They want to fill their shopping bags with all the goodies in the Mall of Society, but when they want to walk out without paying, they start whining about the 'force of arms' of the mall security guards.
Yeah, one that completely exonerates Apple, while making the CCC process seem complicated. Never mind that a large number of computer users have most of the tools to do this already, and that the rest of us can just go out and buy them right off the street.
Nooo, as long as the article defends the honour of Apple, it's a better perspective. Right.
Let me correct that for you: a youtube video endorsed by known experts in these kind of hacks. Versus lots of fanboi speculation on the superiority of Apple tech and vague marketing claims from Apple.
No, you'll get mod-bombed for being a trolling twat.
Here you are, after plenty of disparaging comments, after almost two years of unrelenting Ubuntu criticism, suggesting that the Linux world still idolizes Ubuntu (the assumption it ever did is a further troll mark)
Why do people insist on pointing out that Christians violate Jewish theology without taking the time to understand the Christian Theology behind why they violate it?
Because the kind of immature twit that inhabits Slashdot threads on religion has decided that theology not being science they can just ignore it, and spout their ignorant beliefs about Christianity with impunity.
No. I could have been unclear, that much is true, but the onus is upon you to enquire further to let me clarify, not just go off on a rant based on your assumptions.
But of course that presupposes that you actually are interested in a dialogue instead of slagging off Linux. I am afraid that I am going to assume however that you are more interested in the latter.
There is also that aging is for snobs; it was mostly invented by the British upper classes, and the Americans took it over without thinking.
Most wines are meant to be drunk fairly young. Any amount of aging necessary to bring out the taste will happen, as you correctly point out, with the oxygen available during bottling.
It is precisely this reason why the younger French vintners are not afraid of synthetic corks and bottle caps. The French are notorious oenopaedophiles.
You hadn't noticed maybe, but I did give the scientific thinking behind AGW theory.
Of course, being a whiny little right-wing bastard, all you see is the insult. And being an idiot, you think using a fancy name for an insult makes you right, no matter that you pick a fancy name that does not mean what you think it means.
That, and behaviour like that, is what makes you deniers idiots.
It was not an ad hominem, just a statement of fact.
Everything I have stated can be backed up by scientific, verifiable sources. That the denialist nutjobs like you refuse to do the science and just want to go "LA-LA-LAA I DON'T HEAR YOU" is empathically not my problem.
And to supplement my other post, I notice you don't address the content of my argument, but instead are trying to poison the well with a false equivalency.
It's fairly obvious where you stand and what ideology you have chosen to rationalise your blindness.
No, there is no moral equivalency here. The peer-reviewed papers are out there for all to see, yet the likes of Watts do not ever engage with the science in them.
It is a simple fact that there is more money in denialism, so even if I would grant you your point, it would be belied by the empirical observation that most climate scientists choose a relatively underpaid career and right-wing vilification over a cushy job at a think tank.
There is 'some argument' coming from Koch-sponsored think tanks. Show me a peer-reviewed article making your case, and I might start taking it more seriously.
We have ice core samples showing larger CO2 concentrations than today correlating with fossil finds showing that temperatures were higher in regions not accounted for by mere geological drift. So the observable facts already shoot holes in that theory.
You're an idiot. The human-made factor in the current climate change is a measurable, empirical fact. The only to explain it away is to come up with a different mechanism, and explain why it would overwhelm the effect of human-contributed CO2 concentration increases.
For those who are interested, this is the chain of causality:
CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas by trapping infrared radiation.
CO2 can even do this in small concentrations. The minimum concentration is way below the current concentration in the atmosphere.
The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing.
A large part of the CO2 concentration increase comes from burning fossil fuels, as proven by the C13/C14 ratio in atmospheric carbon.
The observed mean temperature over the entire Earth is observed to rise.
That's the basics of AGW theory. There are lots of interesting things to study around the basics, and a lot of them are not well understood yet, but the CO2 hypothesis is over a century old, and all the opponents have produced against it is think-tank sponsored media smears.
Slashdot Mirror
The libertards confuse taxation with shoplifting.
They want to fill their shopping bags with all the goodies in the Mall of Society, but when they want to walk out without paying, they start whining about the 'force of arms' of the mall security guards.
Reading and English comprehension are hard, I see.
I suggest you go back to school. Encryption without authentication is useless.
The problem is that 'Climategate' was not just investigated by scientists, but also by outside authorities.
And all investigations independently concluded that no significant misbehaviour had occurred.
You're an idiot.
Yeah, one that completely exonerates Apple, while making the CCC process seem complicated. Never mind that a large number of computer users have most of the tools to do this already, and that the rest of us can just go out and buy them right off the street.
Nooo, as long as the article defends the honour of Apple, it's a better perspective. Right.
Let me correct that for you: a youtube video endorsed by known experts in these kind of hacks. Versus lots of fanboi speculation on the superiority of Apple tech and vague marketing claims from Apple.
No, you'll get mod-bombed for being a trolling twat.
Here you are, after plenty of disparaging comments, after almost two years of unrelenting Ubuntu criticism, suggesting that the Linux world still idolizes Ubuntu (the assumption it ever did is a further troll mark)
Mart
The point is that one party wants to keep this information secret, which is contrary to the idea of a free market.
It should be up to the customer to decide what products to buy based upon the available information.
Because the kind of immature twit that inhabits Slashdot threads on religion has decided that theology not being science they can just ignore it, and spout their ignorant beliefs about Christianity with impunity.
No. I could have been unclear, that much is true, but the onus is upon you to enquire further to let me clarify, not just go off on a rant based on your assumptions.
But of course that presupposes that you actually are interested in a dialogue instead of slagging off Linux. I am afraid that I am going to assume however that you are more interested in the latter.
I was referring to Robert Parker and his fanbois, who seem to only select on suitability for aging.
You shouldn't make assumption, that makes you look like an ass.
You also seem to forget that there is a selection bias at work: you usually hear of the problems, not of the working installations.
There is also that aging is for snobs; it was mostly invented by the British upper classes, and the Americans took it over without thinking.
Most wines are meant to be drunk fairly young. Any amount of aging necessary to bring out the taste will happen, as you correctly point out, with the oxygen available during bottling.
It is precisely this reason why the younger French vintners are not afraid of synthetic corks and bottle caps. The French are notorious oenopaedophiles.
I actually read the linked papers. That's why you are an idiot.
Debunked
Yes, you are an idiot.
I've been running Debian with /root on LVM on RAID1 since Lenny, with no problems at all. My anecdote beats your anecdote.
You hadn't noticed maybe, but I did give the scientific thinking behind AGW theory.
Of course, being a whiny little right-wing bastard, all you see is the insult. And being an idiot, you think using a fancy name for an insult makes you right, no matter that you pick a fancy name that does not mean what you think it means.
That, and behaviour like that, is what makes you deniers idiots.
No, the good old "I actually didn't say that" defense.
But hey, apparently ability to think and read is inversely correlated with support for a scientific view on climate.
Since I never said "you're wrong because you're an idiot" you just have proven that you are indeed an idiot. An illiterate one at that.
Now fuck off.
It was not an ad hominem, just a statement of fact.
Everything I have stated can be backed up by scientific, verifiable sources. That the denialist nutjobs like you refuse to do the science and just want to go "LA-LA-LAA I DON'T HEAR YOU" is empathically not my problem.
<semiserious>Maybe to provide you another cause to blurt out more outraged verbiage for?</semiserious>
And to supplement my other post, I notice you don't address the content of my argument, but instead are trying to poison the well with a false equivalency.
It's fairly obvious where you stand and what ideology you have chosen to rationalise your blindness.
No, there is no moral equivalency here. The peer-reviewed papers are out there for all to see, yet the likes of Watts do not ever engage with the science in them.
It is a simple fact that there is more money in denialism, so even if I would grant you your point, it would be belied by the empirical observation that most climate scientists choose a relatively underpaid career and right-wing vilification over a cushy job at a think tank.
There is 'some argument' coming from Koch-sponsored think tanks. Show me a peer-reviewed article making your case, and I might start taking it more seriously.
We have ice core samples showing larger CO2 concentrations than today correlating with fossil finds showing that temperatures were higher in regions not accounted for by mere geological drift. So the observable facts already shoot holes in that theory.
You're an idiot. The human-made factor in the current climate change is a measurable, empirical fact. The only to explain it away is to come up with a different mechanism, and explain why it would overwhelm the effect of human-contributed CO2 concentration increases.
For those who are interested, this is the chain of causality:
That's the basics of AGW theory. There are lots of interesting things to study around the basics, and a lot of them are not well understood yet, but the CO2 hypothesis is over a century old, and all the opponents have produced against it is think-tank sponsored media smears.