT? I mean, geeze, I like MS-bashing as much as the next guy, but that makes very little sense.
then it will at least be some real competition for Google which can only be a good thing
Unless they split a market which can't support two similar search engines, then both go out of business and we're stuck with nothing.
Not at all; of course global temperatures cycled in the past, and of course this wasn't caused by human beings. I'm simply stating just because warming happened before through non-human causes, it DOESN'T logically follow that it can't ALSO happen through human activity.
And I'm simply stating that there's a good chance that it's man's fault, or at least partially man's fault. What's so hard to believe about that? And even if there's a 50-50 chance of it being caused by humans, that warrants reducing C02 emissions right there. You don't buy insurance because you're 100% sure your car is going to be in a wreck.
There's nothing wrong with talking about guns. However, if you're going to tout yourself as the spokesman of the OSS movement, which he definitely does, then stay on freaking topic.
Which scientists? The IPCC? That was mostly signed by environmentalists and politicians. There was a whopping 1 climate scientist that signed it. On the other hand, this petition [oism.org], signed by over 15,000 scientists suggests otherwise.
Whoosh! That's the sound of your credibility flying out the window.
Plenty of other posters have indicated the flaw of listing oism.org as anything other than extremist propaganda. I'll work on your IPCC claim.
Here is a list of the people who compiled the report. Looks like scientists to me. Nobody from Greenpeace, but plenty from NASA.
Get over yourself. There isn't any shortage of ideological blindness on "your side" of this issue either.
Ah, but I don't personally benefit from global warming being true. Actually, I suffer from it. I would LOVE global warming to be a myth; I live in a coastal city, and don't really WANT it to be under water in a few decades.
And I didn't have an opinion one way or the other until I went to college and started taking courses in climatology/metereology. Despite the right-wing FUD, climate is monitored very closely, and there is ample evidence that many climatic factors have anthropogenic sources.
Those that believe that humans are causing global warming fit into the same group of people that, hundreds of years ago, thought you'd fall off the edge of the world if you sailed too far and that the sun circled the earth--both very "human-centric" ways of thinking. They had no proof of either, but it was a part of popular culture nonetheless and to suggest the world was round was considered rediculous.
The fact that humankind has a definite effect on the environment is an established fact. The only people who don't believe it are the scientifically illiterate, and those who are so invested in ideology that they just can't believe in it.
Earth changed constantly over billions of years before the global warming club appeared. They definitely need to get a grip on reality and realize that the world--not even the environment--revolves around humans.
This makes no sense, yet it appears on every global warming story. Non-human factors can effect global climate, therefore human factors never will be able to. Do you see how silly the argument is? There's a huge difference between "A can affect B" and "A and only A can affect B".
The scientists say there's global warming. The business world says there isn't. Now who should we believe? The scientists, or the people who benefit financially from saying there isn't?
Fine, you say, there's global warming, but it can't be industry (again, because there wasn't industry in the past; it still makes no sense). What exactly do you think happens to all the CO2 and other pollutants we pump into the atmosphere? They just disappear? Well we see one effect already in acid rain (or do you think that's a myth, too?) Again, proof that humanity can indeed cause large-scale adverse climate change.
Ever wonder why the Los Alomos preprint server offers the papers in that format?
No.
He tends to use violent imagery. He also tends to rant about how many guns he owns when discussing OSS for some bizarre reason.
talking about the success of open source and Linux on the desktop
There's a short conversation.
Well, I think his point is that this is an incredibly complex and esoteric subject, and to make vague pronouncements on it is a little pompous. I mean, maybe he does have an advanced degree in physics with a concentration in quantum mechanics, but if so why not tell us exactly why it won't result in advances anytime soon?
The power companies pushed for this plan because they thought they'd be able to make out like bandits. The government went for it because they thought they could get the benefit of regulation--stability--with the benefit of privatization--efficiency. Both of them lost out, so the power companies starting pointing figures at the government because the executives didn't want to lose their nice cushy jobs.
Wow, that's even more useful than my program that created randomized ascii faces...
Linux is just fine on the desktop, if you don't want to play current games or read .pdf files or use a browser that works with most web pages or drivers for any obscure hardware that you might obtain or technical support or patches for your applications. Other than that it's great.
What a magnificent sentence.
At least all the arguments that we used to hear from /. posters about how "if you're good at what you do you never have to worry about a job" seem to have quieted down. Suddenly a bunch of very naive young coders have learned that the economy doesn't revolve around their l33t skills.
IANAAP, but
Don't let that stop you; it's never stopped anyone else on slashdot...
Back in 1984 I paid a reasonable monthly charge to access Compuserve. I couldn't do the same with the Internet until 1993.
Reasonable? I remember at looking at the compuserv price lists and being astounded at the cost. Of course I was just a kid back then, but it was still pretty pricey.
That's quite alright, my uptight friend. I have 50 karma, and don't need any more mod ups.