Whilst you might like to think this game is about "expression", clearly the real motive in the game is to break the law.
"Clearly?" Damme, I wish I had the extrasensory powers you must possess. I can't even figure out the motives of individuals most of the time, much less peer into the souls of people on the other side of the earth playing games I've never seen.
I just checked with the Coalition Provisional Authorities, and they say you are clearly a Pakistani terrorist infiltrator, and they will be sending some soldiers over shortly to re-educate you.
Here in Delaware, open carry is clearly and explicitly permitted by law.
Supposedly, though, if you actually try it (and supposedly, somebody periodically does) one of a very few things happens:
1) Nobody notices, have a nice day.
2) Citizen calls police and police immediately cart you away for creating a threat to public safety, inciting to riot, and disturbing the peace. If you are polite to the judge, all charges except DtP will be thrown out in court but the weapon will still be confiscated.
3) Policeman notices you, follows you around until some portion of your firearm is obscured to vision by your hand, jacket, holster, newspaper, or anything else you own or control. Then you are asked to produce your CC permit, and if you don't have it you are arrested and gun confiscated. If you do have it you get charged with DtP since you are allowed to carry concealed therefore you were openly carrying in order to start trouble. Permit revoked, weapon confiscated.
This is all anecdotal from local cops and gun nuts, I've never actually seen anyone attempt open carry in Delaware. Recently there was a debate about this between some private citizens and a former Attorney General in the local newspaper; the citizens pointed out that while open carry is technically legal, you need a CC permit to use a vehicle while carrying a firearm, so you can't get very far from the house anyway.
When I was 12, lots of kids had black powder firearms, which were unregulated at that time. One of my buddies had a.45 Peacemaker, we used to go down to the iron trestle bridge and blaze away at soda bottles and such after school. I doubt that's legal any more, though.
What difference does it make if man caused it or not? What goal are you going to reach by making any such distinction? How will that argument put bread on your table, or increase your grandchildren's chances of having happy, productive lives? I refer you to a prior post and submit that you are following a rhetorical pattern that has very little to do with science, based almost entirely on economics and politics. I expect that your mind was made up before you saw any data, and if you change your mind it will not be (primarily) because of the data but rather because you will have reorganized your political and/or economic priorities.
Absolutely correct, especially the non-zero-sum bit.
Here's another point to ponder, on the "rising tide lifts all boats" theory:
If fuel were agriculturally produced rather than mined/drilled, the US could remove some of the incredibly market-distorting Farm Parity payouts - essentially, we could stop using taxpayer money to bribe farmers not to grow crops.
We pay off the farmingmafias to keep food prices artifically high, so that there is an economic incentive to continue to produce food. If our ever-increasing appetite for fuels was redirected to compete with food production, these subsidies could be reduced or even eliminated.
I hope I don't end up with a horse's head in my bed for pointing this out...
It is normal for the dominant fashion of a nation to be modelled on its leader (eg making yourself look like you've got syphillis was popular hundreds of years ago, when the rich and powerful all had syphillis)
Don't know about syphillis, but Japanese courtiers used to paint some of their teeth black to imitate the rotten, blackened teeth of the nobility, who had access to much more sugar than their poorer countrymen. If you were newly rich or politically connected (or wanted to be that way) you could pretend you'd had lots of sugar all your life like the children of the rich and powerful.
Interestingly, this was also popular with geishas and prostitutes at the same time. Perhaps these women had similar motivations, or maybe the customers wanted to fantasize about being served by the daughters of the establishment...
Actually, both the "assaults on global warming theories" you mention and the "global warming theories" themselves are usually quite "non-scientific", as you put it.
Most advocates of action (that is, research on global warming, reduction of carbon exhausts, or preparation of remediation strategies) are driven primarily either by political affiliations or by the belief that humans are too destructive of our planet, and that it needs to be given more respect if humans are to survive. They are just using "global warming" as their rallying cry because it has a strong scientific basis, they'd be against smokestacks and industrialism no matter what.
Most advocates of inaction are following political affilitations or believe themselves to have vested interest in things staying the same. These people are using "we don't know why the earth is warming" as their rallying cry right now, but until very recently the exact same people claimed that "global warming is a ridiculous myth unsupported by science". Like the first group, they aren't really interested in what scientists say unless it supports their base premise, that ever-increasing industrialism is a good thing for the human race.
There's an infinitesimally small number of people who have an opinion on the issue yet don't fit into the two groups I've described (as well as enormous numbers of people on both sides who are firmly but incorrectly convinced that they are in that small number).
Both sides see scientific data as a tool to further their pre-existing aims, and do not necessarily have any respect for science or scientists. Remember Ronald Reagan in 1981 publically stating, "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do"? That statement is based on a selective misreading of actual science - trees do release carbon dioxide at night, and cars don't release a lot of carbon dioxide (monoxide is another matter) so if you just conveniently ignore certain gasses and the existence of the Sun, Reagan was actually right.
Your post is rather intelligent, BTW - I read a lot of "global warming" (I hate that stupid term) crap on Slashdot and it's rare to see an honest, intelligent query rather than political screeds or ignorant posturing.
...this will allow companies to skip over the cost of installing a Blackberry server, and instead just use the Exchange servers that they are already using.
Well, that rules out any large corporation with a robust, cost-effective infrastructure.
Terminal? Bah. That's like saying that a taxi was your first car.
Well, it's more like saying a steering wheel was your first car. But neither of us should try to compete with BadAnalogyGuy, he's liable to come down here and make us walk the petard, or something.
Amazing. I was sure I was the only one who'd be posting a 2200.
I also had access to a first generation PDP-11/70 at the same time, but I never wrote any code on it because paper terminals seemed, well, uncool compared to the Wang's TTL greenscreen and audio-cassette program storage. I still have a cassette of my programs somewhere, but I would imagine it's lost some gauss since I last used it in 1975.
Back when I was taking English classes, we were taught irony was when the definitive meaning of the words being used was the opposite of the intended meaning. A particularly rigid form of sarcasm.
Of course that was when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth; nothing from that era could possibly have any application today. I stand corrected!
I'm not the guy who slammed you, but I thought his meaning was pretty obvious, so:
You stated that "present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 thousand years... from this we can conclude that the present day temperature is the highest in 420 thousand years."
That argument is not supported by the article, or by any other resource available to me. You've set it up as a straw man so you can knock it down.
Your post starts with a falsehood, and then goes on to counsel inaction based on lack of precise understanding of details. This might be analogous to saying "we'd best not jump off this train bridge, because the train may derail in the remaining ten feet it has to go before it hits us". But then I'm known for my bad analogies (I'm not even in the league with this guy, though).
A worm can only see the bit of apple in front of him. That is the now. The apple-meat beyond that is future, the apple-meat in the digestive tract is memory, the walls of the tunnel are the past.
The meat engine that is a human* is only capable of certain direct perceptions, like the meat engine that is a worm. We cannot experience the totality of what is; our physical equipment instead grants us access to a series of slices of reduced complexity, and allows us to retain further simplified analogues of those slices as memories.
*alternatively, the meat engine that humans inhabit. The nature of consciousness and the existence or non-existence of the soul is a separate discussion.
I predict... the same overwhelming success as Ogg. And for the same reasons.
Actually, this could be an effective wedge to help Ogg Vorbis gain traction. Everyone knows Ogg is technically superior, and everyone gives it lip service, but lack of players means lack of incentive for recording artists to use it.
If songbird keeps a clean and easily understood interface - not descending into the usual "intuitive... if you're a psychotic fanboy!" interface hell that has claimed so many media players - it will grow marketshare, which in turn could help reduce the barriers to Ogg adoption by artists.
The iPod has a simple, easily learned interface. Thus iTunes prospers. From where I'm sitting, the iPod has no features that are as big a selling point as its sweet ergonomic UI - discounting the UI, my Pez MP3 player is actually much cooler.
AC: All I know is, the bill had better be sent to the Americans.
FleaPlus: Why's that?
Me: Because we've got the money, obviously. Why did Willie Sutton rob banks? Oh, wait, we used to have the money, but we sent it all to Iraq. You'll have to take it up with Halliburton, they seem to have misplaced all my tax dollars. In the meantime bill Saudia Arabia, they've got lots of cash.
If not, I recommend you get aquainted with someone who works professionally in the adoption system and ask to see the listings of children available for adoption for any state in the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the definition of what a problem is is entirely subjective; my problems may not resemble those confronting you in the slightest.
I agree with you in principle that one should attempt to spend one's limited time and effort on productive endeavors, though.
Well, you're in good company, the SPOOM folks are generally pretty cool. I live in an old mill so I have periodic contact with the organization.
I just checked with the Coalition Provisional Authorities, and they say you are clearly a Pakistani terrorist infiltrator, and they will be sending some soldiers over shortly to re-educate you.
Here in Delaware, open carry is clearly and explicitly permitted by law.
.45 Peacemaker, we used to go down to the iron trestle bridge and blaze away at soda bottles and such after school. I doubt that's legal any more, though.
Supposedly, though, if you actually try it (and supposedly, somebody periodically does) one of a very few things happens:
1) Nobody notices, have a nice day.
2) Citizen calls police and police immediately cart you away for creating a threat to public safety, inciting to riot, and disturbing the peace. If you are polite to the judge, all charges except DtP will be thrown out in court but the weapon will still be confiscated.
3) Policeman notices you, follows you around until some portion of your firearm is obscured to vision by your hand, jacket, holster, newspaper, or anything else you own or control. Then you are asked to produce your CC permit, and if you don't have it you are arrested and gun confiscated. If you do have it you get charged with DtP since you are allowed to carry concealed therefore you were openly carrying in order to start trouble. Permit revoked, weapon confiscated.
This is all anecdotal from local cops and gun nuts, I've never actually seen anyone attempt open carry in Delaware. Recently there was a debate about this between some private citizens and a former Attorney General in the local newspaper; the citizens pointed out that while open carry is technically legal, you need a CC permit to use a vehicle while carrying a firearm, so you can't get very far from the house anyway.
When I was 12, lots of kids had black powder firearms, which were unregulated at that time. One of my buddies had a
What difference does it make if man caused it or not? What goal are you going to reach by making any such distinction? How will that argument put bread on your table, or increase your grandchildren's chances of having happy, productive lives? I refer you to a prior post and submit that you are following a rhetorical pattern that has very little to do with science, based almost entirely on economics and politics. I expect that your mind was made up before you saw any data, and if you change your mind it will not be (primarily) because of the data but rather because you will have reorganized your political and/or economic priorities.
Absolutely correct, especially the non-zero-sum bit.
Here's another point to ponder, on the "rising tide lifts all boats" theory:
If fuel were agriculturally produced rather than mined/drilled, the US could remove some of the incredibly market-distorting Farm Parity payouts - essentially, we could stop using taxpayer money to bribe farmers not to grow crops.
We pay off the farming mafias to keep food prices artifically high, so that there is an economic incentive to continue to produce food. If our ever-increasing appetite for fuels was redirected to compete with food production, these subsidies could be reduced or even eliminated.
I hope I don't end up with a horse's head in my bed for pointing this out...
Got SPOOM?
What in Avalokistevara's name is that supposed to mean?
Interestingly, this was also popular with geishas and prostitutes at the same time. Perhaps these women had similar motivations, or maybe the customers wanted to fantasize about being served by the daughters of the establishment...
Actually, both the "assaults on global warming theories" you mention and the "global warming theories" themselves are usually quite "non-scientific", as you put it.
Most advocates of action (that is, research on global warming, reduction of carbon exhausts, or preparation of remediation strategies) are driven primarily either by political affiliations or by the belief that humans are too destructive of our planet, and that it needs to be given more respect if humans are to survive. They are just using "global warming" as their rallying cry because it has a strong scientific basis, they'd be against smokestacks and industrialism no matter what.
Most advocates of inaction are following political affilitations or believe themselves to have vested interest in things staying the same. These people are using "we don't know why the earth is warming" as their rallying cry right now, but until very recently the exact same people claimed that "global warming is a ridiculous myth unsupported by science". Like the first group, they aren't really interested in what scientists say unless it supports their base premise, that ever-increasing industrialism is a good thing for the human race.
There's an infinitesimally small number of people who have an opinion on the issue yet don't fit into the two groups I've described (as well as enormous numbers of people on both sides who are firmly but incorrectly convinced that they are in that small number).
Both sides see scientific data as a tool to further their pre-existing aims, and do not necessarily have any respect for science or scientists. Remember Ronald Reagan in 1981 publically stating, "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do"? That statement is based on a selective misreading of actual science - trees do release carbon dioxide at night, and cars don't release a lot of carbon dioxide (monoxide is another matter) so if you just conveniently ignore certain gasses and the existence of the Sun, Reagan was actually right.
Your post is rather intelligent, BTW - I read a lot of "global warming" (I hate that stupid term) crap on Slashdot and it's rare to see an honest, intelligent query rather than political screeds or ignorant posturing.
Amazing. I was sure I was the only one who'd be posting a 2200.
I also had access to a first generation PDP-11/70 at the same time, but I never wrote any code on it because paper terminals seemed, well, uncool compared to the Wang's TTL greenscreen and audio-cassette program storage. I still have a cassette of my programs somewhere, but I would imagine it's lost some gauss since I last used it in 1975.
Back when I was taking English classes, we were taught irony was when the definitive meaning of the words being used was the opposite of the intended meaning. A particularly rigid form of sarcasm.
Of course that was when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth; nothing from that era could possibly have any application today. I stand corrected!
I'm not the guy who slammed you, but I thought his meaning was pretty obvious, so:
You stated that "present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 thousand years... from this we can conclude that the present day temperature is the highest in 420 thousand years."
That argument is not supported by the article, or by any other resource available to me. You've set it up as a straw man so you can knock it down.
Your post starts with a falsehood, and then goes on to counsel inaction based on lack of precise understanding of details. This might be analogous to saying "we'd best not jump off this train bridge, because the train may derail in the remaining ten feet it has to go before it hits us". But then I'm known for my bad analogies (I'm not even in the league with this guy, though).
A worm can only see the bit of apple in front of him. That is the now. The apple-meat beyond that is future, the apple-meat in the digestive tract is memory, the walls of the tunnel are the past.
The meat engine that is a human* is only capable of certain direct perceptions, like the meat engine that is a worm. We cannot experience the totality of what is; our physical equipment instead grants us access to a series of slices of reduced complexity, and allows us to retain further simplified analogues of those slices as memories.
*alternatively, the meat engine that humans inhabit. The nature of consciousness and the existence or non-existence of the soul is a separate discussion.
Or insightful, depending on whether you prefer the first or second line.
The "Islam is evil" yammering of the propagandized masses is so tedious.
I guess most people will never learn to think for themselves.
Excepting a few extreme edge cases, anyone who buys an mp3 player either has money to burn or is completely financially incompetent.
Granted, the financially incompetent group is probably larger.
Oh, nice price roundup, BTW.
Do you also berate people for saying TCP/IP when they mean IP?
And anyway, everybody does know that QuickTime is technically superior!
I kid, I kid - thanks for the correction.
If songbird keeps a clean and easily understood interface - not descending into the usual "intuitive... if you're a psychotic fanboy!" interface hell that has claimed so many media players - it will grow marketshare, which in turn could help reduce the barriers to Ogg adoption by artists.
The iPod has a simple, easily learned interface. Thus iTunes prospers. From where I'm sitting, the iPod has no features that are as big a selling point as its sweet ergonomic UI - discounting the UI, my Pez MP3 player is actually much cooler.
AC: All I know is, the bill had better be sent to the Americans.
FleaPlus: Why's that?
Me: Because we've got the money, obviously. Why did Willie Sutton rob banks? Oh, wait, we used to have the money, but we sent it all to Iraq. You'll have to take it up with Halliburton, they seem to have misplaced all my tax dollars. In the meantime bill Saudia Arabia, they've got lots of cash.
Though you might not know it from reading Slashdot...
If not, I recommend you get aquainted with someone who works professionally in the adoption system and ask to see the listings of children available for adoption for any state in the USA.