They then figured out where the killing lanes were - itwas kinda funny. You could see them walk right up to the line - almost to the inch - and prepare for the run.
That reminds me of when our dairy farm when we had a rat problem in the manger. Since poison traps and guns were all kinda out of the question given the number of eating cows nearby, I decided to try picking them off with my pistol crossbow. That worked fairly well for about half a dozen rats. After that, the little beggars had my range and effective angles figured down to the millimeter, never mind the inch, so they would move just *barely* enough behind any obstruction so as to leave nothing but their twitching whiskers to shoot at. Not only that, they could tell whether I had a bolt cocked or not from thirty paces, and if I hadn't would sit there munching away right in the open and snickering while I walked up to almost grabbing range. I seriously did not expect rats to have the mechanical aptitude to distinguish the rather subtle differences between a dangerous and undangerous pistol crossbow like that. More clever than you'd think, these rats.
I'd hope that the instinct of survival would prevent lovers' spats from having disaterous effects.
Heh. Well, I've been on some mountaineering expeditions that were considerably more of a risk to the participants' lives than any NASA-funded well-researched thought-of-everything doublechecked-over-and-over mission to Mars would be, with pretty much exactly the same chance of being rescued from the trackless wilderness if anything serious went wrong as you would have on Mars...... and I can *assure* you that lovers' spats will override even the most basic primal survival common sense.
"... uh, guys, the snow is moving, get us to rocks I can hold on to THEN you can scream at each other..."
So I dunno. I think I might be kinda with NASA on this one.
I will not persecute them. But I disagree with the lifestyle.
Heh. Yes, you've put your finger nicely on the problem there. Sometime in the last two-three decades the definition of "tolerance" has changed from 'tolerating', as you display here, to the necessity to actively approve the behaviour in question. A rather intriguing proposition when the behaviour in question is multiculturalism, to say the least; note that nobody ever criticizes Muslims for their anti-homosexual stances, for instance.
Am I a bigot? Will you deny me my right to believe as I choose? Am I less human than they?
Well, by current standards, yes indeed you are. Doubleplusbadthink! Express that kind of thing in polite society these days, and it's off to the reeducation camps and show trials for you! Well, "sensitivity training sessions" and "public apologies", anyways, but I'm sure the actual camps and trials are closer than you'd believe...
For what nothing it's worth, I'm with you that a reasonable standard of "tolerance" is, well, 'tolerating', but then again I'm such a hardcore libertarian that my response to the whole gay marriage thing is "What the hell business does government have sticking its nose into any kind of personal private arrangements individuals want to call 'marriage' anyways? Let's eliminate ALL laws concerned with marriage, then they have NOTHING to bitch about!" which is pretty much as much beyond the pale of acceptable opinion as yours is, so there you go.
B) your tastes are so mainstream that the exact music you want in high quality rips and a fast download pipe is always immediately available over p2p networks.
Neither are exactly givens, for anyone with a worthwhile life, methinks.
There may be debate over the source of this warming (and from what I've read, I'm bending over backwards to be fair), but the evidence seems pretty clear that it is happening. What worries me is how fragile our current societies will prove to be in the face of big, (relatively) sudden changes like the ones described here.
Our society isn't as fragile as during the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings settled Greenland and birch and willow trees grew there natively and treeline was several hundred feet higher in Iceland than it is now. So current temperatures are not even close to matching those already experienced in historic times, and we did just fine then. (Well, depending on your definition of "we". Some cultures were completely wiped out, some did great, in roughly inverse correspondence to how well they did in the Little Ice Age that followed it and we're still recovering from.)
In any case, give it ten years and this whole global warming debate is going to seem as ludicrously wrongheaded as debates over Lamarckian evolution do today, that's my call. See, I come down pretty solidly on the side of the solar-variability theorists and think the anthropogenic theorists have next to nothing in the way of evidence... and the solar people predict that we're already on the downward swing to a new minimum which we'll reach around 2032, and it could very well be a *real* deepfreeze which makes the Maunder Minimum look like Maui in a heatwave.
I'd actually prefer the standard media runaway warming view, to be honest, because that I could address nicely for my expected lifespan by just moving to my new Ellesmere Island beachfront property and investing in the new Nunavut wheat fields. If the solar people are actually right like I figure they probably are, though, in a decade it's going to be pretty darn undeniable that the world is indeed getting sharply colder, and the four-five decades after that are going to REALLY. SUCK.
there isn't a single reason why anyone should not beleive in evolution.
Well, other than the fossil record and genetic analysis, that is.
The fossil record points to successive revolution, not steady state evolution as theory predicts. There's a multitude of proposed mechanisms to explain this, but none that have any actual proof better than Intelligent Design does. (Assuming an Intelligent Designer or Designers that like to tinker around repeatedly, mass extinction here, entire fully speciated families appearing out of nowhere instantly there, that kind of thing.)
Genetic analysis, well, that shit is just crazy. Suffice it to say that it's pretty certain that what we think we know about evolved inheritance and species succession is almost certainly massively incorrect, on the order of dozens of millions of years in some instances. And in theory, genetic analysis should be more reliable than relying on random fossil finding. So the next few decades as they refine those techniques should be _very_ interesting.
Let's put it this way: The evidence that there is some mechanism affecting speciation other than random mutation is fairly compelling. That said mechanism is an intelligent outside agent of some form, there's no evidence of that; but there's no evidence supporting any other theory either.
Intelligent Design requires that intelligence can *only* arise by design.
Therefore, you can falsify it by counterexample.
Actual "intelligence" isn't necessary for falsification, either. Demonstration of the spontaneous creation of any self-replicating system recognizably analogous to what we call "life" from inert chemical inputs would be sufficient.
Demonstrate the creation of a self-replicating system recognizably analogous to what we loosely refer to as "life" from pure chemical inputs, and presto, it's falsified. Well, not completely, but for all practical purposes it has been.
Absent that demonstration, well, there's no actual proof of any competing theory either, is there now?
Yeah, a fair bit actually. If you're doing professional press work, digital photography, or video, you need the best true-to-life colour fidelity achievable on your monitor, and that means (very expensive) CRT, not LCD.
Also, I don't think any LCDs can match the pixel response time of CRTs, so the hardcore FPS gamer might notice a difference enough to prefer a CRT. My idea of a good game is more along Nethack lines, so I wouldn't personally know.
Well, I've been programming the Mac as long as you, and in one of my particular niches your "assembly language is rarely used, byte swapping is only a minor annoyance" statement is incorrect.
That niche is, surprise, porting Windows games. Specifically, the Paradox games, Celtic Kings, etc. for Virtual Programming, vpltd.com.
On the one hand, the switch makes that job easier by far, since I'll just have to port the DirectX APIs to get it running on Mactel, then have a working reference to sort out the fiddly bits for the PPC version.
On the other hand... the arguments that the market for ports like that will dry up because all the hardcores will buy the Windows version on release date and dual boot until they're sick of the game around the time the Mac version would show up, those appear possibly quite sound. We shall see.
Heh. This weekend I gave away the 333 MHz iMac that's been my server the last few years, since it doesn't have FireWire so I couldn't upgrade it to OS X Server 10.4, and the guy I gave it to just sent me an email raving about how fast it is -- he'd been running a Performa 3600 up until yesterday.
Oh, it was pretty good as far as the effects went, and they were moderately faithful to the source material. I just was completely unimpressed by the whole hysterical kidette/bratty teenager story arc they made up to have some reason to put Tom Cruise in it.
Heh. OK, I lied in my last one, I'm back, but this is a bit too funny.
Point 1: Your idea of reasoned discourse is to include gratuitous vulgarity, unlike your opponent? This, friend, demonstrates a lot about you. And it's not something that any objective observer would find pleasant... or useful.
I'll call your bluff... If you Google for recent news about Karl Rove every single article will show this exact quote and none (that I could find, anyway) will reference your quote that you pulled out of your ass.
Point 2: What I said was -- in fact -- completely correct, as you would know if you had bothered to actually find the complete text which is under discussion. You did not, you found it easier to throw around baseless blather and vulgarity. Now, let's see. I have links to the full unedited source; you have "nyaa nyaa nyaa pulled out of your ass".
Good work there, son.
Truthfully, I guess I overestimated your intelligence by some magnitude.
Well, one of us is demonstrating a lack of intelligence, that's quite true. If I knew any objective observers that could be bothered to give a flying hoot, I'd ask them: "Here's my statements of fact, with links to the full unedited source. Here's topper24hours, with no facts and throwing vulgarities right and left. Which of these demonstrates more intelligence to you?"
Somehow, I suspect the results would displease you.
A sheep like you will follow your president
Point of fact: I don't have a president. I have a Prime Minister. As you'd know if you followed the URL under my name, but I suppose there's no reason to assume you'd bother to actually do any research to verify your assumptions, given how embarrassingly poor your research skills on the exact facts the debate turns on are.
So, keep sticking up for Karl and George all you want and wedging your head tightly up your own ass - in the end you are the only one the worse for it!
How so? Granted I've probably lost a good 45 minutes of work time in these exchanges, but hey, it's been reasonably entertaining for free, probably more so than _War of the Worlds_ last night and I paid $12 for that. I'll be in a rather better mood laughing whenever I think about the dumbass on Slashdot who descended into incoherent vulgarity when I conclusively demonstrated him wrong for oh probably most of the day now, so I think I'm rather the better for it!
If "fucked up liar" is how you spell "stater of provable fact", sure, as posted previously, but another thing occurred to me before I go away and leave the field to you --
that said that to purposely be devisive[sic] and draw more hate to Democrats.
Indeed. Now, some nine days or so before this Rovian statement, Dr. Dean made a statement to the effect that Republicans "have never worked a day in their lives". Do you think that is a provably true statement? Do you think that it differs qualitatively in either accuracy or intent than the statement of Messr. Rove's that you take such heartfelt issue with? Personally, I see the two statements as pretty much equivalent. If you don't -- and I'd say ascribing any veracity to Dr. Dean's statement would be a lot more difficult, so you're going to have to be *very* creative to convince me otherwise -- why all this vitriol for Mr. Rove and none for Dr. Dean? Looks to me like they're both politicians, doing what politicians do.
Anyhow, it's off home for me now, so take the last word here friend to make yourself feel good, but don't expect any more replies, I'll graciously concede in advance that whatever you prattle on about next is unanswerably correct. Good work there, son!
You know, friend, you can dance around all you like; but you can't get past the truth, not with me.
This is what Karl Rove said:
"in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States."
This statement is factually correct. It is provable. It describes full page newspaper ads.
So you can dance around and you can whine, but the cold hard facts will always remain the same: That statement is true. And that's the bottom line, as they say.
Unless you have some way to prove that the above statement is factually incorrect, your defensive whininess is of no effectiveness, so you might as well save it.
"if you believe that 85% of Liberals want to console our enemies, Christ do I feel sorry for you."
Hey, I read democraticunderground.com, dailykos.com, indymedia.com, and a wide variety of other sites which I think most people would classify along with the foregoing as "liberal"...... and what I read there indicates that 85% is LOW, if anything. I don't know where you get 0-1% from, but it's not corroborated by the sentiments expressed constantly on those sites and their ilk.
Oh, and please don't breed. Thanks!
Heh. You are _way_ late with that advice, my friend. In general though, that brings up another point: The demographics of those who vote liberal indicate that liberalness is a self-correcting aberration, unless people like you start getting real busy right soon. Check it out, it's rather interesting. Try stevesailer.com, for instance, ""Affordable Family Formation"--The Neglected Key To GOP's Future".
It's like the difference between saying "All Slashdotters talk straight out of their asses and prove other people's points with their extreme stupidity" (false)
Unfortunately, your argument breaks down at that point, since that is indeed true to within a 98% confidence interval or so.
It wouldn't make any sense if you picked a better example either. Nothing could ever be stated anywhere outside the field of mathematics (and some parts of that would have trouble!) if nothing could be stated without the implicit understanding that there are always exceptions. Statistics formalizes this inherent understanding -- which, apparently, you were insufficiently socialized when growing up, since you display an utter cluelessness about how people interact in the real world -- with the notion of 'confidence intervals' for a particular outcome. Let us apply that here. What do you think the percentage of self-professed "liberals" that hold that sentiment is? My guess is it's better than 85%, therefore "true" is a reasonable description. What's your guess? If it's different than mine, what makes yours better?
Er, Messr. Rove stated an objective truth -- the moveon.org team *did* do exactly what he said they did. This is provable by looking up the full page newspaper ads they took out.
If you think that stating a provable, objective truth is "divisive"... well, the division is between those that admit facts, and those that don't. Guess we know which side you're on now!
... and figure out how they're going to deal with the PowerPlant EULA which forbids distribution of applications compiled with any tool other than CodeWarrior.
Something to keep in mind though, is that the API-porting effort is fairly easily estimable and schedulable with a good degree of confidence.
Those @(#$&&!!!! endian bugs, on the other hand, can turn your schedule into an utter trainwreck and your profit into LESS than nothing. So eliminating them is a much bigger benefit than the actual percentage of effort they take up *in a well written app* --which most are faaaaaaar from -- would lead you to suspect.
Slashdot Mirror
They then figured out where the killing lanes were - itwas kinda funny. You could see them walk right up to the line - almost to the inch - and prepare for the run.
That reminds me of when our dairy farm when we had a rat problem in the manger. Since poison traps and guns were all kinda out of the question given the number of eating cows nearby, I decided to try picking them off with my pistol crossbow. That worked fairly well for about half a dozen rats. After that, the little beggars had my range and effective angles figured down to the millimeter, never mind the inch, so they would move just *barely* enough behind any obstruction so as to leave nothing but their twitching whiskers to shoot at. Not only that, they could tell whether I had a bolt cocked or not from thirty paces, and if I hadn't would sit there munching away right in the open and snickering while I walked up to almost grabbing range. I seriously did not expect rats to have the mechanical aptitude to distinguish the rather subtle differences between a dangerous and undangerous pistol crossbow like that. More clever than you'd think, these rats.
I'd hope that the instinct of survival would prevent lovers' spats from having disaterous effects.
... ... and I can *assure* you that lovers' spats will override even the most basic primal survival common sense.
Heh. Well, I've been on some mountaineering expeditions that were considerably more of a risk to the participants' lives than any NASA-funded well-researched thought-of-everything doublechecked-over-and-over mission to Mars would be, with pretty much exactly the same chance of being rescued from the trackless wilderness if anything serious went wrong as you would have on Mars
"... uh, guys, the snow is moving, get us to rocks I can hold on to THEN you can scream at each other..."
So I dunno. I think I might be kinda with NASA on this one.
I will not persecute them. But I disagree with the lifestyle.
Heh. Yes, you've put your finger nicely on the problem there. Sometime in the last two-three decades the definition of "tolerance" has changed from 'tolerating', as you display here, to the necessity to actively approve the behaviour in question. A rather intriguing proposition when the behaviour in question is multiculturalism, to say the least; note that nobody ever criticizes Muslims for their anti-homosexual stances, for instance.
Am I a bigot? Will you deny me my right to believe as I choose? Am I less human than they?
Well, by current standards, yes indeed you are. Doubleplusbadthink! Express that kind of thing in polite society these days, and it's off to the reeducation camps and show trials for you! Well, "sensitivity training sessions" and "public apologies", anyways, but I'm sure the actual camps and trials are closer than you'd believe...
For what nothing it's worth, I'm with you that a reasonable standard of "tolerance" is, well, 'tolerating', but then again I'm such a hardcore libertarian that my response to the whole gay marriage thing is "What the hell business does government have sticking its nose into any kind of personal private arrangements individuals want to call 'marriage' anyways? Let's eliminate ALL laws concerned with marriage, then they have NOTHING to bitch about!" which is pretty much as much beyond the pale of acceptable opinion as yours is, so there you go.
someone found a way to blame the US and George Bush for global warming on Mars.
Oh, you've got to show us THAT one. Please.
Free will always be cheaper than any pay service.
As long as
A) your time is valueless, or
B) your tastes are so mainstream that the exact music you want in high quality rips and a fast download pipe is always immediately available over p2p networks.
Neither are exactly givens, for anyone with a worthwhile life, methinks.
There may be debate over the source of this warming (and from what I've read, I'm bending over backwards to be fair), but the evidence seems pretty clear that it is happening. What worries me is how fragile our current societies will prove to be in the face of big, (relatively) sudden changes like the ones described here.
... and the solar people predict that we're already on the downward swing to a new minimum which we'll reach around 2032, and it could very well be a *real* deepfreeze which makes the Maunder Minimum look like Maui in a heatwave.
Our society isn't as fragile as during the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings settled Greenland and birch and willow trees grew there natively and treeline was several hundred feet higher in Iceland than it is now. So current temperatures are not even close to matching those already experienced in historic times, and we did just fine then. (Well, depending on your definition of "we". Some cultures were completely wiped out, some did great, in roughly inverse correspondence to how well they did in the Little Ice Age that followed it and we're still recovering from.)
In any case, give it ten years and this whole global warming debate is going to seem as ludicrously wrongheaded as debates over Lamarckian evolution do today, that's my call. See, I come down pretty solidly on the side of the solar-variability theorists and think the anthropogenic theorists have next to nothing in the way of evidence
I'd actually prefer the standard media runaway warming view, to be honest, because that I could address nicely for my expected lifespan by just moving to my new Ellesmere Island beachfront property and investing in the new Nunavut wheat fields. If the solar people are actually right like I figure they probably are, though, in a decade it's going to be pretty darn undeniable that the world is indeed getting sharply colder, and the four-five decades after that are going to REALLY. SUCK.
there isn't a single reason why anyone should not beleive in evolution.
Well, other than the fossil record and genetic analysis, that is.
The fossil record points to successive revolution, not steady state evolution as theory predicts. There's a multitude of proposed mechanisms to explain this, but none that have any actual proof better than Intelligent Design does. (Assuming an Intelligent Designer or Designers that like to tinker around repeatedly, mass extinction here, entire fully speciated families appearing out of nowhere instantly there, that kind of thing.)
Genetic analysis, well, that shit is just crazy. Suffice it to say that it's pretty certain that what we think we know about evolved inheritance and species succession is almost certainly massively incorrect, on the order of dozens of millions of years in some instances. And in theory, genetic analysis should be more reliable than relying on random fossil finding. So the next few decades as they refine those techniques should be _very_ interesting.
Let's put it this way: The evidence that there is some mechanism affecting speciation other than random mutation is fairly compelling. That said mechanism is an intelligent outside agent of some form, there's no evidence of that; but there's no evidence supporting any other theory either.
Intelligent Design requires that intelligence can *only* arise by design.
Therefore, you can falsify it by counterexample.
Actual "intelligence" isn't necessary for falsification, either. Demonstration of the spontaneous creation of any self-replicating system recognizably analogous to what we call "life" from inert chemical inputs would be sufficient.
Intelligence isn't necessary. Any self-replicating system would do.
But absent that demonstration, his point holds.
By counterexample, obviously.
Demonstrate the creation of a self-replicating system recognizably analogous to what we loosely refer to as "life" from pure chemical inputs, and presto, it's falsified. Well, not completely, but for all practical purposes it has been.
Absent that demonstration, well, there's no actual proof of any competing theory either, is there now?
yes copyright infringement is theft,
Learn the language, you ignorant slut.
n : the act of taking something from someone unlawfully
When you duplicate something, you have not taken it.
Actually, they never built a "PC",
Power Macintosh 6100/66 DOS Compatible sez u wrong, d00d.
Am I missing something?
Yeah, a fair bit actually. If you're doing professional press work, digital photography, or video, you need the best true-to-life colour fidelity achievable on your monitor, and that means (very expensive) CRT, not LCD.
Also, I don't think any LCDs can match the pixel response time of CRTs, so the hardcore FPS gamer might notice a difference enough to prefer a CRT. My idea of a good game is more along Nethack lines, so I wouldn't personally know.
Just chill out and don't worry, Canada is not so stupid as to pass a bill that could possibly be as damaging as this.
I am Canadian, you insensitive clod, and I'm bloody well TERRIFIED.
Well, I've been programming the Mac as long as you, and in one of my particular niches your "assembly language is rarely used, byte swapping is only a minor annoyance" statement is incorrect.
... the arguments that the market for ports like that will dry up because all the hardcores will buy the Windows version on release date and dual boot until they're sick of the game around the time the Mac version would show up, those appear possibly quite sound. We shall see.
That niche is, surprise, porting Windows games. Specifically, the Paradox games, Celtic Kings, etc. for Virtual Programming, vpltd.com.
On the one hand, the switch makes that job easier by far, since I'll just have to port the DirectX APIs to get it running on Mactel, then have a working reference to sort out the fiddly bits for the PPC version.
On the other hand
Heh. This weekend I gave away the 333 MHz iMac that's been my server the last few years, since it doesn't have FireWire so I couldn't upgrade it to OS X Server 10.4, and the guy I gave it to just sent me an email raving about how fast it is -- he'd been running a Performa 3600 up until yesterday.
:)
Now *that* is product life
sorry to hear War of the Worlds wasn't any good.
Oh, it was pretty good as far as the effects went, and they were moderately faithful to the source material. I just was completely unimpressed by the whole hysterical kidette/bratty teenager story arc they made up to have some reason to put Tom Cruise in it.
OK you dipshit
... or useful.
... If you Google for recent news about Karl Rove every single article will show this exact quote and none (that I could find, anyway) will reference your quote that you pulled out of your ass.
Heh. OK, I lied in my last one, I'm back, but this is a bit too funny.
Point 1: Your idea of reasoned discourse is to include gratuitous vulgarity, unlike your opponent? This, friend, demonstrates a lot about you. And it's not something that any objective observer would find pleasant
I'll call your bluff
My source is the New York Sun: http://www.nysun.com/article/16003
Here's the first full transcript I found in Google: http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/rove.php
Point 2: What I said was -- in fact -- completely correct, as you would know if you had bothered to actually find the complete text which is under discussion. You did not, you found it easier to throw around baseless blather and vulgarity. Now, let's see. I have links to the full unedited source; you have "nyaa nyaa nyaa pulled out of your ass".
Good work there, son.
Truthfully, I guess I overestimated your intelligence by some magnitude.
Well, one of us is demonstrating a lack of intelligence, that's quite true. If I knew any objective observers that could be bothered to give a flying hoot, I'd ask them: "Here's my statements of fact, with links to the full unedited source. Here's topper24hours, with no facts and throwing vulgarities right and left. Which of these demonstrates more intelligence to you?"
Somehow, I suspect the results would displease you.
A sheep like you will follow your president
Point of fact: I don't have a president. I have a Prime Minister. As you'd know if you followed the URL under my name, but I suppose there's no reason to assume you'd bother to actually do any research to verify your assumptions, given how embarrassingly poor your research skills on the exact facts the debate turns on are.
So, keep sticking up for Karl and George all you want and wedging your head tightly up your own ass - in the end you are the only one the worse for it!
How so? Granted I've probably lost a good 45 minutes of work time in these exchanges, but hey, it's been reasonably entertaining for free, probably more so than _War of the Worlds_ last night and I paid $12 for that. I'll be in a rather better mood laughing whenever I think about the dumbass on Slashdot who descended into incoherent vulgarity when I conclusively demonstrated him wrong for oh probably most of the day now, so I think I'm rather the better for it!
Just admit it - Karl Rove is a fucked up liar
If "fucked up liar" is how you spell "stater of provable fact", sure, as posted previously, but another thing occurred to me before I go away and leave the field to you --
that said that to purposely be devisive[sic] and draw more hate to Democrats.
Indeed. Now, some nine days or so before this Rovian statement, Dr. Dean made a statement to the effect that Republicans "have never worked a day in their lives". Do you think that is a provably true statement? Do you think that it differs qualitatively in either accuracy or intent than the statement of Messr. Rove's that you take such heartfelt issue with? Personally, I see the two statements as pretty much equivalent. If you don't -- and I'd say ascribing any veracity to Dr. Dean's statement would be a lot more difficult, so you're going to have to be *very* creative to convince me otherwise -- why all this vitriol for Mr. Rove and none for Dr. Dean? Looks to me like they're both politicians, doing what politicians do.
Anyhow, it's off home for me now, so take the last word here friend to make yourself feel good, but don't expect any more replies, I'll graciously concede in advance that whatever you prattle on about next is unanswerably correct. Good work there, son!
You know, friend, you can dance around all you like; but you can't get past the truth, not with me.
This is what Karl Rove said:
"in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States."
This statement is factually correct. It is provable. It describes full page newspaper ads.
So you can dance around and you can whine, but the cold hard facts will always remain the same: That statement is true. And that's the bottom line, as they say.
Unless you have some way to prove that the above statement is factually incorrect, your defensive whininess is of no effectiveness, so you might as well save it.
"if you believe that 85% of Liberals want to console our enemies, Christ do I feel sorry for you."
... and what I read there indicates that 85% is LOW, if anything. I don't know where you get 0-1% from, but it's not corroborated by the sentiments expressed constantly on those sites and their ilk.
Hey, I read democraticunderground.com, dailykos.com, indymedia.com, and a wide variety of other sites which I think most people would classify along with the foregoing as "liberal"...
Oh, and please don't breed. Thanks!
Heh. You are _way_ late with that advice, my friend. In general though, that brings up another point: The demographics of those who vote liberal indicate that liberalness is a self-correcting aberration, unless people like you start getting real busy right soon. Check it out, it's rather interesting. Try stevesailer.com, for instance, ""Affordable Family Formation"--The Neglected Key To GOP's Future".
It's like the difference between saying "All Slashdotters talk straight out of their asses and prove other people's points with their extreme stupidity" (false)
Unfortunately, your argument breaks down at that point, since that is indeed true to within a 98% confidence interval or so.
It wouldn't make any sense if you picked a better example either. Nothing could ever be stated anywhere outside the field of mathematics (and some parts of that would have trouble!) if nothing could be stated without the implicit understanding that there are always exceptions. Statistics formalizes this inherent understanding -- which, apparently, you were insufficiently socialized when growing up, since you display an utter cluelessness about how people interact in the real world -- with the notion of 'confidence intervals' for a particular outcome. Let us apply that here. What do you think the percentage of self-professed "liberals" that hold that sentiment is? My guess is it's better than 85%, therefore "true" is a reasonable description. What's your guess? If it's different than mine, what makes yours better?
Er, Messr. Rove stated an objective truth -- the moveon.org team *did* do exactly what he said they did. This is provable by looking up the full page newspaper ads they took out.
... well, the division is between those that admit facts, and those that don't. Guess we know which side you're on now!
If you think that stating a provable, objective truth is "divisive"
Bit of a sticky wicket, that.
Something to keep in mind though, is that the API-porting effort is fairly easily estimable and schedulable with a good degree of confidence.
Those @(#$&&!!!! endian bugs, on the other hand, can turn your schedule into an utter trainwreck and your profit into LESS than nothing. So eliminating them is a much bigger benefit than the actual percentage of effort they take up *in a well written app* --which most are faaaaaaar from -- would lead you to suspect.