I just don't usually respond to idiots, but in this case, I will.
Your childish reaction here is proof that you are not capable of having an intellegent discussion. FYI, your single sentance is a completed logical fallacy called.... "Arguing from silence". Since you are not capable of recognizing this simple fact, and in fact use that logical fallacy to try and to "score points", you have by default lost the arguement completely, by default.
The real problem is that BOTH sides are offering up simplistic arguements to complex problems. The Cindy Sheehans of the world crying "No WMD" and such are just a fallacious as Santorum is. 1)WMD are found in Iraq, proving that CS is lying or stupid, 2)Santorum is technically correct, but ultimately wrong because they are, as you and I both have indicated they were old and non-functioning.
In reality, even the Iraqis thought they had WMD, and were expecting to use them in the run-up to the war. When the US invaded, they were just as shocked as the US was that there were no-such-weapons (at least in Iraq).
The real chemical weapon used on our troops was the sweetener Aspertame (Nutrasweet), which turns into Formaldehyde. I venture to guess that more than 2500 (est. current Iraq US troop casualties) people have died as a result of that. Where is CS on that issue? Hmmm?
The problem is, there WERE WMDs and they keep finding them.... old ones, but WMD non-the-less.
Neo-cons reported this a couple of days ago. Neo-Libs counter that the are old. So WHAT? The simple fact is, SH wanted them, had the facilities to make them, had made them, had used them. It is silly to suggest that the absence of them "proves" anything. Absence is not proof either for or against something.
Just because we didn't find the WMDs we were looking for doesn't mean that they don't exist. Just because we didn't find the WMDs we were looking for doesn't mean that they did exist.
The whole idea that a (D) or an (R) after some person's name makes them right (or wrong) is just goofy.
Bush is an idiot, but so is Clinton. They are just... different kind of idiots.
There has to be sufficient pressure to cause a need for a route around. Think... traffic jam on a LA freeway. If it is bad enough, people get off the freeway, and use city streets, otherwise they sit in traffic all day because there is no "easier" route around the problem (traffic). All problems have a pressure point of release, but it requires sufficient pressure to do.
Post Hoc, Translation: "After this, therefore because of this"
Okay, here is the "logical syllagism" for you.
1) Problems exist 2) Solutions are routes around problems.
For every problem, there is usually a route around it waiting to be discovered.
Monopolies are problems, the solution to a monopoly is a route around it, waiting to be discovered.
The problem is, that some problems require complex solutions (routes) of many parts. Eventually, those routes are simplified, until the route seems self appearent after the fact. There was no viable solution around the M$ problem before LINUX (OSS, GNU etc), or the solution was just as costly (OS/2, Mac etc).
My postulate is that we don't know what the solution around OIL because it hasn't been created... yet. We just postponedd it, while creating other problems (petty dictators riding camels, bad presidents etc)
So, what you are saying is that solutions around problems do not exist, because you cannot see the solution only the problem. Your viewpoint is typical of the mass group think that society uses.
My analogy requires DEDUCTIVE logic, and the presumption that solutions work around problems. Where there is no problem (ie low oil prices) there is no solution (ie alternative), because there is no need to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Yes, LINUX was a by-product of Unix, no one is disputing this. But it started out as NOTHING more than a sort of research project. The need to make it better was so great that people, not getting paid, continued to support and develop it to the point where it COULD replace the monopoly. The solution was in the developement because of a problem (M$) that existed. It gained traction as a ROUTE around M$.
My view is that if not LINUX than something else (BeOS, OS/2, who-knows-what). M$ Didn't force LINUX into existance, it forced a solution to the M$ Monopoly. LINUX was the solution but didn't have to be. Like I said, it could have been something else. We only see LINUX today because it suceeded inspite of the M$ Monopoly.
As for Oil and energy density/generation problem, how do you know that is the reason why? Perhaps someone would have figured out where Tesla was going with "free energy", perhaps something higher in energy density would have been developed, whatever. The problem is, we don't know, and everything else is..... a plain old guess.
"The break up of standard oil didn't force the exsistance of a mysterious alternate fuel source to nto appear."
That is pure speculation on your part. You don't know that, you can't know that. I do know that we tend to only route around problems when they are severe enough.
Can the market really sort this out? In a word... YES.
The problem is that RARELY is the market allowed to anymore. People fear Monopolies. Me? I Look at them not as problems, but oppotunities in disguise. Linux would NOT be where it is today, if it weren't for M$ Monopoly. Linux, IMHO, is a direct result of the Market routing around a break in the system.
Some systems, it just takes longer to route around the problem, but it eventually will.
Take Oil (Petroleum) for example. A hundred years ago, a naturally occuring monopoly occured in the marketplace and Standard Oil controlled a M$ type share of the Oil and Gasoline market. Along came do-gooders creating laws that broke up the company into itty-bitty pieces. Today, we are OIL dependant, and have no alternatives (to speak of).
Let us say, for the sake of arguement that nothing was done 100 years ago and Standard Oil was left untouched. Today, we would probably have 1) more mass transit 2) cities and highways designed for effiency alternative transportation etc 3) alternative fuels 4) no wars over oil (Iraq/Iran???) and the pety dictators world wide.
The unintended consequences for breaking up Standard Oil are completely unknown, but I am 100% sure that the world would have routed around the problem by now. But for political expediency and short term gains, we chose otherwise, and are living with the consequences.
Necessity is the mother of invention. We don't "need" another fuel source, so none has been invented. Relating this back to M$ and Linux, WE needed an alternative to M$ and Linux was the route around the problem (over simplified version).
I had a vision of a JATO unit strapped to DELL in a flashback to a Darwin Award Winner. I think I have been on Slashdot and the net too long. UGGGHHHH.
Why would anyone write software for the MS Windows environment? Just think about it. You right the "next big thing(tm)" software, that really takes off. You are virtually guaranteed that MS will take that idea and write a competing product.
Wordstar (Wordperfect) --> Word Visicalc (123) --> Excel Dbase --> Access SQLanything --> MSSQL Pagemaker --> Publisher Netscape --> IE Mac OS --> Windows OS/2 --> Windows NT Quicken --> MS Money Groupwise --> Exchange Antispyware --> Malicious Software Removal Tool Zone alarm --> Firewall
I could go on listing these but I think you get the point. I would NEVER write SW for MS, a potential advesary, if my software becomes too popular.
Estonia is reporting massive duplicated voting systems. The Prime Minister of Estonia was not available for comment because he was eating steaming hot corn meal porridge with a famous American Film Star....
To you maybe. You have such a small mind that you cannot possibly believe in something you have yet to experience. So instead of reflecting upon your own shortcomings, you belittle those that have another view.
Or the people who back bad government, simply because they are afraid of the consequences?
All governments are bad, just some are worse than others. Man cannot govern himself, let alone another. Because you don't believe in a diety, you believe in self.
What I find interesting, is that you linked the two thoughts together. I think God is trying to tell you something.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly.
.... "Arguing from silence". Since you are not capable of recognizing this simple fact, and in fact use that logical fallacy to try and to "score points", you have by default lost the arguement completely, by default.
e .shtml
I just don't usually respond to idiots, but in this case, I will.
Your childish reaction here is proof that you are not capable of having an intellegent discussion. FYI, your single sentance is a completed logical fallacy called
The real problem is that BOTH sides are offering up simplistic arguements to complex problems. The Cindy Sheehans of the world crying "No WMD" and such are just a fallacious as Santorum is. 1)WMD are found in Iraq, proving that CS is lying or stupid, 2)Santorum is technically correct, but ultimately wrong because they are, as you and I both have indicated they were old and non-functioning.
In reality, even the Iraqis thought they had WMD, and were expecting to use them in the run-up to the war. When the US invaded, they were just as shocked as the US was that there were no-such-weapons (at least in Iraq).
The real chemical weapon used on our troops was the sweetener Aspertame (Nutrasweet), which turns into Formaldehyde. I venture to guess that more than 2500 (est. current Iraq US troop casualties) people have died as a result of that. Where is CS on that issue? Hmmm?
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/aspartam
So, which are you? My guess is you are part the CRAP.
Me, I am scum and scum always rises to the top (Best of the crap???)
The problem is, there WERE WMDs and they keep finding them .... old ones, but WMD non-the-less.
... different kind of idiots.
Neo-cons reported this a couple of days ago. Neo-Libs counter that the are old. So WHAT? The simple fact is, SH wanted them, had the facilities to make them, had made them, had used them. It is silly to suggest that the absence of them "proves" anything. Absence is not proof either for or against something.
Just because we didn't find the WMDs we were looking for doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Just because we didn't find the WMDs we were looking for doesn't mean that they did exist.
The whole idea that a (D) or an (R) after some person's name makes them right (or wrong) is just goofy.
Bush is an idiot, but so is Clinton. They are just
Exactly right.
... traffic jam on a LA freeway. If it is bad enough, people get off the freeway, and use city streets, otherwise they sit in traffic all day because there is no "easier" route around the problem (traffic). All problems have a pressure point of release, but it requires sufficient pressure to do.
There has to be sufficient pressure to cause a need for a route around. Think
Post Hoc, Translation: "After this, therefore because of this"
... yet. We just postponedd it, while creating other problems (petty dictators riding camels, bad presidents etc)
Okay, here is the "logical syllagism" for you.
1) Problems exist
2) Solutions are routes around problems.
For every problem, there is usually a route around it waiting to be discovered.
Monopolies are problems, the solution to a monopoly is a route around it, waiting to be discovered.
The problem is, that some problems require complex solutions (routes) of many parts. Eventually, those routes are simplified, until the route seems self appearent after the fact. There was no viable solution around the M$ problem before LINUX (OSS, GNU etc), or the solution was just as costly (OS/2, Mac etc).
My postulate is that we don't know what the solution around OIL because it hasn't been created
So, what you are saying is that solutions around problems do not exist, because you cannot see the solution only the problem. Your viewpoint is typical of the mass group think that society uses.
..... a plain old guess.
My analogy requires DEDUCTIVE logic, and the presumption that solutions work around problems. Where there is no problem (ie low oil prices) there is no solution (ie alternative), because there is no need to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Yes, LINUX was a by-product of Unix, no one is disputing this. But it started out as NOTHING more than a sort of research project. The need to make it better was so great that people, not getting paid, continued to support and develop it to the point where it COULD replace the monopoly. The solution was in the developement because of a problem (M$) that existed. It gained traction as a ROUTE around M$.
My view is that if not LINUX than something else (BeOS, OS/2, who-knows-what). M$ Didn't force LINUX into existance, it forced a solution to the M$ Monopoly. LINUX was the solution but didn't have to be. Like I said, it could have been something else. We only see LINUX today because it suceeded inspite of the M$ Monopoly.
As for Oil and energy density/generation problem, how do you know that is the reason why? Perhaps someone would have figured out where Tesla was going with "free energy", perhaps something higher in energy density would have been developed, whatever. The problem is, we don't know, and everything else is
"The break up of standard oil didn't force the exsistance of a mysterious alternate fuel source to nto appear."
That is pure speculation on your part. You don't know that, you can't know that. I do know that we tend to only route around problems when they are severe enough.
*insert your own overlord welcoming joke here*
.....
MUST RESIST
Can the market really sort this out? In a word ... YES.
The problem is that RARELY is the market allowed to anymore. People fear Monopolies. Me? I Look at them not as problems, but oppotunities in disguise. Linux would NOT be where it is today, if it weren't for M$ Monopoly. Linux, IMHO, is a direct result of the Market routing around a break in the system.
Some systems, it just takes longer to route around the problem, but it eventually will.
Take Oil (Petroleum) for example. A hundred years ago, a naturally occuring monopoly occured in the marketplace and Standard Oil controlled a M$ type share of the Oil and Gasoline market. Along came do-gooders creating laws that broke up the company into itty-bitty pieces. Today, we are OIL dependant, and have no alternatives (to speak of).
Let us say, for the sake of arguement that nothing was done 100 years ago and Standard Oil was left untouched. Today, we would probably have 1) more mass transit 2) cities and highways designed for effiency alternative transportation etc 3) alternative fuels 4) no wars over oil (Iraq/Iran???) and the pety dictators world wide.
The unintended consequences for breaking up Standard Oil are completely unknown, but I am 100% sure that the world would have routed around the problem by now. But for political expediency and short term gains, we chose otherwise, and are living with the consequences.
Necessity is the mother of invention. We don't "need" another fuel source, so none has been invented. Relating this back to M$ and Linux, WE needed an alternative to M$ and Linux was the route around the problem (over simplified version).
I had a vision of a JATO unit strapped to DELL in a flashback to a Darwin Award Winner. I think I have been on Slashdot and the net too long. UGGGHHHH.
This isn't insightful, its FUNNY. Stupid Moderators
Dr Frankenstein
Dr Evil
Dr Jeckyl
You *write* the next big thing .. not right. DOOH, remind me to proof my posts before I hit submit.
Why would anyone write software for the MS Windows environment? Just think about it. You right the "next big thing(tm)" software, that really takes off. You are virtually guaranteed that MS will take that idea and write a competing product.
Wordstar (Wordperfect) --> Word
Visicalc (123) --> Excel
Dbase --> Access
SQLanything --> MSSQL
Pagemaker --> Publisher
Netscape --> IE
Mac OS --> Windows
OS/2 --> Windows NT
Quicken --> MS Money
Groupwise --> Exchange
Antispyware --> Malicious Software Removal Tool
Zone alarm --> Firewall
I could go on listing these but I think you get the point. I would NEVER write SW for MS, a potential advesary, if my software becomes too popular.
Estonia is reporting massive duplicated voting systems. The Prime Minister of Estonia was not available for comment because he was eating steaming hot corn meal porridge with a famous American Film Star....
Red, Metalic, Clear Or Grey?
I will not read Bluetooth Spam
I will not read it, Sam I am.
I will not read it in the tube,
I will not read it even if it shows me a boob
I will not read it in my car
I will not read it in a bar
I do not like Bluetooth spam
I do not like it, Sam I am.
Hey,
..... hey look pretty shiny things over there.
I watch FOX and I think I have a pretty good attention
Dude, you have never lived in Califonia, that's f'sure f'sure.
But, it's fairly clear he does not exist.
To you maybe. You have such a small mind that you cannot possibly believe in something you have yet to experience. So instead of reflecting upon your own shortcomings, you belittle those that have another view.
Or the people who back bad government, simply because they are afraid of the consequences?
All governments are bad, just some are worse than others. Man cannot govern himself, let alone another. Because you don't believe in a diety, you believe in self.
What I find interesting, is that you linked the two thoughts together. I think God is trying to tell you something.
Imagine (No not one of those) Flash embedded into a PDF file! Or the new PFD (Portable Flash Document).
Seriously! You heard it here first.
mmmmmm, lamb.
Actually, with crap, the shitty stuff floats to the top. The muck drops to the bottom. The rest is piss poor quality.
Are you kidding? That is exactly the problem, as my wife IS my management team.
Okay, it seemed funny at the time.
Just another Ashhole
This comment is deviously insightful, but probably unintentionally.