What a bullshit argument. There is no guarantee in the Constitution, either explicit or implicit, for laws protecting 'society'. Laws in this nation have but one purpose, and one purpose alone: to protect the INDIVIDUAL.
I realize this is just flamebait, but we have alot of cretins running around spouting this kind of crap, so I'll bite:
Let's see. The Constitution says it's there to:
- Form a more perfect union... So in your mind a union is an INDIVIDUAL?
- Establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility... So justice and domestic tranquility don't have anything to do with society, i.e. an aggregate of people who have to live together? On your bizarro "only individuals" planet, people would be saying nonsense like, "Thanks to the Constitution, I'm domestically tranquil! I'm just!"
- Provide for the common defense... Gee, that's clearly only for the INDIVIDUAL.
- Promote the general welfare... So I guess this is some guy named General Welfare?
- Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity... An awful lot of plurals for something that only applies to the INDIVIDUAL.
And don't tell me I can simply hit the delete button - thats not something I should have to do. Just like if someone's making harassing phonecalls to me, I can call the police and press charges. There needs to be a similar mechanism for SPAM, preferrably something involving rope, stakes, honey and a mound of Texas fireants.
The "quit whining - just hit delete" crowd drives me nuts. It's like saying "quit complaining - just clean the egg off your windshield." There are several reasons "just hit delete" is an ass:
1 - As you said, "WTF should I have to do this?" 2 - Why must I be subjected to "h0tt chikz with dikz" crap every day while just trying to mind my own business? Even if I "just hit delete" I've still had that crap shoved in my face. I'm not easily offended, but that neverending barrage of bestiality, incest, rape, and so on gets very, very tiresome. 3 - It doesn't address the problem. Even if you jhd, the bandwidth and server space has already been wasted. (This is also a problem with bayesian filters. Their only benefit is relieving your eyes of that garbage.) 4 - When you've been on the net, using the same email address for a long time as I have, you tend to have more spam problems. I had my email address on my web page and used it on Usenet before the dangers became apparent. So I get from 90 to 255 spams per day. All those deletes add up to a LOT of wasted time. Somehow I don't think the jhd people would feel the same way if they had to deal with large volumes. 5 - Spammers advertize for free, on OUR dime. That alone should qualify them as targets for air strikes. 6 - All that shee-yot slows mail servers and makes going away from your email for an extended period a huge pain in the ass.
What we need is a system whereby spam goes only to those who tell others to "just hit delete." They obviously want to passively accept abuse, so let them do it and leave the rest of us alone.
The only reason we have popular votes in the states for electors is because the state legislatures have decided to do it that way, but they can name the electors and d@mn way they please.
Yep, which is why the SC had no damned business interfering. Scalia acted in complete opposition to his lifelong legal philosophy for political reasons.
You'd love the debate to be over, but it isn't. The 2000 election fiasco will be debated for a long, long time.
It cracks me up how you guys say anyone who complains about the result "doesn't understand the system." We DO understand the electoral system. We're saying this shows the system SUCKS. It gives far too much power to rural, low population states (just calculate the ration of electoral votes to population in states with the minimum 3), and it results in situations where the winner in popular vote loses. It may adhere to the electoral college system, but don't tell me it was a sensible result. Any system that allows the guy fewer people wanted to win is screwed up.
We won't get over it. It was a travesty, and we'll keep pointing it out. Get over THAT.
Actually, you're right about the label being the last one that sticks, but according to the auto-email I got from slashdot, your previous mod was removed because you posted to this story and when you do that it negates all the mods you made to it.
All can see the result and form their own personal opinions. I think it is quite clear where my opinions are. The REPLY does not deserve to be labled as a TROLL!
Thanks. I've seen a lot of creationist drivel on slashdot, and never modded it down because I disagreed with it - I ignored it or replied. I think it's pretty clear they have nothing to say to refute me so they resort to childish abuse of the moderation system and AC dung-flinging.
BTW, how did your mod get changed? It says the only mod the post got was as a troll. I guess I must hope for justice in metamod.
With all due respect, the question of origins is a philosophical one rather than a scientific one. It is not possible to use the scientific method to determine origins.
The creationist and the evolutionist are in the same boat. Neither can observe, record, repeat the process
This is pure, unadulterated bullshit. While it's true that we can't replicate the origin of the Universe, or life itself, the scientific method is perfectly applicable to these questions. You formulate an hypothesis, then observe the evidence to disprove or confirm said hypothesis. The repetition comes in finding different kinds of evidence in different places. You can predict something would be found based on an hypothesis, then look at the evidence and see if it doesn't fit. If what you were saying is true, the entire science of astronomy is pure guesswork without the slightest rational basis. Please.
Both are constrained to collect extant data and propose theories about what caused the universe. In that respect, they are limited to speculation.
You sound like an ID proponent. This conclusion is absurd, and results from intellectual laziness. If you think creationism has anything to do with evidence, you're either ignorant or a liar. Creationist "institutes" openly declare that they *already know the answer*, and that the only acceptable "evidence" is that which supports their predetermined answer, ignoring or distorting all else. It is *not* science.
What you refer to as "evolutionists" really means "everyone except the creationists." To say their goals or methods are more than superficially similar is ridiculous.
Speculation is unlikely to provide an answer. On this idea, CS Lewis said: "It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by a splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."
I remember when I though CS Lewis was deep. Actually, he is to philosophy what Chutes and Ladders is to games of skill. His works are a study in poorly constructed arguments, guided by the desire to shore up a preconceived idea rather than seek truth.
For that matter, it is not possible for scientists to say with certainty how the universe was prior to its existence. This is not science, but speculation and should be named as such.
Asking how something was before it existed is gibberish. But, assuming for the sake of argument, that your statement makes sense, science doesn't say *anything* with absolute certainty. It narrows down the possibilities, and can give us knowledge to a very high degree of confidence (as one famous scientist put it, some things are not known absolutely, but are known with sufficient basis that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent - Like "the Earth is roughly spherical."), but all scientific knowledge is potentially subject to revision. Some things are very hard to overturn because they've been demonstrated from so many directions one would need to dismantle just about everything we know to do so. Gravity is one of these things, and so is evolution.
I have a strong suspicion you're a creationism proponent, since this has become a standard creationist tactic: It's all the same, creationism and evolution are equally valid because it's all just guesswork, yadda yadda. Feigning neutrality is pretty standard.
Then again, you might just not know what you're talking about, in which case I apologize for calling you a creationist, but suggest you need to put your ideas back in the oven and let them bake a little longer.
You are 100% correct, but you're forgetting something. It doesn't matter if the color green you see is different from the color green CmrTaco sees; as long as you use the same RGB, he'll see it the same as Slashdto's logo, provided he's using the same monitor to look at both.
Maybe so, but it's supposed to be printed on T-shirts. If he defines the color in Lab, and we all use color managed systems, then we will all see the same color, and that color will end up on the T-shirts. Besides, don't we want the color defined for everyone, not just one guy's monitor?
As someone who does color management for a living, one of the hardest things I've dicovered is disabusing people of the notion that RGB/CMYK/Hex define colors. Maybe it doesn't always matter, as you say, but this misunderstanding is an impediment to people figuring out how to get consistent color reproduction. It's astonishing how much variation in color you get across devices for any given RGB value. So I confess I may be a little anal about this, but not without reason. I envision a world where slashdot green is defined as an actual color, and we can all have the same color, and the world will be a wonderful place with no troubles whatsoever. (cue sappy music)
The hex for the color is the same everywhere, just like pantone is. Because your monitor isnt viewing it the same as I am, doesnt mean that the hex value has changed. In theory, if we calibrated correctly, it would be the same
Wrong. If we had 2 different monitors that were both calibrated, we would still see different colors for the same RGB or CMYK values. RGB and CMYK are not colors, just device settings, and each device has its own interpretation of those values. That's why jpgs and tiffs support tagging with profiles. They define the actual colors the image is supposed to have.
All calibrating does is make a monitor profile that will properly display Lab colors, which come from the image's profile or color space.
I strongly recommend the use of Slashdot's favorite shade of green in any design submission. Slashdot's "Green" is 006666 in hex. 0,102,102 in RGB. Entries will not be excluded for failing to use the green, but I like it, and I'm the judge!
Actually, those values don't represent colors. They're device settings, and they will display different colors on different devices, since they all have different gamuts and different RGB -> Output color matching. This is the reason for ICC profiles.
If you want to define the color, you need to measure it and post Lab values, which represent actual color. So if the standard is, say, Taco's monitor, you should make a patch of the appropriate color in Photoshop and assign your montor profile. Then convert the image to Lab and report that color. Then you will have truly defined Slashdot green.
For further explanation, check out this article on our web site:
There is a general flaw in your argument, in that we have only had any kind of technology on two objects in space: Our Moon and Mars. Granted, we have had probes pass by other planets, but still, they are still within our solar system, which only constitutes a microscopic fraction of the size of the universe. Now, I would say it is a very selfish argument to say that we have not, on the two extra-terrestrial objects we have been on, found life, that it does not exist anywhere in the Universe.
Wait a minute. The argument is not that life does not exist in the Universe because we haven't found it; It's that we don't have any evidence to say it does. We may have reasons to believe it possible, but the fact is, we haven't found any outside earth yet. So all the arguments that there must be life elsewhere because of the vastness of the Universe and so on boil down to extrapolating from one data point.
I happen to think it likely that there is life elsewhere, but the only really honest and supportable answer is "we don't know." Saying it has to be there is no better than saying it couldn't.
Can you truly say that The Moon and Mars are an accurate cross-section of the universe, and that if life doesn't exist there, it doesn't exist anywhere?
Honestly, I haven't heard anybody say this. Maybe a crank or two, but this is really a straw man. In fact, the kooks tend to fall on the "there must be life out there" side.
A former professor of mine co-authored a book called Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. It argues that life may be widespread, but that complex life is probably very rare. But they don't claim to know this to be true. They just make a reasoned, logical argument for their case. Until we have a lot more data, though, we're back to saying we just don't know.
Sure, I don't disagree with that. On a side note, your journal is a bit telling...;-)
Yes, well.. um.. ahem...
Actually, the object of my ire and I are related, and decided to make each other foes because we felt left out for not having any.:) I don't think he's read my journal entry yet. CURSE HIM!!!
So, then, which hatred is justified? Draw the line.
Why? There are few, if any, lines in ethical matters. But the extremes are easy to identify. I don't need to be able to draw a line in order to make judgments at the extremes.
Extreme examples of people who thought they were "justified:" Matthew Shepard's killers, the 9/11 bombers, both sides in the West Bank.
Sorry, but I really think this is a copout. We all have to make moral and ethical judgments. They made theirs, I made mine. But in this case, you are trading "hatred" for "murder." I never said killing people is justified, I said hatred can be. A feeling and an act are very different things.
I'm not calling you a murderer;
That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day! (Really; I work tech support.)
My point is just that none of us has the right to be an arbiter of hatred.
I really don't know what an arbiter of hatred is. What I can tell you is this: Hate is a normal human emotion, one that should probably be moderated so we can live together peacefully. But if someone killed my child, I would hate that person, and anyone who tells me otherwise, I'd say that person is the one overstepping his rights.
My point is that by any rational standard, computing preference pales by comparison as a reason for hating anyone.
So if they were debating politics, or maybe religion, it would be all right? Why is computing an especially ridiculous reason to hate another person? There is no good reason, in any context.
Oh, come on. Do you really think there's a moral equivalency between these two cases:
1 - I hate that guy because he killed my dad. 2 - I hate that guy because he uses a Mac.
Maybe hatred is a bad thing, and if we were all saints we'd just let go of it and the world would unite and drink coke together. But the fact is, there are some really awful things happening in the world, things that engender completely understandable, and sometimes justified, hatred. Choice of computing platform *is* ridiculous in comparison.
Your links were about soda water which is not soda pop. I never denied that the word soda had an historical basis. But they do not use NaHCO3 to make pop. You said soda pop "is made" with bicarb, not "it was originally made" with bicarb.
Its called soda because it's made with soda water aka bicarbonate of soda, bicarbonate of soda is aka baking soda.
This is true if by "true" you mean "completely wrong." Soda pop is not made with bicarbonate of soda. You ever taste that stuff? There's a reason there is no "Arm & Hammer Cola." Yuk! Pop's made with CO2, plain and simple.
Some stuff that's made by fermentation, like root beer, get their CO2 from little critters, but it's still CO2.
"Pop" does tend to be used more in the east and midwest, and "soda" more on the west coast.
Hm. I was born and raised in Seattle and nobody I know calls it soda. We say pop. Every once in a while I'll say soda just for the hell of it and I always get strange looks.
set up email filters, restrict the websites they can visit... but don't blame those who supply them.
I don't have a problem with people providing access to pr0n - But there's a huge difference between someone going out and finding pictures of cheerleaders screwing bulls and having someone deliver such pictures to everyone indiscriminately. I *do* blame those who supply the spam.
Since arguing by analogy is de rigeur on slashdot, here's mine: Someone opening a porn bookstore down the street is fine. The same owner tacking porn to my door is not.
I don't understand what you mean by a "neutral profile" and then ColorSync working its profile to that. If it isn't color managing the data, it's just going from the document's color space to printer color space without transformation. What would be the "relatively neutral profile" and what would be ColorSync's profile?
I'm not nitpicking to be a dick. I'm interested in how to get color management working with CUPS, too, and I just want to be sure I understand what you're saying.
How many people, once fooled into the company's web site, decide "Hey, I'm already here. Why not give them my credit card number for some useless piece of shit I don't need."
You have neglected to pay proper respect to, and unalterable belief in, the Grand Canonical Slashdot-Approved Internet Get Rich Quick Business Plan (although I give you credit for divining step 2):
All together now...
1. Trick users into visiting your site. 2. ? 3. PROFIT!
It's elegant, parsimonious, and brilliant in its simplicity. What could go wrong?
Why doesn't he just cut through all the crap and patent the very idea of being a complete and utter asshole? Then he could demand royalties from all other assholes when they display their assholitudinism. Then, if they get pissed off and come after him, he can claim that in itself was assholish and sue for *that*.
Slashdot Mirror
What a bullshit argument. There is no guarantee in the Constitution, either explicit or implicit, for laws protecting 'society'. Laws in this nation have but one purpose, and one purpose alone: to protect the INDIVIDUAL.
I realize this is just flamebait, but we have alot of cretins running around spouting this kind of crap, so I'll bite:
Let's see. The Constitution says it's there to:
- Form a more perfect union... So in your mind a union is an INDIVIDUAL?
- Establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility... So justice and domestic tranquility don't have anything to do with society, i.e. an aggregate of people who have to live together? On your bizarro "only individuals" planet, people would be saying nonsense like, "Thanks to the Constitution, I'm domestically tranquil! I'm just!"
- Provide for the common defense... Gee, that's clearly only for the INDIVIDUAL.
- Promote the general welfare... So I guess this is some guy named General Welfare?
- Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity... An awful lot of plurals for something that only applies to the INDIVIDUAL.
And don't tell me I can simply hit the delete button - thats not something I should have to do. Just like if someone's making harassing phonecalls to me, I can call the police and press charges. There needs to be a similar mechanism for SPAM, preferrably something involving rope, stakes, honey and a mound of Texas fireants.
The "quit whining - just hit delete" crowd drives me nuts. It's like saying "quit complaining - just clean the egg off your windshield." There are several reasons "just hit delete" is an ass:
1 - As you said, "WTF should I have to do this?"
2 - Why must I be subjected to "h0tt chikz with dikz" crap every day while just trying to mind my own business? Even if I "just hit delete" I've still had that crap shoved in my face. I'm not easily offended, but that neverending barrage of bestiality, incest, rape, and so on gets very, very tiresome.
3 - It doesn't address the problem. Even if you jhd, the bandwidth and server space has already been wasted. (This is also a problem with bayesian filters. Their only benefit is relieving your eyes of that garbage.)
4 - When you've been on the net, using the same email address for a long time as I have, you tend to have more spam problems. I had my email address on my web page and used it on Usenet before the dangers became apparent. So I get from 90 to 255 spams per day. All those deletes add up to a LOT of wasted time. Somehow I don't think the jhd people would feel the same way if they had to deal with large volumes.
5 - Spammers advertize for free, on OUR dime. That alone should qualify them as targets for air strikes.
6 - All that shee-yot slows mail servers and makes going away from your email for an extended period a huge pain in the ass.
What we need is a system whereby spam goes only to those who tell others to "just hit delete." They obviously want to passively accept abuse, so let them do it and leave the rest of us alone.
The only reason we have popular votes in the states for electors is because the state legislatures have decided to do it that way, but they can name the electors and d@mn way they please.
Yep, which is why the SC had no damned business interfering. Scalia acted in complete opposition to his lifelong legal philosophy for political reasons.
You'd love the debate to be over, but it isn't. The 2000 election fiasco will be debated for a long, long time.
It cracks me up how you guys say anyone who complains about the result "doesn't understand the system." We DO understand the electoral system. We're saying this shows the system SUCKS. It gives far too much power to rural, low population states (just calculate the ration of electoral votes to population in states with the minimum 3), and it results in situations where the winner in popular vote loses. It may adhere to the electoral college system, but don't tell me it was a sensible result. Any system that allows the guy fewer people wanted to win is screwed up.
We won't get over it. It was a travesty, and we'll keep pointing it out. Get over THAT.
Actually, you're right about the label being the last one that sticks, but according to the auto-email I got from slashdot, your previous mod was removed because you posted to this story and when you do that it negates all the mods you made to it.
Thanks, still.
All can see the result and form their own personal opinions. I think it is quite clear where my opinions are. The REPLY does not deserve to be labled as a TROLL!
Thanks. I've seen a lot of creationist drivel on slashdot, and never modded it down because I disagreed with it - I ignored it or replied. I think it's pretty clear they have nothing to say to refute me so they resort to childish abuse of the moderation system and AC dung-flinging.
BTW, how did your mod get changed? It says the only mod the post got was as a troll. I guess I must hope for justice in metamod.
Wow. Real substantive reply. You must be the guy who modded me a troll.
With all due respect, the question of origins is a philosophical one rather than a scientific one. It is not possible to use the scientific method to determine origins.
The creationist and the evolutionist are in the same boat. Neither can observe, record, repeat the process
This is pure, unadulterated bullshit. While it's true that we can't replicate the origin of the Universe, or life itself, the scientific method is perfectly applicable to these questions. You formulate an hypothesis, then observe the evidence to disprove or confirm said hypothesis. The repetition comes in finding different kinds of evidence in different places. You can predict something would be found based on an hypothesis, then look at the evidence and see if it doesn't fit. If what you were saying is true, the entire science of astronomy is pure guesswork without the slightest rational basis. Please.
Both are constrained to collect extant data and propose theories about what caused the universe. In that respect, they are limited to speculation.
You sound like an ID proponent. This conclusion is absurd, and results from intellectual laziness. If you think creationism has anything to do with evidence, you're either ignorant or a liar. Creationist "institutes" openly declare that they *already know the answer*, and that the only acceptable "evidence" is that which supports their predetermined answer, ignoring or distorting all else. It is *not* science.
What you refer to as "evolutionists" really means "everyone except the creationists." To say their goals or methods are more than superficially similar is ridiculous.
Speculation is unlikely to provide an answer. On this idea, CS Lewis said: "It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by a splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."
I remember when I though CS Lewis was deep. Actually, he is to philosophy what Chutes and Ladders is to games of skill. His works are a study in poorly constructed arguments, guided by the desire to shore up a preconceived idea rather than seek truth.
For that matter, it is not possible for scientists to say with certainty how the universe was prior to its existence. This is not science, but speculation and should be named as such.
Asking how something was before it existed is gibberish. But, assuming for the sake of argument, that your statement makes sense, science doesn't say *anything* with absolute certainty. It narrows down the possibilities, and can give us knowledge to a very high degree of confidence (as one famous scientist put it, some things are not known absolutely, but are known with sufficient basis that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent - Like "the Earth is roughly spherical."), but all scientific knowledge is potentially subject to revision. Some things are very hard to overturn because they've been demonstrated from so many directions one would need to dismantle just about everything we know to do so. Gravity is one of these things, and so is evolution.
I have a strong suspicion you're a creationism proponent, since this has become a standard creationist tactic: It's all the same, creationism and evolution are equally valid because it's all just guesswork, yadda yadda. Feigning neutrality is pretty standard.
Then again, you might just not know what you're talking about, in which case I apologize for calling you a creationist, but suggest you need to put your ideas back in the oven and let them bake a little longer.
You are 100% correct, but you're forgetting something. It doesn't matter if the color green you see is different from the color green CmrTaco sees; as long as you use the same RGB, he'll see it the same as Slashdto's logo, provided he's using the same monitor to look at both.
Maybe so, but it's supposed to be printed on T-shirts. If he defines the color in Lab, and we all use color managed systems, then we will all see the same color, and that color will end up on the T-shirts. Besides, don't we want the color defined for everyone, not just one guy's monitor?
As someone who does color management for a living, one of the hardest things I've dicovered is disabusing people of the notion that RGB/CMYK/Hex define colors. Maybe it doesn't always matter, as you say, but this misunderstanding is an impediment to people figuring out how to get consistent color reproduction. It's astonishing how much variation in color you get across devices for any given RGB value. So I confess I may be a little anal about this, but not without reason. I envision a world where slashdot green is defined as an actual color, and we can all have the same color, and the world will be a wonderful place with no troubles whatsoever. (cue sappy music)
The hex for the color is the same everywhere, just like pantone is. Because your monitor isnt viewing it the same as I am, doesnt mean that the hex value has changed. In theory, if we calibrated correctly, it would be the same
Wrong. If we had 2 different monitors that were both calibrated, we would still see different colors for the same RGB or CMYK values. RGB and CMYK are not colors, just device settings, and each device has its own interpretation of those values. That's why jpgs and tiffs support tagging with profiles. They define the actual colors the image is supposed to have.
All calibrating does is make a monitor profile that will properly display Lab colors, which come from the image's profile or color space.
See my user #?
I strongly recommend the use of Slashdot's favorite shade of green in any design submission. Slashdot's "Green" is 006666 in hex. 0,102,102 in RGB. Entries will not be excluded for failing to use the green, but I like it, and I'm the judge!
Actually, those values don't represent colors. They're device settings, and they will display different colors on different devices, since they all have different gamuts and different RGB -> Output color matching. This is the reason for ICC profiles.
If you want to define the color, you need to measure it and post Lab values, which represent actual color. So if the standard is, say, Taco's monitor, you should make a patch of the appropriate color in Photoshop and assign your montor profile. Then convert the image to Lab and report that color. Then you will have truly defined Slashdot green.
For further explanation, check out this article on our web site:
The Color of Toast
I also like the way he designs something graphically by typing. You see that one a lot.
But he can do all this, see, because he's an ADVANCED being from THE FUTURE (echo...). They know EVERYTHING.
There is a general flaw in your argument, in that we have only had any kind of technology on two objects in space: Our Moon and Mars. Granted, we have had probes pass by other planets, but still, they are still within our solar system, which only constitutes a microscopic fraction of the size of the universe. Now, I would say it is a very selfish argument to say that we have not, on the two extra-terrestrial objects we have been on, found life, that it does not exist anywhere in the Universe.
Wait a minute. The argument is not that life does not exist in the Universe because we haven't found it; It's that we don't have any evidence to say it does. We may have reasons to believe it possible, but the fact is, we haven't found any outside earth yet. So all the arguments that there must be life elsewhere because of the vastness of the Universe and so on boil down to extrapolating from one data point.
I happen to think it likely that there is life elsewhere, but the only really honest and supportable answer is "we don't know." Saying it has to be there is no better than saying it couldn't.
Can you truly say that The Moon and Mars are an accurate cross-section of the universe, and that if life doesn't exist there, it doesn't exist anywhere?
Honestly, I haven't heard anybody say this. Maybe a crank or two, but this is really a straw man. In fact, the kooks tend to fall on the "there must be life out there" side.
A former professor of mine co-authored a book called Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. It argues that life may be widespread, but that complex life is probably very rare. But they don't claim to know this to be true. They just make a reasoned, logical argument for their case. Until we have a lot more data, though, we're back to saying we just don't know.
The correct beverage in that context is Pepsi, not Coke.
Obviously someone too young to remember the Coke commercials.
"I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony..."
You are right that I hate Pepsi, though. Vile swill. I resent, however, being called a pigfucker. I quit fucking pigs years ago.
Sure, I don't disagree with that. On a side note, your journal is a bit telling... ;-)
:) I don't think he's read my journal entry yet. CURSE HIM!!!
Yes, well.. um.. ahem...
Actually, the object of my ire and I are related, and decided to make each other foes because we felt left out for not having any.
So, then, which hatred is justified? Draw the line.
Why? There are few, if any, lines in ethical matters. But the extremes are easy to identify. I don't need to be able to draw a line in order to make judgments at the extremes.
Extreme examples of people who thought they were "justified:" Matthew Shepard's killers, the 9/11 bombers, both sides in the West Bank.
Sorry, but I really think this is a copout. We all have to make moral and ethical judgments. They made theirs, I made mine. But in this case, you are trading "hatred" for "murder." I never said killing people is justified, I said hatred can be. A feeling and an act are very different things.
I'm not calling you a murderer;
That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day! (Really; I work tech support.)
My point is just that none of us has the right to be an arbiter of hatred.
I really don't know what an arbiter of hatred is. What I can tell you is this: Hate is a normal human emotion, one that should probably be moderated so we can live together peacefully. But if someone killed my child, I would hate that person, and anyone who tells me otherwise, I'd say that person is the one overstepping his rights.
My point is that by any rational standard, computing preference pales by comparison as a reason for hating anyone.
So if they were debating politics, or maybe religion, it would be all right? Why is computing an especially ridiculous reason to hate another person? There is no good reason, in any context.
Oh, come on. Do you really think there's a moral equivalency between these two cases:
1 - I hate that guy because he killed my dad.
2 - I hate that guy because he uses a Mac.
Maybe hatred is a bad thing, and if we were all saints we'd just let go of it and the world would unite and drink coke together. But the fact is, there are some really awful things happening in the world, things that engender completely understandable, and sometimes justified, hatred. Choice of computing platform *is* ridiculous in comparison.
Your links were about soda water which is not soda pop. I never denied that the word soda had an historical basis. But they do not use NaHCO3 to make pop. You said soda pop "is made" with bicarb, not "it was originally made" with bicarb.
Its called soda because it's made with soda water aka bicarbonate of soda, bicarbonate of soda is aka baking soda.
This is true if by "true" you mean "completely wrong." Soda pop is not made with bicarbonate of soda. You ever taste that stuff? There's a reason there is no "Arm & Hammer Cola." Yuk! Pop's made with CO2, plain and simple.
Some stuff that's made by fermentation, like root beer, get their CO2 from little critters, but it's still CO2.
"Pop" does tend to be used more in the east and midwest, and "soda" more on the west coast.
Hm. I was born and raised in Seattle and nobody I know calls it soda. We say pop. Every once in a while I'll say soda just for the hell of it and I always get strange looks.
set up email filters, restrict the websites they can visit... but don't blame those who supply them.
I don't have a problem with people providing access to pr0n - But there's a huge difference between someone going out and finding pictures of cheerleaders screwing bulls and having someone deliver such pictures to everyone indiscriminately. I *do* blame those who supply the spam.
Since arguing by analogy is de rigeur on slashdot, here's mine: Someone opening a porn bookstore down the street is fine. The same owner tacking porn to my door is not.
I don't understand what you mean by a "neutral profile" and then ColorSync working its profile to that. If it isn't color managing the data, it's just going from the document's color space to printer color space without transformation. What would be the "relatively neutral profile" and what would be ColorSync's profile?
I'm not nitpicking to be a dick. I'm interested in how to get color management working with CUPS, too, and I just want to be sure I understand what you're saying.
How many people, once fooled into the company's web site, decide "Hey, I'm already here. Why not give them my credit card number for some useless piece of shit I don't need."
You have neglected to pay proper respect to, and unalterable belief in, the Grand Canonical Slashdot-Approved Internet Get Rich Quick Business Plan (although I give you credit for divining step 2):
All together now...
1. Trick users into visiting your site.
2. ?
3. PROFIT!
It's elegant, parsimonious, and brilliant in its simplicity. What could go wrong?
IIRC, Tolkein made up Elvish (well, of course he did, but this is the significant bit:) based on bits of archaic Celtic or Germanic languages
I believe the "High-Elven" language, called Quenya, was primarily inspired by Finnish, which is neither Celtic nor Germanic.
Why doesn't he just cut through all the crap and patent the very idea of being a complete and utter asshole? Then he could demand royalties from all other assholes when they display their assholitudinism. Then, if they get pissed off and come after him, he can claim that in itself was assholish and sue for *that*.
It's the perfect plan. What could go wrong?