Yeah...but, when volcanos erupt they spew more CO2 into the atmosphere than any human activity has ever done. The earth seems to get by.
Some evidence I'd accept would be, say, if the actual warming trend exhibited by the data was even remotely close to what the models say should be happening. As i understand it, the world's temperature has risen by about 0.5 - 0.6c since 1860 (albeit 140 year old data might not be top of the line), with most of that warming occuring before 1940. Now, since 1940, our production of greenhouse gasses has increased dramatically, but the temperature rise predicted by the models that scientists use just has not occurred. And the data also shows that between 1940 and 1970, the temperature actually seemed to *decrease*, hence the scare about global cooling that took place back then.
Anyway, I think global warming has become more or less a political club to bash republicans with, and that with most things there is bias on both sides. My point is, the numbers don't really bear out that human activity is doing anything, even by the standards used by the pro-global warming camp.
The fact is that BNETD is designed as an alternative to the real bnet. That's the point. Why would one need such a thing? So that pirates can play cd copies of the game. That's the reason it exists and that's the primary reason it is used. If that wasn't the case, then why not implement cd key checking in BNETD? It would prevent pirates from using the service. Keep in mind that that wouldn't prevent you from running the server and playing on your own little BNET networks running from your ISP's T1. But it would prevent you from playing multiple copies of the same cd, as well as playing blizzard's beta releases. Why wasn't that feature pursued? I have a guess: BECAUSE IT WOULD DEFEAT MOST OF THE PURPOSE OF RUNNING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. So cry all you want about Blizzard's wicked ways, but the fact is their case is genuine. If the one result of the case was a stipulation by the courts that BNETD implement some kind of cd key check (difficult yes, impossible no), you'd still be up in arms complaining about your rights to something I'm sure, even though I can't imagine what rights such a decision would infringe upon. So F' you. F' all the people like you. You make no sense, and whether or not your a thief, you certainly sound like you support them.
Call me fucked in the head, but I like Enterprise, and I don't mind the opening. Who gives a shit if there's singing...boo fucking hoo.
From what I've seen the show is a hundred percent better than voyager was on most days, and at least matches TNG's first season, not to mention a host of shitty TNG episodes that came in the last couple seasons (haunted candle for instance).
I like the concept behind Enterprise, I like the characters (no one in voyager was the least bit interesting), and I've liked all the episodes so far. The Andorian Incident was badass. (Well, maybe i just say that 'cause it had the guy who played Wayoon on DS9. Fuck I loved that guy. Remember when Worf snapped his neck?)
Anyway, if anyone reading this has stayed away from Enterprise based on the accusations leveled against it on slashdot and elsewhere, and because of some misdirected unease about it having lyrics in the opening, I'd just like to implore you to actually sit down and watch a couple episodes. You might be surprised by what you see.
--RMT
Re:I was such a TNG addict back in the day
on
Star Trek TNG DVDs
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Yes, TNG had some poor, poor moments. Does anyone remember:
Hahhahahahaahahahahahahaahahahaha, If you're serious, you're an eloquent fool, and if you're not, bravo.
How the hell can pictures on the damn net marginalize your daughter? You just say "talk to women for a change and you'll find out". I know lots of women who don't feel marginalized by porn. In fact, I don't think I've ever met one who felt "diminished". I think you need to give women more credit, and your daughter as well--anyone who feels somehow diminished by the fact that guys jerk off to dirty pictures on the damn internet has got problems censorship won't fix.
And as for that stuff about the assumptions of rational society conveying truth about the human condition, it damn well better, or else we'd all be illiterate living in mud huts licking slime off rocks. Its insipid post-modernist anti-reason comments like that which make me cringe. Of course we should put stock in rationality--you can think can't you? And as far as being unread and uneducated if you think assumptions about rational society are all trash, wtf have you been reading? I've got to know, 'cause i'd love to write a thesis about how human society is damaged by the idea that we're all just animals, which is essentially what we end up with once rationalism is thrown away. Religion is always at a disadvantage, because it makes no sense. Well, that's a harsh blanket statement, but I don't see much about religion that _does_ make sense. My apologies.
To get back on point, if you could please lay out how you think your daughter will be seriously diminished by geeks masturbating to naked pictures, then do it. I bet you can't.
Agreed, 100%. I love how people accuse the US of engaging in destructive cultural imperialism when all that really means is that they oppose repressive theocracy as a better way of life, and similarly try to spread our own way of life, which is basically the kind that sustains the entire well-fed and relatively happy western world.
Leftist Activists: "Who are we to say that the American system is better?"
Well....when you have a system that provides freedom and an unsurpassed quality of life for the balance of its participants, then I am inclined to believe that it is a better system than say, a radical repressive theocracy wherein people believe its better to die for god in suicide attacks against infidels than to live on planet earth.
We are morally justified in fighting back. If we do otherwise then we simply invite our own deaths. It seems very simple to me.
I'm a university student at Dalhousie in nova scotia. They just had a peace rally here. I was disgusted. I sent off a letter to a girl i know who goes to school in ottawa who talks politics with me. She's a big peace rally advocate, so i thought maybe she could offer some insight. No response yet, but here's the letter. Maybe someone here can tell me where i'm wrong:
They had a peace rally today on spring garden road. There were lots of Dal students, and Alexa McDonough was there and everything. I was going down to hmv to buy a cd and stopped at the rally on my way back. My apologies if i seem a little pissed off, but some of the people there were among the worst ive ever met. They seem to live not on planet earth, but in some world where the victims of terrorism are part of the problem, that the scourge of the earth is western capitalism (since we have more than most others, i guess, and don't systematically mete out our good fortune to everyone else), that we should not fight (militarily) against people who hate us and want to see us dead, that Americans are more or less war criminals, and that through non violence, inaction, severing of ties to israel (honest to god they said it was israel, and not Hamas or Islamic Jihad, that were the terrorists) and lifting sanctions on iraq we will convince Al Qaeda et al. to stop their quest to kill westerners, and pursuade Osama bin Laden to turn himself into the Hague for prosecution. Or maybe they didn't care about that last thing at all, I don't think they mentioned him by name. They kept talking about alternative ways to fight terrorism other than the use of military force, but they never said what those alternatives were. Their line was that war always results in the deaths of innocents, which i guess is true, but if youre talking about individuals supporting the taliban, who think bin laden is a hero, and think westerners are morally corrupt and must be destroyed (which is more or less what bin laden's been saying for years), then you're not really talking about innocents. That said, it is probably true that the majority in Afghanistan don't support the taliban or its protection of bin laden, but while the taliban remains a pro-terrorism government i think we've got a right to defend ourselves. Finding bin laden probably won't end everything right away, but at least they might be able to stop the flow of his money, and maybe in the process we could restore a more moderate, anti-fucked up, government in Afghanistan. That would be a plus.
They also forgot to mention Bush's push in congress for $320 million in food/shelter/medical aid directed to the general population in afghanistan, as well as the people who've fled the country into pakistan. That's right noble of him, i think. In bush i don't see the hawkish war monger that these people make him out to be--i don't think he's that bright. I just don't think he's got much of a mind of his own. "Boy, presidenting is hard!" But i think that even that assessment is changing. He seems to get smarter by the day.
So, here's a question: If we can't use military action (like in this situation) and we can't use economic sanctions (like in iraq) to protect ourselves and our allies from terrorism, invasion etc. How exactly are we supposed to do it? Albeit in iraq its more a question of perceived threat than anything else, but saddam hussein _is_ a murderer, and _does_ use his own people as human shields, and is presently trying to develop weapons of mass destruction (he's already a big chemical weapons pimp); Economic sanctions would be lifted if he allowed UN weapons inspectors to go back in and inspect for weapons. It's that simple. But no one at that rally remotely suggested doing anything about hussein, and similarly neglected to talk about the taliban, arguably the most repressive government in the world today. The focus is all on the nexus of evil that is the USA.
And now a word about israel. As far as israel getting pissed off in this situation goes, they have a right to be. During the gulf war, in order to maintain a coalition against iraq, Israel was basically told to do nothing, as any action on their part would just inflame muslim allies. So iraq took the opportunity to shower israel with scud missiles, and israel remained quiet. Now they smell something similar happening now. At the time they were hoping for an end to the iraqi military machine, and alot of iraqis were hoping for saddam hussein's downfall. I'm not going to speculate on the extent, but i imagine that loud at-home political opposition to the use of military force (these people today at the rally brought up the fact that alot of them had been at similar protests in 1991) helps to cripple a government's capacity for sustaining public support for a war. I guess that's the whole point. Violence is always a bad thing, of course. So instead of removing saddam, we only clean out kuwait and get back the oil to keep everything warm and happy (that will shut most people up) and as the war comes to an end, saddam goes back to doing whatever he was doing before. Even if the actual effect of these rallies is minute compared to the general disinterest of the population in finishing anything begun, the intent is still there, and is probably just a focussed illustration of people's unwillingness to do anything involving interference with others, even if the others are threatening us. I guess they think its best to try to please everyone and hope they come to feel the same toward us. Oops, i think i hear a plane smashing into a building somewhere. We're unable to even consider the possibility that people won't want to make peace with us, or see things our way; our tendency to give second chances to people vowing to kill us is kind of like self-mutilation.
Anyway, i'm sorry this letter became a diatribe, but i'm mad, and youre one of the few peace-rally going people i know and could bitch to. Turning the other cheek sounds great, except that on planet earth people have a right to live without being killed by another slap. Responsibility has to be taken at some point for the sake of the victim.
--RMT
PS. When i got home i sent away for information on joining the liberal party (that's the canadian liberal party which, for you americans who have better things to do than watch canadian politics (ie. all of you) runs the canadian gov't). Thats how pissed off this made me. I intend to support any move into afghanistan as long as terrorists are hiding out there with backing from the taliban, even if i'm the only student at Dal that does. I'm all for peace, but my god people, stop fucking kidding yourselves.
Just so you don't feel alone, I agree with you about every single thing you said. The main reason why people get harrassed in school is because they have incredibly high expectations of those around them. Common sense dictates that if you play Magic at lunchtime and carry around 40 sided dice (thank you Cliff Yablonski), then you will draw attention to yourself. Should people be harrassed just for being different? Probably not. BUT, to be shocked and indignent when it happens is asinine.
Additionally, I am also sure that almost every person here crying about how they were picked on in high school considers the people who did it idiots or 'morons'. Everyone judges everyone else; its a fact. Geeks no less than so-called bullies, as banal as that sounds. The only difference between them is that jocks et al. tend to travel in big groups and look imposing. But if words are the only thing they're using to hurt you, then you need to grow a thicker skin. If they kick your ass daily, then go tell someone. You're probably not the only one they do it to, so enlist the help of others. Death threats (whether tongue-in-cheek or indications of soon to be unveiled sawed-off shotgun wrath) tend to be a bad idea.
You don't have to 'stop being who you are' in order to fit in, but you do have to realize that if you draw attention to yourself then you will be singled out and judged. Simple as that. Should people be more accepting? Absolutely. Should we expect it to happen? No. So why not stop playing Magic at lunchtime and carrying 40 sided dice.
--RT
Slashdot Mirror
Man, my hat goes off to you. I wish I could mod you up. God knows no one around here has balls enough to do it.
--RMT
Yeah...but, when volcanos erupt they spew more CO2 into the atmosphere than any human activity has ever done. The earth seems to get by.
Some evidence I'd accept would be, say, if the actual warming trend exhibited by the data was even remotely close to what the models say should be happening. As i understand it, the world's temperature has risen by about 0.5 - 0.6c since 1860 (albeit 140 year old data might not be top of the line), with most of that warming occuring before 1940. Now, since 1940, our production of greenhouse gasses has increased dramatically, but the temperature rise predicted by the models that scientists use just has not occurred. And the data also shows that between 1940 and 1970, the temperature actually seemed to *decrease*, hence the scare about global cooling that took place back then.
Anyway, I think global warming has become more or less a political club to bash republicans with, and that with most things there is bias on both sides. My point is, the numbers don't really bear out that human activity is doing anything, even by the standards used by the pro-global warming camp.
--RMT
You're a funny guy.
The fact is that BNETD is designed as an alternative to the real bnet. That's the point. Why would one need such a thing? So that pirates can play cd copies of the game. That's the reason it exists and that's the primary reason it is used. If that wasn't the case, then why not implement cd key checking in BNETD? It would prevent pirates from using the service. Keep in mind that that wouldn't prevent you from running the server and playing on your own little BNET networks running from your ISP's T1. But it would prevent you from playing multiple copies of the same cd, as well as playing blizzard's beta releases. Why wasn't that feature pursued? I have a guess: BECAUSE IT WOULD DEFEAT MOST OF THE PURPOSE OF RUNNING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. So cry all you want about Blizzard's wicked ways, but the fact is their case is genuine. If the one result of the case was a stipulation by the courts that BNETD implement some kind of cd key check (difficult yes, impossible no), you'd still be up in arms complaining about your rights to something I'm sure, even though I can't imagine what rights such a decision would infringe upon. So F' you. F' all the people like you. You make no sense, and whether or not your a thief, you certainly sound like you support them.
--RMT
That AC just said it all.
--RMT
Call me fucked in the head, but I like Enterprise, and I don't mind the opening. Who gives a shit if there's singing...boo fucking hoo.
From what I've seen the show is a hundred percent better than voyager was on most days, and at least matches TNG's first season, not to mention a host of shitty TNG episodes that came in the last couple seasons (haunted candle for instance).
I like the concept behind Enterprise, I like the characters (no one in voyager was the least bit interesting), and I've liked all the episodes so far. The Andorian Incident was badass. (Well, maybe i just say that 'cause it had the guy who played Wayoon on DS9. Fuck I loved that guy. Remember when Worf snapped his neck?)
Anyway, if anyone reading this has stayed away from Enterprise based on the accusations leveled against it on slashdot and elsewhere, and because of some misdirected unease about it having lyrics in the opening, I'd just like to implore you to actually sit down and watch a couple episodes. You might be surprised by what you see.
--RMT
Yes, TNG had some poor, poor moments. Does anyone remember:
"Ach! lassie, ye canna keep that haunted candle!"
;)
--RMT
Hahhahahahaahahahahahahaahahahaha, If you're serious, you're an eloquent fool, and if you're not, bravo.
How the hell can pictures on the damn net marginalize your daughter? You just say "talk to women for a change and you'll find out". I know lots of women who don't feel marginalized by porn. In fact, I don't think I've ever met one who felt "diminished". I think you need to give women more credit, and your daughter as well--anyone who feels somehow diminished by the fact that guys jerk off to dirty pictures on the damn internet has got problems censorship won't fix.
And as for that stuff about the assumptions of rational society conveying truth about the human condition, it damn well better, or else we'd all be illiterate living in mud huts licking slime off rocks. Its insipid post-modernist anti-reason comments like that which make me cringe. Of course we should put stock in rationality--you can think can't you? And as far as being unread and uneducated if you think assumptions about rational society are all trash, wtf have you been reading? I've got to know, 'cause i'd love to write a thesis about how human society is damaged by the idea that we're all just animals, which is essentially what we end up with once rationalism is thrown away. Religion is always at a disadvantage, because it makes no sense. Well, that's a harsh blanket statement, but I don't see much about religion that _does_ make sense. My apologies.
To get back on point, if you could please lay out how you think your daughter will be seriously diminished by geeks masturbating to naked pictures, then do it. I bet you can't.
--RMT
Agreed, 100%. I love how people accuse the US of engaging in destructive cultural imperialism when all that really means is that they oppose repressive theocracy as a better way of life, and similarly try to spread our own way of life, which is basically the kind that sustains the entire well-fed and relatively happy western world.
Leftist Activists: "Who are we to say that the American system is better?"
Well....when you have a system that provides freedom and an unsurpassed quality of life for the balance of its participants, then I am inclined to believe that it is a better system than say, a radical repressive theocracy wherein people believe its better to die for god in suicide attacks against infidels than to live on planet earth.
We are morally justified in fighting back. If we do otherwise then we simply invite our own deaths. It seems very simple to me.
I'm a university student at Dalhousie in nova scotia. They just had a peace rally here. I was disgusted. I sent off a letter to a girl i know who goes to school in ottawa who talks politics with me. She's a big peace rally advocate, so i thought maybe she could offer some insight. No response yet, but here's the letter. Maybe someone here can tell me where i'm wrong:
They had a peace rally today on spring garden road. There were lots of Dal students, and Alexa McDonough was there and everything. I was going down to hmv to buy a cd and stopped at the rally on my way back. My apologies if i seem a little pissed off, but some of the people there were among the worst ive ever met. They seem to live not on planet earth, but in some world where the victims of terrorism are part of the problem, that the scourge of the earth is western capitalism (since we have more than most others, i guess, and don't systematically mete out our good fortune to everyone else), that we should not fight (militarily) against people who hate us and want to see us dead, that Americans are more or less war criminals, and that through non violence, inaction, severing of ties to israel (honest to god they said it was israel, and not Hamas or Islamic Jihad, that were the terrorists) and lifting sanctions on iraq we will convince Al Qaeda et al. to stop their quest to kill westerners, and pursuade Osama bin Laden to turn himself into the Hague for prosecution. Or maybe they didn't care about that last thing at all, I don't think they mentioned him by name. They kept talking about alternative ways to fight terrorism other than the use of military force, but they never said what those alternatives were. Their line was that war always results in the deaths of innocents, which i guess is true, but if youre talking about individuals supporting the taliban, who think bin laden is a hero, and think westerners are morally corrupt and must be destroyed (which is more or less what bin laden's been saying for years), then you're not really talking about innocents. That said, it is probably true that the majority in Afghanistan don't support the taliban or its protection of bin laden, but while the taliban remains a pro-terrorism government i think we've got a right to defend ourselves. Finding bin laden probably won't end everything right away, but at least they might be able to stop the flow of his money, and maybe in the process we could restore a more moderate, anti-fucked up, government in Afghanistan. That would be a plus.
They also forgot to mention Bush's push in congress for $320 million in food/shelter/medical aid directed to the general population in afghanistan, as well as the people who've fled the country into pakistan. That's right noble of him, i think. In bush i don't see the hawkish war monger that these people make him out to be--i don't think he's that bright. I just don't think he's got much of a mind of his own. "Boy, presidenting is hard!" But i think that even that assessment is changing. He seems to get smarter by the day.
So, here's a question: If we can't use military action (like in this situation) and we can't use economic sanctions (like in iraq) to protect ourselves and our allies from terrorism, invasion etc. How exactly are we supposed to do it? Albeit in iraq its more a question of perceived threat than anything else, but saddam hussein _is_ a murderer, and _does_ use his own people as human shields, and is presently trying to develop weapons of mass destruction (he's already a big chemical weapons pimp); Economic sanctions would be lifted if he allowed UN weapons inspectors to go back in and inspect for weapons. It's that simple. But no one at that rally remotely suggested doing anything about hussein, and similarly neglected to talk about the taliban, arguably the most repressive government in the world today. The focus is all on the nexus of evil that is the USA.
And now a word about israel. As far as israel getting pissed off in this situation goes, they have a right to be. During the gulf war, in order to maintain a coalition against iraq, Israel was basically told to do nothing, as any action on their part would just inflame muslim allies. So iraq took the opportunity to shower israel with scud missiles, and israel remained quiet. Now they smell something similar happening now. At the time they were hoping for an end to the iraqi military machine, and alot of iraqis were hoping for saddam hussein's downfall. I'm not going to speculate on the extent, but i imagine that loud at-home political opposition to the use of military force (these people today at the rally brought up the fact that alot of them had been at similar protests in 1991) helps to cripple a government's capacity for sustaining public support for a war. I guess that's the whole point. Violence is always a bad thing, of course. So instead of removing saddam, we only clean out kuwait and get back the oil to keep everything warm and happy (that will shut most people up) and as the war comes to an end, saddam goes back to doing whatever he was doing before. Even if the actual effect of these rallies is minute compared to the general disinterest of the population in finishing anything begun, the intent is still there, and is probably just a focussed illustration of people's unwillingness to do anything involving interference with others, even if the others are threatening us. I guess they think its best to try to please everyone and hope they come to feel the same toward us. Oops, i think i hear a plane smashing into a building somewhere. We're unable to even consider the possibility that people won't want to make peace with us, or see things our way; our tendency to give second chances to people vowing to kill us is kind of like self-mutilation.
Anyway, i'm sorry this letter became a diatribe, but i'm mad, and youre one of the few peace-rally going people i know and could bitch to. Turning the other cheek sounds great, except that on planet earth people have a right to live without being killed by another slap. Responsibility has to be taken at some point for the sake of the victim.
--RMT
PS. When i got home i sent away for information on joining the liberal party (that's the canadian liberal party which, for you americans who have better things to do than watch canadian politics (ie. all of you) runs the canadian gov't). Thats how pissed off this made me. I intend to support any move into afghanistan as long as terrorists are hiding out there with backing from the taliban, even if i'm the only student at Dal that does. I'm all for peace, but my god people, stop fucking kidding yourselves.
Just so you don't feel alone, I agree with you about every single thing you said. The main reason why people get harrassed in school is because they have incredibly high expectations of those around them. Common sense dictates that if you play Magic at lunchtime and carry around 40 sided dice (thank you Cliff Yablonski), then you will draw attention to yourself. Should people be harrassed just for being different? Probably not. BUT, to be shocked and indignent when it happens is asinine. Additionally, I am also sure that almost every person here crying about how they were picked on in high school considers the people who did it idiots or 'morons'. Everyone judges everyone else; its a fact. Geeks no less than so-called bullies, as banal as that sounds. The only difference between them is that jocks et al. tend to travel in big groups and look imposing. But if words are the only thing they're using to hurt you, then you need to grow a thicker skin. If they kick your ass daily, then go tell someone. You're probably not the only one they do it to, so enlist the help of others. Death threats (whether tongue-in-cheek or indications of soon to be unveiled sawed-off shotgun wrath) tend to be a bad idea. You don't have to 'stop being who you are' in order to fit in, but you do have to realize that if you draw attention to yourself then you will be singled out and judged. Simple as that. Should people be more accepting? Absolutely. Should we expect it to happen? No. So why not stop playing Magic at lunchtime and carrying 40 sided dice. --RT