Incidentally, this man was also a global warming denier.
Just for a complete data set; can you ask him his opinions on the Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin and Elvis?:)
Sarah Palin is a "very intelligent woman." He is a proud member of the Tea Party movement, which he considers non-racist, and as evidence of that will show you a single video of one non-racist Tea Party speech and say "doesn't look like a bunch of racists to me". He's also fond of sending folks to Andrew Breitbart's website where Breitbart accuses black congressman of making up the racial slurs and infamous spitting incident that took place around the health care vote. He literally believes that civil rights heroes who fought in the streets against race discrimination in the '50s and '60s are willing to lie just to be able to play the race card.
Never got the chance to ask about Elvis. We have since parted ways, so I never will.
The real question is whether human activities and human activities which humans are WILLING to curtail are the source of a significant part of the warming?
Which should we curtail, the human activities or the human activities? I think I need another drink before I try to answer that one...
He appears to be trying to argue that since the last major climate change was clearly not caused by humans that the current one must not be....this is logically akin to arguing that I didn't get killed driving home last night therefore it would be impossible for me to be killed driving home tonight.
Actually, it's more like arguing that since my father died of a heart attack, it would be impossible for me to be killed in a car accident. Which reminds me of a really hilarious Chinese parable; I'll see if I can find it for you.
Convincing the deniers is like arguing religion with a believer since their beliefs are not founded in fact, measurable science or sound theory.
Agreed. I recently had a debate with a Catholic who insisted we should oppose Islam anywhere and everywhere because the Qur'an says to kill infidels. When I quoted him chapter and verse of his Bible that also said to kill infidels, his defense was "we Catholics don't go around bombing people for not being Catholic." It did absolutely no good to point out that the IRA was a Catholic organization which carried out many bombings (granted for political purposes, not to convert anyone, but still...) or that a scant few centuries ago his sect actually was killing members of my sect (Unitarians) for our beliefs. Neither of these points did any good, because his faith was too strong. Incidentally, this man was also a global warming denier.
And the people who've already decided what their opposition is arguing will continue to mock them for it no matter how plainly we restate our position over and over.
Well, I've yet to see one of you state it plainly the first time 'round. Come on, no obfuscation, no conflating things which are actually separate, just straight-up logic. What's your position? I'm waiting.
Yes, some corporate shills fancy themselves independents, and only become Republicans for the time they're in the voting booth. I personally know several.
There isn't an intelligent person the planet who denies that global warming is real.
Unfortunately, the planet is chock-full of unintelligent persons who fancy themselves intelligent.
The debate is all about causation.
Between you and me, perhaps it is. Introduce the millions of hollering idiots who are the main reason GWB got elected in 2004, and the debate is remarkably similar to the debate over evolution, that is to say, on one side people claiming that an observable, demonstrable event really happened and continues to happen, and on the other side people claiming that an observable, demonstrable event is all imaginary and crazy. Also, that anyone who believes in said observable, demonstrable event sympathizes with Hitler.
It's all over there with convincing evidence that man-made or "anthropogenic" changes are attributing to this in serious ways. No, it does not account for 100% of all the warming but certainly some of it.
I believe you mean contributing to. Unless the anthropogenic climate change itself is the one speaking about the issue and assigning blame. Though I'm inclined to side with you overall over the GP, who as you correctly point out uses the word drastic with nary a conception of what it means.
...terrible idea made hilarious by human failings. Who really wants to sit around talking to strangers knowing they will probably just hit Next right when you're starting to get interested? It's like it was made for the hopelessly desperate. The inclusion of penises is what makes the whole thing worthwhile, because now the rest of us get to hear about how the optimistic early-adopters got punked by the horndogs.
Well on-line classes from an accredited college is not exactly cheap. They can be several thousand dollars per course, so your flippant response shows a great deal of ignorance.
How does price have anything to do with my post? Your non-sequitur response shows far more ignorance.
You know, the kind that advertise. It's a racket; they'll take your money, or financial aid money from the government, and give you a "degree". They don't want to let you skip "learning" what you already know because they want your cash.
You need a legitimate institution, a community college or a state university.
Agreed. Having been to both a (brick and mortar) degree mill and two state universities, I can say even the third-rate state university provides a better experience than a first-rate for-profit institution.
It is also difficult when fellow classmates clearly have very little intelligent input to offer and our online discussions are reminiscent of an AOL chat room. While it is possible simply to attend a local school in person, I would much prefer an online environment...
The truth is that academically most of college in just highschool part 2. For anyone who is getting a degree in a field that is already their passion & hobby (e.g. someone who has invested 10000+ hours of personal time into programming and then goes for a computer science degree), it's only in the final 1 or 2 years that the coursework is even worthwhile. The rest of the time is spent underachieving because the content is so rudimentary that you can't even stay focused.
I think this shows the difference between different types of colleges. My first go at college I went to a private tech school and it was exactly as you describe, so I dropped out. My second time I went to university and it was a completely different experience. On the other hand, at uni I chose my courses aggressively and proactively to broaden my learning as much as possible, majoring in History and Chinese but taking advanced maths and mid-level computer science (which I talked my way into despite not formally having the background) just for personal enrichment, as well as searching for maximally interesting courses for each of my gen ed requirements, so if you just want to coast and not think too much about your courses, then my experience does not apply. If you just show up to your advisor's office asking "what courses should I take?" the experience is liable to be as you describe, but I always showed up with a list of long-term goals and a list of courses I thought made sense, and asked "will this get me there?"
You think the colleges want you to just buy the quality courses at the end? Hell no, they want you for 2-4 years of tuition!...
Not if you go to state school. They lose money on every course you take so they want you to get as much out of each course as possible. If you just ask (or show up) you can get into almost any advanced class without taking prereqs first. If it turns out you're out of your depth, that's on you, but you can get a good feel for this by talking to the instructor beforehand and reading the syllabus. I've never had this problem and I've taken at least 5 courses whose prereqs I hadn't met.
Summary: tough it out and get a degree, then forget the experience and get a well-paying job. You can be bitter all you want afterwards, but at least you'll have a good salary:) OR conversely, tough it out and do well, then get into a decent master program, and use your performance there to get into a top-quality Ph.D program
Looks like someone could use a dictionary. Perhaps you meant alternatively?
The only thing more annoying than purchasing a machine with MS-Windows you don't want, knowing that money is going to support the monopoly that takes away your choice, is buying a supposedly Linux machine, only to find out later that there are deals "behind the scenes" that *STILL* funnel money to Microsoft, even when you didn't get a license. (Yes, that happens)
Actually, the only thing more annoying than that is knowing that it is illegal for Microsoft to set up such a system, and that there are people in our government whose full-time job is to police and prosecute this type of infraction, and that they're not doing so because our national elected leaders don't want to be seen as "anti-business".
Try running KDE in Ubuntu. You can't (you can install the libraries and get the apps running though), that's why there's Kubuntu.
False. Every (prefix)buntu is equivalent to installing some set of packages on a stock Ubuntu system, then removing some packages that the default has and the specialized version doesn't (in this case, gnome and its parts). Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu and the rest are just provided for people who (understandably) don't want to go through that rigamarole with each install or don't have adequate system resources.
...if you wanted to stay open source on Windows, you can do so....The only thing I've paid for in the last two years between Windows and Ubuntu is the OS itself. Everything else is open source or provided free of charge by Microsoft or another third party.
I am intrigued by your thesis, and want to know more. Please explain how running free-beer closed-source programs on a closed-source OS can be considered "staying open source".
I like Ubuntu and I look forward to the day that it truly hits the mainstream but it is not, in any way, easier to use than Windows...it may be easy enough for the average person to use...but it is not easier to use than Windows.
Not easier in any way? You mean, not easier for my dad to use without getting viruses? Not easier for my sister to use for her schoolwork? Does it matter if they find it easier, or are you God's appointed arbiter of ease-of-use? Do you have examples of aspects where Windows is easier? I'm sure you do, but you seem to want to withhold them and still be taken seriously. It would be a lot easier to buy what you're saying, though, if you provided some sort of substantiation besides "duh!"
I don't like Windows, at all, but let's be serious...
Think about it: Do you really need a quad-core processor with 8GB of RAM and a 1.5 TB hard drive to browse the Internet, watch IdiotTube (AKA YouTube) videos and fap to porn?
Yes. Clearly you haven't seen the kind of porn I watch.
From what I understand, Microsoft also offers "rebates" to hardware computer vendors that are primarily or entirely Windows only.
Rebates of this sort were considered illegal back when Standard Oil was involved with them. If only we still had antitrust prosecutors willing to actually enforce antitrust law.
I think you and I should team up to battle the people who use "Caucasian" to mean "white" (in reference to race). No, my ancestors did not come from Georgia, or Armenia, or Azerbaijan, thank you very much.
Besides, when people say "Scandinavian", they usually refer to the Nordic Countries, which include Denmark, Finland and Iceland in addition to the scritcly defined Scandinavia.
Very true. In fact, the Scandinavian Studies department at my university includes courses on all of those countries, and their languages.
The whole geographical point here is the Scands mountain range, that runs north-south in Sweden and Norway. Hence, Scandinavian peninsula.
Which is a moot point, because derivation is not synonymous with definition. Specifically: "Finland is sometimes considered a Scandinavian country in common English usage..."
Given that English is the language in use here, one oughtn't quibble with someone's correct English usage of the term 'Scandinavian' on grounds that it would be incorrect in Swedish or Finnish.
Slashdot Mirror
Incidentally, this man was also a global warming denier.
Just for a complete data set; can you ask him his opinions on the Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin and Elvis? :)
Sarah Palin is a "very intelligent woman." He is a proud member of the Tea Party movement, which he considers non-racist, and as evidence of that will show you a single video of one non-racist Tea Party speech and say "doesn't look like a bunch of racists to me". He's also fond of sending folks to Andrew Breitbart's website where Breitbart accuses black congressman of making up the racial slurs and infamous spitting incident that took place around the health care vote. He literally believes that civil rights heroes who fought in the streets against race discrimination in the '50s and '60s are willing to lie just to be able to play the race card.
Never got the chance to ask about Elvis. We have since parted ways, so I never will.
The real question is whether human activities and human activities which humans are WILLING to curtail are the source of a significant part of the warming?
Which should we curtail, the human activities or the human activities? I think I need another drink before I try to answer that one...
He appears to be trying to argue that since the last major climate change was clearly not caused by humans that the current one must not be....this is logically akin to arguing that I didn't get killed driving home last night therefore it would be impossible for me to be killed driving home tonight.
Actually, it's more like arguing that since my father died of a heart attack, it would be impossible for me to be killed in a car accident. Which reminds me of a really hilarious Chinese parable; I'll see if I can find it for you.
Convincing the deniers is like arguing religion with a believer since their beliefs are not founded in fact, measurable science or sound theory.
Agreed. I recently had a debate with a Catholic who insisted we should oppose Islam anywhere and everywhere because the Qur'an says to kill infidels. When I quoted him chapter and verse of his Bible that also said to kill infidels, his defense was "we Catholics don't go around bombing people for not being Catholic." It did absolutely no good to point out that the IRA was a Catholic organization which carried out many bombings (granted for political purposes, not to convert anyone, but still...) or that a scant few centuries ago his sect actually was killing members of my sect (Unitarians) for our beliefs. Neither of these points did any good, because his faith was too strong. Incidentally, this man was also a global warming denier.
And the people who've already decided what their opposition is arguing will continue to mock them for it no matter how plainly we restate our position over and over.
Well, I've yet to see one of you state it plainly the first time 'round. Come on, no obfuscation, no conflating things which are actually separate, just straight-up logic. What's your position? I'm waiting.
Republican or a corporate shill
There's a difference?
Yes, some corporate shills fancy themselves independents, and only become Republicans for the time they're in the voting booth. I personally know several.
There isn't an intelligent person the planet who denies that global warming is real.
Unfortunately, the planet is chock-full of unintelligent persons who fancy themselves intelligent.
The debate is all about causation.
Between you and me, perhaps it is. Introduce the millions of hollering idiots who are the main reason GWB got elected in 2004, and the debate is remarkably similar to the debate over evolution, that is to say, on one side people claiming that an observable, demonstrable event really happened and continues to happen, and on the other side people claiming that an observable, demonstrable event is all imaginary and crazy. Also, that anyone who believes in said observable, demonstrable event sympathizes with Hitler.
1. humans are causing it
Read the report. I'm not going to keep posting the same damned thing over and over.
Ah, but clearly you are.
It's all over there with convincing evidence that man-made or "anthropogenic" changes are attributing to this in serious ways. No, it does not account for 100% of all the warming but certainly some of it.
I believe you mean contributing to. Unless the anthropogenic climate change itself is the one speaking about the issue and assigning blame. Though I'm inclined to side with you overall over the GP, who as you correctly point out uses the word drastic with nary a conception of what it means.
...terrible idea made hilarious by human failings. Who really wants to sit around talking to strangers knowing they will probably just hit Next right when you're starting to get interested? It's like it was made for the hopelessly desperate. The inclusion of penises is what makes the whole thing worthwhile, because now the rest of us get to hear about how the optimistic early-adopters got punked by the horndogs.
...aren't they ridding themselves of their core audience? At this point, who else is left?
Well on-line classes from an accredited college is not exactly cheap. They can be several thousand dollars per course, so your flippant response shows a great deal of ignorance.
How does price have anything to do with my post? Your non-sequitur response shows far more ignorance.
You know, the kind that advertise. It's a racket; they'll take your money, or financial aid money from the government, and give you a "degree". They don't want to let you skip "learning" what you already know because they want your cash. You need a legitimate institution, a community college or a state university.
Agreed. Having been to both a (brick and mortar) degree mill and two state universities, I can say even the third-rate state university provides a better experience than a first-rate for-profit institution.
What online education programs have Slashdot readers been happy with and considered successful?
I got my law degree through "IANAL but..." offered through Slashdot. Next week I'm going for my economics degree.
Oh! You must be talking about that joint program through "Obviously..." and "Of course, everybody knows...". Is it as good as they say it is?
I can't wait until Slashdot offers programs in Physics and Computer Science!
It is also difficult when fellow classmates clearly have very little intelligent input to offer and our online discussions are reminiscent of an AOL chat room. While it is possible simply to attend a local school in person, I would much prefer an online environment...
aaaaand...you get what you asked for.
The truth is that academically most of college in just highschool part 2. For anyone who is getting a degree in a field that is already their passion & hobby (e.g. someone who has invested 10000+ hours of personal time into programming and then goes for a computer science degree), it's only in the final 1 or 2 years that the coursework is even worthwhile. The rest of the time is spent underachieving because the content is so rudimentary that you can't even stay focused.
I think this shows the difference between different types of colleges. My first go at college I went to a private tech school and it was exactly as you describe, so I dropped out. My second time I went to university and it was a completely different experience. On the other hand, at uni I chose my courses aggressively and proactively to broaden my learning as much as possible, majoring in History and Chinese but taking advanced maths and mid-level computer science (which I talked my way into despite not formally having the background) just for personal enrichment, as well as searching for maximally interesting courses for each of my gen ed requirements, so if you just want to coast and not think too much about your courses, then my experience does not apply. If you just show up to your advisor's office asking "what courses should I take?" the experience is liable to be as you describe, but I always showed up with a list of long-term goals and a list of courses I thought made sense, and asked "will this get me there?"
You think the colleges want you to just buy the quality courses at the end? Hell no, they want you for 2-4 years of tuition!...
Not if you go to state school. They lose money on every course you take so they want you to get as much out of each course as possible. If you just ask (or show up) you can get into almost any advanced class without taking prereqs first. If it turns out you're out of your depth, that's on you, but you can get a good feel for this by talking to the instructor beforehand and reading the syllabus. I've never had this problem and I've taken at least 5 courses whose prereqs I hadn't met.
Summary: tough it out and get a degree, then forget the experience and get a well-paying job. You can be bitter all you want afterwards, but at least you'll have a good salary :) OR conversely, tough it out and do well, then get into a decent master program, and use your performance there to get into a top-quality Ph.D program
Looks like someone could use a dictionary. Perhaps you meant alternatively?
Yes, we always do. Don't underestimate the space needed to store pr0n.
Neither should you underestimate how desperately we need said pr0n.
It doesn't make sense to force me to by either of them.
How about forcing you to buy a vowel? I suggest a 'u' to complete this puzzle.
The only thing more annoying than purchasing a machine with MS-Windows you don't want, knowing that money is going to support the monopoly that takes away your choice, is buying a supposedly Linux machine, only to find out later that there are deals "behind the scenes" that *STILL* funnel money to Microsoft, even when you didn't get a license. (Yes, that happens)
Actually, the only thing more annoying than that is knowing that it is illegal for Microsoft to set up such a system, and that there are people in our government whose full-time job is to police and prosecute this type of infraction, and that they're not doing so because our national elected leaders don't want to be seen as "anti-business".
Try running KDE in Ubuntu. You can't (you can install the libraries and get the apps running though), that's why there's Kubuntu.
False. Every (prefix)buntu is equivalent to installing some set of packages on a stock Ubuntu system, then removing some packages that the default has and the specialized version doesn't (in this case, gnome and its parts). Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu and the rest are just provided for people who (understandably) don't want to go through that rigamarole with each install or don't have adequate system resources.
...if you wanted to stay open source on Windows, you can do so....The only thing I've paid for in the last two years between Windows and Ubuntu is the OS itself. Everything else is open source or provided free of charge by Microsoft or another third party.
I am intrigued by your thesis, and want to know more. Please explain how running free-beer closed-source programs on a closed-source OS can be considered "staying open source".
I like Ubuntu and I look forward to the day that it truly hits the mainstream but it is not, in any way, easier to use than Windows...it may be easy enough for the average person to use...but it is not easier to use than Windows.
Not easier in any way? You mean, not easier for my dad to use without getting viruses? Not easier for my sister to use for her schoolwork? Does it matter if they find it easier, or are you God's appointed arbiter of ease-of-use? Do you have examples of aspects where Windows is easier? I'm sure you do, but you seem to want to withhold them and still be taken seriously. It would be a lot easier to buy what you're saying, though, if you provided some sort of substantiation besides "duh!"
I don't like Windows, at all, but let's be serious...
Yes, let's. By all means.
Think about it: Do you really need a quad-core processor with 8GB of RAM and a 1.5 TB hard drive to browse the Internet, watch IdiotTube (AKA YouTube) videos and fap to porn?
Yes. Clearly you haven't seen the kind of porn I watch.
From what I understand, Microsoft also offers "rebates" to hardware computer vendors that are primarily or entirely Windows only.
Rebates of this sort were considered illegal back when Standard Oil was involved with them. If only we still had antitrust prosecutors willing to actually enforce antitrust law.
I think you and I should team up to battle the people who use "Caucasian" to mean "white" (in reference to race). No, my ancestors did not come from Georgia, or Armenia, or Azerbaijan, thank you very much.
Besides, when people say "Scandinavian", they usually refer to the Nordic Countries, which include Denmark, Finland and Iceland in addition to the scritcly defined Scandinavia.
Very true. In fact, the Scandinavian Studies department at my university includes courses on all of those countries, and their languages.
The whole geographical point here is the Scands mountain range, that runs north-south in Sweden and Norway. Hence, Scandinavian peninsula.
Which is a moot point, because derivation is not synonymous with definition. Specifically: "Finland is sometimes considered a Scandinavian country in common English usage..."
Given that English is the language in use here, one oughtn't quibble with someone's correct English usage of the term 'Scandinavian' on grounds that it would be incorrect in Swedish or Finnish.