Well, that's where some people disagree. For example, Hitler's "Mein Kampf" may not be printed and sold in Germany, because it is considered harmful. The harm is exactly the same as in the fire example: People may be led to believe it and act accordingly, and thereby cause explicit harm.
There's a *very* big difference between creating immediate harm by triggering a stampede, and causing possible future harm by inciting behaviour. As such, I still don't think the analogy applies. This would be why inciting violence is typically illegal, but writing subversive material is not.
And as an aside, citing Germany censorship laws as support for your position is probably a bad idea. Reporters Without Borders has them as 20th in terms of press freedom, and their censorship laws are very draconian for a western nation (and that's saying a lot coming from a Canadian, with our sham "human rights tribunals"). I certainly understand why they feel they are necessary, but I also believe they're immoral (of course, they're also preceded by censorship by allies during the occupation of the nation following the conclusion of WWII).
last i checked paper was made from the waste from milling timber from sustainably managed forests as well as recycled sources.
Yes, right. That's the only input to paper manufacture. Timber.
No large volumes of energy produced from primarily non-renewable resources. Or large volumes of harsh chemicals. Or large volumes of water.
And the only output is nice, clean paper.
No gaseous carbon, nitrous, or sulphur dioxide. No water pollution.
And, of course, there is absolutely no paper, anywhere, being manufactured from old-growth trees or anything like that. It's totally sustainable and awesome! Really!
Ah the slippery slope. Only a fanatic sees the world in black and white. The famous "Fire in a crowded theater" analogy is appropriate here.
Actually, it's not.
See, the "fire in a crowded theatre" example is interesting because it speaks to one of the most fundamental ideas about human rights and their enforcement. Specifically, the idea that your rights end the minute mine are infringed upon. In the case of the fire metaphor, by exercising your right to free speech, you infringe upon my right to safety, and thus it's felt that it is reasonable and moral to curtail your rights in order to protect mine.
But in the case of the written word, there is no harm being done, no one's rights being infringed upon. As such, the example does not apply, as the scenario is fundamentally different.
Most corporate computers don't need that type of external access, not through a VPN, not through anything else.
Do you not understand how VPNs are used in the corporate world? We're not talking about corporate computers accessing remote sites over VPN. We're talking about *mobile* users accessing a home site over VPN, or site-to-site VPNs connecting geographically separate sites.
Honestly, are you *really* that ignorant regarding how these technologies are used? Because it seems like you're not really knowledgeable enough to even weigh in on this topic, given your comments.
Delaying the problem by 5 to 8 years allows the technology to get cheaper.
It's *already* as cheap as it's gonna get. Most corporate desktops can already run dual-stacked, and any even semi-recent network hardware is v6 capable. We're already there, buddy.
And who knows, maybe by then we'll have found an even better solution.
You're dreaming. We've had 15 years to invent an "even better solution". There isn't one. Quit living in denial, you're starting to look silly.
Interesting, I see you ignored the actual meat of my argument, instead focusing on what was really a bit of a tangental point. Nevertheless...
From a security point of view, most of their computers SHOULD be re-numbered so that their addresses aren't publicly routable.
Uhh, bullshit.
That's precisely equivalent to arguing that NAT somehow provides additional security over a traditional firewall, a statement any good network administrator realizes is pure crap.
As for needing those IPs, there are many reasons to use publicly routable IPs for corporate networks. VPNs are the most obvious... unless all your sites use unique private subnets (and that, by the way, includes people's homes), you *will* have problems the minute you try to connect them over a VPN.
But, again, it simply doesn't matter. Even if you *could* claw back those IPs, pushing off the transition 5 or 8 years is worthless, as you still need to transition eventually, and whether you do it now, or 8 years from now, it's still gonna suck, because no one is forward thinking enough to start the transition until the shortage is imminent.
Doing this extends it out at least 5 more years, possibly right to 2020.
Uhuh.
Okay, sure, let's say you're right for the moment. *Who cares*! Oooh, five whole extra years. Maybe even eight! Wow, yeah, you definitely solved the problem, there.
Come on, get real. v4 addresses *are* going to right out. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Whether it's two years or five makes no damned difference. Meanwhile, three years ago, when there was five left, people *still* weren't moving on v6. So now you extend things out eight more years. Guess what? People will *still* drag their heels.
In short, all your suggestions do is delay the inevitable. Meanwhile, clawing back IPs is *extremely* non-trivial (have fun re-numbering the entire HP corporate network... assuming they don't fight you in court first). There's really no point is bothering. All the technology we need for v6 is here, today, ready to deploy. We might as well just get it over with now, as five or eight years from now, it's going to be no less painful.
I'm tickled pink to hear about some ISP buy-in on it though, because it seems to be quite a good solution to getting IPv6 to everyone.
Actually, the funny thing about Comcast is that it isn't so much "buy-in" as "we have to transition or we're screwed". They have so many cable modems, DSTBs, and so forth, that the private IP space simply isn't enough for their network. ie, they've already very nearly exhausted IPv4 for their purposes. IPv6 is really their only option, which is why they're pushing it so hard (and why they're already beginning to run residential v6 trials).
IPv6 is incompatible with IPv4, thus you can't just switch users to IPv6 and be done, you still have to drag all the IPv4 baggage with you or large parts of the Internet would be unreachable (i.e. almost all of it). And well, if you have to drag IPv4 with you anyway, why even bother with IPv6?
Fortunately, Comcast is working with the IETF to solve just that problem, a solution they've dubbed Dual-Stack Lite.
Their proposal involves gradually migrating the backhaul network to v6. Meanwhile, at the network endpoints (ie, homes, small offices, etc), you deploy dual-stack routers, and configure a local private v4 network. Any v4 traffic originating from those networks is tunneled by the router over v6 to a carrier-grade NAT, which performs v4 address translation.
This allows ISPs to deploy v6, and gradually migrate v4 users over. For hosts that aren't v6 capable, they see NAT'd v4 connectivity. For dual-stacked hosts, they get NAT'd v4, and full v6 connectivity.
The advantage, here, is that when IPs start running out (and they will), ISPs can continue to add customers while migrating to v6, without requiring further v4 allocations, and without disrupting v4 connectivity at all.
Since February this year Youtube has put all the actual media reachable on IPv6 as default when you access the youtube website through their normal DNS name.
Actually, I don't believe that's true. Google only advertises AAAA records to DNS servers that they've explicitly whitelisted. As such, if an ISP wishes their customers to have v6 connectivity for Google's services, they have to go and ask Google to have AAAA records advertised to them (I use a Hurricane Electric tunnel, and they have just such an agreement with Google, so I see AAAA records for all their services).
Fortunately that's no longer true. Comcast is working with the IETF on a rather interesting transition scheme. If I understand correctly, the idea is this:
1. Each home will have a dual-stack v4/v6 router, connected to a v6 only backhaul network. 2. The router will encapsulate the local, private IPv4 traffic in IPv6 packets and forward them to a carrier-grade NAT. 3. The carrier-grade NAT will decapsulate the v4 packets, NAT them, and then forward them on to their receiver. 4. The return path is handled the opposite way.
The result is that v4-only devices in the home network will be able to access the v4 internet, while dual-stack hosts will be able to access both the v4 and v6 networks. This allows the ISP to gradually transition their networks over to v6 without disrupting existing v4 connectivity, or requiring new v4 IPs.
Of course, this doesn't allow is v4-only clients to access v6-only servers or vice versa. But with dual-stack and private v4 IPs, there's no need for v6-only hosts (meaning v6 -> v4 isn't necessary), and if content providers can't get v4 addresses for dual-stacking (ie, the v4 -> v6 case), well, good, that just speeds up the transition.
Let's pretend, just for the moment, that this idea isn't ridiculous (it'd be simpler to deploy v6 than to get all those operators to re-number their networks). The current projected timeline for the remaining 20/8s to run out is September, 2011, which is 17 months away. You propose to return 26/8s to the pool. So, assuming the rate remains constant (which it won't), that gives us, what, 24 more months? Maybe?
Wow, way to go big guy! Instead of 2011 for IANA exhaustion, it'll now be 2013! Problem solved.
Hey, let's pretend that's doable for a second. Do you *really* think adding a single/8 is going to make any difference? There's *20* still left, right now, and the expectation is that we run out in the next few years or so. Your proposal would increase the currently available IPs space by a whopping 5%. Wow.
Honestly, I find it truly hilarious, all you people talking about retasking 240/, or clawing back IPs. Great, so you can push the pain out for, what? Six months? A year, maybe? Wow, good job! Problem solved, right?
It was a suggestion for each dev to do for her/himself, not as an rule given from management.
Well, no, that's not true. Eliminate things like YouTube, and you've effectively decided for those devs how they'll take their breaks, haven't you?
I was suggesting that looking away from the monitor is more effective in refreshing ones mind (and quicker) than surfing around.
For you that might be true. For others, it might not be. The point is, by eliminating options, you don't give the developers any choice in the matter, all because you, apparently, feel they can't manage their time effectively on their own.
I guess some moderator... misinterpreted that as an insulting command. Oh well...
Yeah, that, unfortunately, is just bullshit moderating. The mods around here have a rather annoying tendency to mod people down rather than actually, you know, respond to the comments at hand, so unpopular comments get modded down, even if they don't deserve it. Worse, it's very clear they have no idea whatsoever what a real troll looks like. Hopefully it gets corrected by a metamod or another moderator who isn't such a fucktard...
Regarding instant messaging, you're quite right. We've established a few habits of when to try to be online, but in practice, most people have so many problems with random unwanted messages from random stalkers that they set themselves to invisible if the client allows it.
Just deploy an internal Jabber or IRC server for corporate communications. Problem solved. And as a bonus, you don't find yourself broadcasting company information on the intarwebs.
You know, I wasn't sure I bought it, either, but then I went back and watched some of the original series episodes. There's at least two occasions I can think of off the top of my head (though, naturally, I can't think of their names at the moment) where there's some chemistry between Uhura and Spock.
Really, my biggest problem, there, was buying Zoe Saldana's portrayal of Uhura in the first place. Granted, Uhura wasn't exactly a well-fleshed-out character in the original series, but this super-sexy, sassy Uhura thing just seems too over-the-top to me (similarly, I thought Simon Pegg's Scotty was far too ridiculous... I mean, come on, Scotty has his funny moments in TOS, but for god sake, he wasn't comic relief).
Best arrangement I have seen:
- 2, maximal 3 people per room
- large desks, large monitors
- keep it quiet, put some plants there
- make it easy to collaborate without interrupting people (e.g. Instant messages*)
- Block Youtube et. al., they eat your time
I was with you up until that last one. Eliminating the ability for developers to take mental breaks is a great way to just piss people off. If your developers aren't disciplined enough to control their Youtube watching, such that it impacts project deadlines, you have far bigger problems. You shouldn't need to babysit your people.
And yours is nothing more than an insult with absolutely no refutation of his argument.
You're right, I didn't. Why? Because no refutation would matter. The difference between short term noise and a long term trend is basic, fundamental statistics. Any introduction to climate science, economics, or any number of other fields would cover this topic. If he wanted to learn the difference, he could find out for himself.
But, of course, he doesn't want to learn the difference. And even if someone explained it to him, he'd ignore it. Why? Because he's already decided global warming is false, and climatologists don't know what they're doing. At that point, confirmation bias will ensure that he never learns anything that disputes this conclusion, simply because he *doesn't care to learn*. Which is, of course, why he latched onto the stupid "durr, they can't tell me the temperature next week!" meme. He already *wants* to believe global warming is fake, and so an idiotic statement like that rings true.
Of course, that's the difference between a real skeptic and a denier. A skeptic hears a claim, then attempts to go out and learn something about it for himself. A denier listens to both sides, then picks the arguments that confirm his beliefs.
You did nothing but attempt to insult him and made your self look like an ignorant ass in the process.
Says ArcherB, the long-time conservative noisebag and Slashdot troll.
Please. Go back into your hole, noisebag. You clearly have nothing of value to contribute.
I hold a skeptics view to the whole Global Warming thing, they say that this is what the earth will do in 100 years...yet they can't guess what its going to do next week with any certainty.
That's not a skeptics view. That's an idiot-who-doesn't-understand-statistics view.
Look at the man in the cubicle across from you. Now look at the two men to the left of you. Now look at the two men to the right of you. One of them is surfing porn at work.
Uh, yeah. No, sorry.
See, I work in an office where people aren't weirdos who feel it's okay to look at porn in a public space (as opposed to in private where it obviously belongs).
I've been sticking with a 4 year old laptop at work (IT usually gets their pick of the hardware, fact of life) Mainly for the 4:3 (or close to it) screen.
I used to believe this, too, and then I actually started traveling with a laptop. The shorter, wider screen is a *lot* more convenient when you are, for example, traveling in an airplane, as you can open the lid farther, and as an added bonus, the whole thing ends up being more stable.
No, IMHO, for laptops, widescreen is actually much better (and I say this as a software developer, who's job is to read and write large volumes of text on a day-to-day basis).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's where some people disagree. For example, Hitler's "Mein Kampf" may not be printed and sold in Germany, because it is considered harmful. The harm is exactly the same as in the fire example: People may be led to believe it and act accordingly, and thereby cause explicit harm.
There's a *very* big difference between creating immediate harm by triggering a stampede, and causing possible future harm by inciting behaviour. As such, I still don't think the analogy applies. This would be why inciting violence is typically illegal, but writing subversive material is not.
And as an aside, citing Germany censorship laws as support for your position is probably a bad idea. Reporters Without Borders has them as 20th in terms of press freedom, and their censorship laws are very draconian for a western nation (and that's saying a lot coming from a Canadian, with our sham "human rights tribunals"). I certainly understand why they feel they are necessary, but I also believe they're immoral (of course, they're also preceded by censorship by allies during the occupation of the nation following the conclusion of WWII).
last i checked paper was made from the waste from milling timber from sustainably managed forests as well as recycled sources.
Yes, right. That's the only input to paper manufacture. Timber.
No large volumes of energy produced from primarily non-renewable resources.
Or large volumes of harsh chemicals.
Or large volumes of water.
And the only output is nice, clean paper.
No gaseous carbon, nitrous, or sulphur dioxide.
No water pollution.
And, of course, there is absolutely no paper, anywhere, being manufactured from old-growth trees or anything like that. It's totally sustainable and awesome! Really!
You do know that carbon-containing molecules are the basis of all life on earth, right?
You do realize that potassium is required to live, right? So, here, why don't you swallow this large piece and we'll see how that works out for you...
Why do environmental groups get upset by paper? Paper is a very renewable resource.
Yes, because, after all, the only input to paper manufacturer is trees, and the only output is nice, clean paper...
Ah the slippery slope. Only a fanatic sees the world in black and white. The famous "Fire in a crowded theater" analogy is appropriate here.
Actually, it's not.
See, the "fire in a crowded theatre" example is interesting because it speaks to one of the most fundamental ideas about human rights and their enforcement. Specifically, the idea that your rights end the minute mine are infringed upon. In the case of the fire metaphor, by exercising your right to free speech, you infringe upon my right to safety, and thus it's felt that it is reasonable and moral to curtail your rights in order to protect mine.
But in the case of the written word, there is no harm being done, no one's rights being infringed upon. As such, the example does not apply, as the scenario is fundamentally different.
Most corporate computers don't need that type of external access, not through a VPN, not through anything else.
Do you not understand how VPNs are used in the corporate world? We're not talking about corporate computers accessing remote sites over VPN. We're talking about *mobile* users accessing a home site over VPN, or site-to-site VPNs connecting geographically separate sites.
Honestly, are you *really* that ignorant regarding how these technologies are used? Because it seems like you're not really knowledgeable enough to even weigh in on this topic, given your comments.
Delaying the problem by 5 to 8 years allows the technology to get cheaper.
It's *already* as cheap as it's gonna get. Most corporate desktops can already run dual-stacked, and any even semi-recent network hardware is v6 capable. We're already there, buddy.
And who knows, maybe by then we'll have found an even better solution.
You're dreaming. We've had 15 years to invent an "even better solution". There isn't one. Quit living in denial, you're starting to look silly.
Interesting, I see you ignored the actual meat of my argument, instead focusing on what was really a bit of a tangental point. Nevertheless...
From a security point of view, most of their computers SHOULD be re-numbered so that their addresses aren't publicly routable.
Uhh, bullshit.
That's precisely equivalent to arguing that NAT somehow provides additional security over a traditional firewall, a statement any good network administrator realizes is pure crap.
As for needing those IPs, there are many reasons to use publicly routable IPs for corporate networks. VPNs are the most obvious... unless all your sites use unique private subnets (and that, by the way, includes people's homes), you *will* have problems the minute you try to connect them over a VPN.
But, again, it simply doesn't matter. Even if you *could* claw back those IPs, pushing off the transition 5 or 8 years is worthless, as you still need to transition eventually, and whether you do it now, or 8 years from now, it's still gonna suck, because no one is forward thinking enough to start the transition until the shortage is imminent.
Doing this extends it out at least 5 more years, possibly right to 2020.
Uhuh.
Okay, sure, let's say you're right for the moment. *Who cares*! Oooh, five whole extra years. Maybe even eight! Wow, yeah, you definitely solved the problem, there.
Come on, get real. v4 addresses *are* going to right out. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Whether it's two years or five makes no damned difference. Meanwhile, three years ago, when there was five left, people *still* weren't moving on v6. So now you extend things out eight more years. Guess what? People will *still* drag their heels.
In short, all your suggestions do is delay the inevitable. Meanwhile, clawing back IPs is *extremely* non-trivial (have fun re-numbering the entire HP corporate network... assuming they don't fight you in court first). There's really no point is bothering. All the technology we need for v6 is here, today, ready to deploy. We might as well just get it over with now, as five or eight years from now, it's going to be no less painful.
I'm tickled pink to hear about some ISP buy-in on it though, because it seems to be quite a good solution to getting IPv6 to everyone.
Actually, the funny thing about Comcast is that it isn't so much "buy-in" as "we have to transition or we're screwed". They have so many cable modems, DSTBs, and so forth, that the private IP space simply isn't enough for their network. ie, they've already very nearly exhausted IPv4 for their purposes. IPv6 is really their only option, which is why they're pushing it so hard (and why they're already beginning to run residential v6 trials).
IPv6 is incompatible with IPv4, thus you can't just switch users to IPv6 and be done, you still have to drag all the IPv4 baggage with you or large parts of the Internet would be unreachable (i.e. almost all of it). And well, if you have to drag IPv4 with you anyway, why even bother with IPv6?
Fortunately, Comcast is working with the IETF to solve just that problem, a solution they've dubbed Dual-Stack Lite.
Their proposal involves gradually migrating the backhaul network to v6. Meanwhile, at the network endpoints (ie, homes, small offices, etc), you deploy dual-stack routers, and configure a local private v4 network. Any v4 traffic originating from those networks is tunneled by the router over v6 to a carrier-grade NAT, which performs v4 address translation.
This allows ISPs to deploy v6, and gradually migrate v4 users over. For hosts that aren't v6 capable, they see NAT'd v4 connectivity. For dual-stacked hosts, they get NAT'd v4, and full v6 connectivity.
The advantage, here, is that when IPs start running out (and they will), ISPs can continue to add customers while migrating to v6, without requiring further v4 allocations, and without disrupting v4 connectivity at all.
Since February this year Youtube has put all the actual media reachable on IPv6 as default when you access the youtube website through their normal DNS name.
Actually, I don't believe that's true. Google only advertises AAAA records to DNS servers that they've explicitly whitelisted. As such, if an ISP wishes their customers to have v6 connectivity for Google's services, they have to go and ask Google to have AAAA records advertised to them (I use a Hurricane Electric tunnel, and they have just such an agreement with Google, so I see AAAA records for all their services).
Fortunately that's no longer true. Comcast is working with the IETF on a rather interesting transition scheme. If I understand correctly, the idea is this:
1. Each home will have a dual-stack v4/v6 router, connected to a v6 only backhaul network.
2. The router will encapsulate the local, private IPv4 traffic in IPv6 packets and forward them to a carrier-grade NAT.
3. The carrier-grade NAT will decapsulate the v4 packets, NAT them, and then forward them on to their receiver.
4. The return path is handled the opposite way.
The result is that v4-only devices in the home network will be able to access the v4 internet, while dual-stack hosts will be able to access both the v4 and v6 networks. This allows the ISP to gradually transition their networks over to v6 without disrupting existing v4 connectivity, or requiring new v4 IPs.
Of course, this doesn't allow is v4-only clients to access v6-only servers or vice versa. But with dual-stack and private v4 IPs, there's no need for v6-only hosts (meaning v6 -> v4 isn't necessary), and if content providers can't get v4 addresses for dual-stacking (ie, the v4 -> v6 case), well, good, that just speeds up the transition.
Uhuh.
Let's pretend, just for the moment, that this idea isn't ridiculous (it'd be simpler to deploy v6 than to get all those operators to re-number their networks). The current projected timeline for the remaining 20 /8s to run out is September, 2011, which is 17 months away. You propose to return 26 /8s to the pool. So, assuming the rate remains constant (which it won't), that gives us, what, 24 more months? Maybe?
Wow, way to go big guy! Instead of 2011 for IANA exhaustion, it'll now be 2013! Problem solved.
Hey, let's pretend that's doable for a second. Do you *really* think adding a single /8 is going to make any difference? There's *20* still left, right now, and the expectation is that we run out in the next few years or so. Your proposal would increase the currently available IPs space by a whopping 5%. Wow.
Honestly, I find it truly hilarious, all you people talking about retasking 240/, or clawing back IPs. Great, so you can push the pain out for, what? Six months? A year, maybe? Wow, good job! Problem solved, right?
It was a suggestion for each dev to do for her/himself, not as an rule given from management.
Well, no, that's not true. Eliminate things like YouTube, and you've effectively decided for those devs how they'll take their breaks, haven't you?
I was suggesting that looking away from the monitor is more effective in refreshing ones mind (and quicker) than surfing around.
For you that might be true. For others, it might not be. The point is, by eliminating options, you don't give the developers any choice in the matter, all because you, apparently, feel they can't manage their time effectively on their own.
I guess some moderator ... misinterpreted that as an insulting command. Oh well...
Yeah, that, unfortunately, is just bullshit moderating. The mods around here have a rather annoying tendency to mod people down rather than actually, you know, respond to the comments at hand, so unpopular comments get modded down, even if they don't deserve it. Worse, it's very clear they have no idea whatsoever what a real troll looks like. Hopefully it gets corrected by a metamod or another moderator who isn't such a fucktard...
Regarding instant messaging, you're quite right. We've established a few habits of when to try to be online, but in practice, most people have so many problems with random unwanted messages from random stalkers that they set themselves to invisible if the client allows it.
Just deploy an internal Jabber or IRC server for corporate communications. Problem solved. And as a bonus, you don't find yourself broadcasting company information on the intarwebs.
You need mental breaks, true. Stand up every 60 minutes. Go for a 5 minute walk.
Ah, I see, so you feel you're brilliant enough to decide for everyone else how they should take their breaks.
Awesome.
I'm not sure I buy the whole Spock-Ururah thing
You know, I wasn't sure I bought it, either, but then I went back and watched some of the original series episodes. There's at least two occasions I can think of off the top of my head (though, naturally, I can't think of their names at the moment) where there's some chemistry between Uhura and Spock.
Really, my biggest problem, there, was buying Zoe Saldana's portrayal of Uhura in the first place. Granted, Uhura wasn't exactly a well-fleshed-out character in the original series, but this super-sexy, sassy Uhura thing just seems too over-the-top to me (similarly, I thought Simon Pegg's Scotty was far too ridiculous... I mean, come on, Scotty has his funny moments in TOS, but for god sake, he wasn't comic relief).
I loved having an office myself, but with everyone having their own its just too quiet. No interaction, no way to get to know anyone.
Isn't that what lunch, meetings, hallway conversations, and instant messaging (we use IRC) are for?
Best arrangement I have seen:
- 2, maximal 3 people per room
- large desks, large monitors
- keep it quiet, put some plants there
- make it easy to collaborate without interrupting people (e.g. Instant messages*)
- Block Youtube et. al., they eat your time
I was with you up until that last one. Eliminating the ability for developers to take mental breaks is a great way to just piss people off. If your developers aren't disciplined enough to control their Youtube watching, such that it impacts project deadlines, you have far bigger problems. You shouldn't need to babysit your people.
And yours is nothing more than an insult with absolutely no refutation of his argument.
You're right, I didn't. Why? Because no refutation would matter. The difference between short term noise and a long term trend is basic, fundamental statistics. Any introduction to climate science, economics, or any number of other fields would cover this topic. If he wanted to learn the difference, he could find out for himself.
But, of course, he doesn't want to learn the difference. And even if someone explained it to him, he'd ignore it. Why? Because he's already decided global warming is false, and climatologists don't know what they're doing. At that point, confirmation bias will ensure that he never learns anything that disputes this conclusion, simply because he *doesn't care to learn*. Which is, of course, why he latched onto the stupid "durr, they can't tell me the temperature next week!" meme. He already *wants* to believe global warming is fake, and so an idiotic statement like that rings true.
Of course, that's the difference between a real skeptic and a denier. A skeptic hears a claim, then attempts to go out and learn something about it for himself. A denier listens to both sides, then picks the arguments that confirm his beliefs.
You did nothing but attempt to insult him and made your self look like an ignorant ass in the process.
Says ArcherB, the long-time conservative noisebag and Slashdot troll.
Please. Go back into your hole, noisebag. You clearly have nothing of value to contribute.
I hold a skeptics view to the whole Global Warming thing, they say that this is what the earth will do in 100 years...yet they can't guess what its going to do next week with any certainty.
That's not a skeptics view. That's an idiot-who-doesn't-understand-statistics view.
Look at the man in the cubicle across from you. Now look at the two men to the left of you. Now look at the two men to the right of you. One of them is surfing porn at work.
Uh, yeah. No, sorry.
See, I work in an office where people aren't weirdos who feel it's okay to look at porn in a public space (as opposed to in private where it obviously belongs).
But, hey, maybe my office is unique, somehow...
So, err... don't you Chrome if you're that paranoid?
I know, what a wild idea...
I've been sticking with a 4 year old laptop at work (IT usually gets their pick of the hardware, fact of life) Mainly for the 4:3 (or close to it) screen.
I used to believe this, too, and then I actually started traveling with a laptop. The shorter, wider screen is a *lot* more convenient when you are, for example, traveling in an airplane, as you can open the lid farther, and as an added bonus, the whole thing ends up being more stable.
No, IMHO, for laptops, widescreen is actually much better (and I say this as a software developer, who's job is to read and write large volumes of text on a day-to-day basis).