Two roland blogspam articles on the front page at the same time... it would be funny if it wasn't a shitcock earning money he doesn't deserve by whoring other peoples' work.
Yeah, it's amazing.... I can't think of any other advertisement medium where viewers pay to see advertising. I bet I could make a killing with such a service - I'm gonna start my own business. I think I'll call it Able Mellowvision.
Why the sarcasm? I never said it never happened - I simply stated the fact that it would take a revolutionary change in understanding for such a thing to happen. You can count on one hand the really significant changes to our understanding of the physical laws that govern the universe - that means if such a discovery were made, it would be earth-shattering. The news duped in this article is anything but.
I could be totally and absolutely wrong about all of this.
You are;)
The only way you set up these faster than light experiments is by manipulating the entire situation to set things up so it looks like the wave is being propagated faster than light. No information is being transmitted, because the "wave" isn't really a a propagation of information, but a result of you very specifically setting up initial conditions for all the photons, or in your example, people. If you tell everyone to stand and sit as soon as they see the person behind them stand and sit, you won't violate causality because there will be a delay inherent in them recieving the information about the previous seat's state. If instead, you tell them all to look at their watches and move at a pre-determined time, you can create something that LOOKS like a wave propagating faster than light, but in reality no information is being transmitted, because you cleverly manipulated the initial conditions.
Faster-than-light communication is still, unfortunately, completely impossible, and it will take one big-ass change in our understanding of physics to have any hope of ever acheiving it.
Funny that you blast the "global warming movement", while clearly having NO IDEA about the people who actually conducted the study, published in Nature, that described the emissions of methane from plants. The very scientists who conducted that study have lashed out at the media, and idiots like you, who have completely misinterpreted their findings. The "global warming" movement is based on a whole shitload of scientists who overwhelmingly think the evidence points toward a human influence, including those who conducted the study showing methane emissions from plants.
I really love how people like you sit here and blast the work of scientists, even saying they are "idiots that don't know what the hell they are talking about", pounding on them for pushing an agenda, when it's perfectly clear that you yourself have an agenda of your own and no understanding of the immense amount of research that's been done on the subject.
Sensitive much? I included no insults and my only curse was "bullshit", which happens to be the title of this whole little thread we've got going here.
All desktop macs with mice now come with the mighty mouse. Out of the box it's configured for single-button operation with a scroll ball, but a set of options in the mouse software turns it into a two, three, or four-button mouse.
And all new apple laptops come with the option to enable "chorded" right clicking, which is a click on the mouse button while there are two fingers on the trackpad. I personally GREATLY prefer this over the traditional two-button setup on laptops - you've got one large button you can click no matter where your hand is on the trackpad, and you don't have to shift your hand position at all to do a right-click. It's a more elegant and useful solution.
This is the whole point of a mac, though - its not about being fanatical, it's about presenting the user with the simplest set of possibilities, then allowing the more advanced users to access more functionality with more depth on their own terms.
It blows my mind that, time after time, presidential races are about looks, speaking skill, dirty laundry, ad nauseum, and only rarely about who's most qualified to do the job. Everyone keeps saying about Obama, oh he's such a great speaker - who gives a fuck? Can he balance the budget? Can he convince congress to get off their asses and do something to help us get our energy from a source that doesn't come from dead dinos? If so, tell me about that, and not what an excellent presenter he is.
I care if Steve Jobs is good at giving keynotes - I care if our president is good at solving problems.
Yes I'm serious. Hilary is no dummy, she's well aware that the supreme court has overturned every attempt to make flag burning illegal. She also knows that, for whatever dumbass reason, something like 52% of Americans support the ban. A law is easy to overturn, and she proposed exactly that, at the same time as others were trying to make it a constitutional amendment, which is a lot harder to overturn. I will never know her true intentions, of course, but she's already a far better choice to me than the many many congress people who voted in favor of the amendment instead.
EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN IN THIS COUNTRY does shitty things to gain power. They wouldn't be politicians if they didn't. What I don't get is, the scores of other politicians who voted for these damn things don't seem to get mentioned, but Hilary gets crucified for it. Again, I see a huge media bias against her and I don't get it.
I hate to reply to my own post, but just a follow-up on the flag burning nonsense, since I left something out. At the same time as Clinton was proposing her own flag-burning law, others were proposing one of those constituional amendments to ban flag burning that we hear so much about. Her proposed law most likely pulled some who would have voted in favor of the amendment to vote in favor of the law instead. I'd much rather have a law, which will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional as it rightly should, than an amendment, which pretty much means we're fucked.
Partisan political pandering to set herself up for a whitehouse bid. Idiotic, sure, but hardly a reason to hate the woman IMHO. It's also important to note the wishy-washy wording of the law, which was specifically to ban flag burning intended to incite fear or some such nonsense. It was also a far cry from previous attempts at things such as constitutional amendments to do the same thing.
sponsoring legislation for banning violent computer games
While I hate the thinkofthechildren idiocy as much as the next person, I also hate the kneejerk "oh noes they are gonna take away my GTA" reactions on the internets. The GTA thing was again posturing, trying to get the rating changed from "M" to "AO", which is an essentially meaningless distinction that would pacify her conservative contituents without actually changing the reality of the situation a damn bit. The bills she's pushed on violent video games have never been about banning them outright, they have been about enforcing the ratings system. I really don't have any problem with a 12-year-old kid needing his mommy along with him to be able to purchase Manhunt for his playstation.
I know I'm starting to look like a Clinton supporter, which is not my intention, but again I say no one ever provides any GOOD reasons why they hate her so much. Your kneejerk "omg they are taking away my games" is just as idiotic as her kneejerk "think of the children".
So basically, you dislike her because you don't like her attitude?
Let's hear about some real policy decisions she's made in the past, in detail - not "she hasn't learned from her iraq vote"
This is what pisses me off about the Hilary Clinton crap - everyone hates her, and they can't think of a good reason why. I hope to all hell that she doesn't get the nomination, because that's going to hurt the Dems chances a whole hell of a lot. Ever since Bill was in the whitehouse, the media has programmed this country to hate his wife - she even irritates me and I don't really know why. I'm a rational person, though, so I'll wait until the race has gotten a little more serious and do research on my own to form opinions about her RECORD AS A LAWMAKER and not her arrogance or stubbornness. Which, by the way, are two traits that couldn't possibly be illustrated better than a big framed picture of Dubya.
No matter how many times the corporate shills repeat the phrase, intellectual "property" is not property, and it cannot be "stolen". There is no such thing as internet piracy, it's a term invented to make copyright infringement sound more naughty. Stop already, with the stupid fucking analogies which compare real life objects to intangible bits of information.
I'm guessing the guy would still be in trouble because the look of the Ferrari is probably trademarked or something. Only if he used the car to generate profit in some way. If he built a ferrari from scratch to drive back and forth to work, he would be in the clear. Hell, even if he built it for the purpose of somehow parodying ferrari and made money from that, he would be well within his legal rights. Of course, that never stopped the bloodsuckers from suing the hell out of him anyways.
Ahh spouting off about strawman, the last desperate attempt of a slashdotter trying to argue an idiotic point. Morality and law are not the same thing, period, and you can keep concoting more and more elaborate arguments, but anyone with half a brain realizes the distinction. I'm not going to sit here and nitpick back and forth with you, as this discussion has become boring.
"Common moral space in that they are both against the law"
Obeying the law has absolutely zero to do with morals - in fact, obeying an unjust law could easily be argued to be amoral. He did not make a point that they are both against the law, he implied that morality means obeying the law. I don't have an inability to read between the lines, im calling a poster out for a bullshit statement.
Morality is defined by law now? Man I guess the religious right has gotten their way after all. Here I thought morality was based on a sense of right or wrong, not what some jackass politician wrote down and got a bunch of other jackass politicians to vote on.
You didn't check your facts, you found a transcribed audio interview from ten years ago. Your position was not simply that the CO2 levels were a certain amount, it was that this concept was fine and dandy - as far as my "where are the fact" statement? That was more a criticism of the entire bullshit political blog you linked to, which was full of ridiculous conclusions, most of which, like your argument, have just enough of a grain of possible validity to confuse people into believing the blog's lies.
Either way, nothing I say is going to convince you, and I've about run out of breath on this conversation, so please keep spouting partisan politics instead of reasonable science. You fit right in on the internets. Perhaps you could start your own blog, and keep that one devoid of rational conclusions as well.
1.) This is still an interview, and not a peer-reviewed journal. It nowhere mentions the "800 measurements around the world" and MORE IMPORTANTLY it doesn't show any kind of independent verification of these statements.
2.) You've take a whole lot of choice wordings out of context and arranged them to try to fit your "well within tolerances" conclusion. Remember this is a PALEONTOLOGIST talking - right in this very interview he describes a "rapid change" as a quarter of a million years. In the long term, large amounts of CO2 may (big may here, coming from a single transcribed interview with one man) have lead to an abundance of plant life and a corresponding increase in large animals. However, the timescales of human civilation are orders of magnitude shorter than the million-year time scale paleontologists think about. Just because it might have allowed dinosaurs to thrive for some period of time does NOT mean it's "well within tolerances" for human life and civilization to continue as we know it. You're making a massive jump here without any justification.
3.)The argument this man makes is essentially that the entire earth was really warm, and there were dinosaurs everywhere - so you could just as easily use this entire interview as an argument in FAVOR of CO2 in the atmosphere really screwing us over. I personally would never use such a weak source to try to justify my arguments, especially given the abundance of peer-reviewed research out there.
4.)The interview was conducted in 1996, a full decade ago - a lot has changed since then, including the amount of CO2 in our air. Using decade-old data and assumptions to talk about modern global warming debate is dangerous at best.
That is most certainly NOT a scientific journal. There is no mention of a peer review process, and more importantly, NO SCITATATIONS WHATSOEVER in any of the articles. Yet another political mouthpiece.
Slashdot Mirror
Two roland blogspam articles on the front page at the same time... it would be funny if it wasn't a shitcock earning money he doesn't deserve by whoring other peoples' work.
That's the sound of the joke flying over your head. Able Mellowvision? Come on, think for half a second before you respond to a post.
Yeah, it's amazing.... I can't think of any other advertisement medium where viewers pay to see advertising. I bet I could make a killing with such a service - I'm gonna start my own business. I think I'll call it Able Mellowvision.
Please go stand by your stairs, so I can protect you. Pushing will protect you from the terrible secret of space.
Why the sarcasm? I never said it never happened - I simply stated the fact that it would take a revolutionary change in understanding for such a thing to happen. You can count on one hand the really significant changes to our understanding of the physical laws that govern the universe - that means if such a discovery were made, it would be earth-shattering. The news duped in this article is anything but.
I could be totally and absolutely wrong about all of this.
;)
You are
The only way you set up these faster than light experiments is by manipulating the entire situation to set things up so it looks like the wave is being propagated faster than light. No information is being transmitted, because the "wave" isn't really a a propagation of information, but a result of you very specifically setting up initial conditions for all the photons, or in your example, people. If you tell everyone to stand and sit as soon as they see the person behind them stand and sit, you won't violate causality because there will be a delay inherent in them recieving the information about the previous seat's state. If instead, you tell them all to look at their watches and move at a pre-determined time, you can create something that LOOKS like a wave propagating faster than light, but in reality no information is being transmitted, because you cleverly manipulated the initial conditions.
Faster-than-light communication is still, unfortunately, completely impossible, and it will take one big-ass change in our understanding of physics to have any hope of ever acheiving it.
Your post should be the standard response to idiot crackpots like Argoff, every single time they post. Bravo!
As a followup to my own comment, here's a link to the press release at the Max Planck institute concerning the misinterpretation of these results:
i on/documentation/pressReleases/2006/pressRelease20 0601131/index.html
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentat
Funny that you blast the "global warming movement", while clearly having NO IDEA about the people who actually conducted the study, published in Nature, that described the emissions of methane from plants. The very scientists who conducted that study have lashed out at the media, and idiots like you, who have completely misinterpreted their findings. The "global warming" movement is based on a whole shitload of scientists who overwhelmingly think the evidence points toward a human influence, including those who conducted the study showing methane emissions from plants.
I really love how people like you sit here and blast the work of scientists, even saying they are "idiots that don't know what the hell they are talking about", pounding on them for pushing an agenda, when it's perfectly clear that you yourself have an agenda of your own and no understanding of the immense amount of research that's been done on the subject.
Sensitive much? I included no insults and my only curse was "bullshit", which happens to be the title of this whole little thread we've got going here.
Bullshit.
All desktop macs with mice now come with the mighty mouse. Out of the box it's configured for single-button operation with a scroll ball, but a set of options in the mouse software turns it into a two, three, or four-button mouse.
And all new apple laptops come with the option to enable "chorded" right clicking, which is a click on the mouse button while there are two fingers on the trackpad. I personally GREATLY prefer this over the traditional two-button setup on laptops - you've got one large button you can click no matter where your hand is on the trackpad, and you don't have to shift your hand position at all to do a right-click. It's a more elegant and useful solution.
This is the whole point of a mac, though - its not about being fanatical, it's about presenting the user with the simplest set of possibilities, then allowing the more advanced users to access more functionality with more depth on their own terms.
Tagged Slashvertisement for yet another of Roland's blantant hit-whoring slahdot submissions.
AMEN!
It blows my mind that, time after time, presidential races are about looks, speaking skill, dirty laundry, ad nauseum, and only rarely about who's most qualified to do the job. Everyone keeps saying about Obama, oh he's such a great speaker - who gives a fuck? Can he balance the budget? Can he convince congress to get off their asses and do something to help us get our energy from a source that doesn't come from dead dinos? If so, tell me about that, and not what an excellent presenter he is.
I care if Steve Jobs is good at giving keynotes - I care if our president is good at solving problems.
Yes I'm serious. Hilary is no dummy, she's well aware that the supreme court has overturned every attempt to make flag burning illegal. She also knows that, for whatever dumbass reason, something like 52% of Americans support the ban. A law is easy to overturn, and she proposed exactly that, at the same time as others were trying to make it a constitutional amendment, which is a lot harder to overturn. I will never know her true intentions, of course, but she's already a far better choice to me than the many many congress people who voted in favor of the amendment instead.
EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN IN THIS COUNTRY does shitty things to gain power. They wouldn't be politicians if they didn't. What I don't get is, the scores of other politicians who voted for these damn things don't seem to get mentioned, but Hilary gets crucified for it. Again, I see a huge media bias against her and I don't get it.
I hate to reply to my own post, but just a follow-up on the flag burning nonsense, since I left something out. At the same time as Clinton was proposing her own flag-burning law, others were proposing one of those constituional amendments to ban flag burning that we hear so much about. Her proposed law most likely pulled some who would have voted in favor of the amendment to vote in favor of the law instead. I'd much rather have a law, which will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional as it rightly should, than an amendment, which pretty much means we're fucked.
Supported a ban on flag burning
Partisan political pandering to set herself up for a whitehouse bid. Idiotic, sure, but hardly a reason to hate the woman IMHO. It's also important to note the wishy-washy wording of the law, which was specifically to ban flag burning intended to incite fear or some such nonsense. It was also a far cry from previous attempts at things such as constitutional amendments to do the same thing.
sponsoring legislation for banning violent computer games
While I hate the thinkofthechildren idiocy as much as the next person, I also hate the kneejerk "oh noes they are gonna take away my GTA" reactions on the internets. The GTA thing was again posturing, trying to get the rating changed from "M" to "AO", which is an essentially meaningless distinction that would pacify her conservative contituents without actually changing the reality of the situation a damn bit. The bills she's pushed on violent video games have never been about banning them outright, they have been about enforcing the ratings system. I really don't have any problem with a 12-year-old kid needing his mommy along with him to be able to purchase Manhunt for his playstation.
I know I'm starting to look like a Clinton supporter, which is not my intention, but again I say no one ever provides any GOOD reasons why they hate her so much. Your kneejerk "omg they are taking away my games" is just as idiotic as her kneejerk "think of the children".
So basically, you dislike her because you don't like her attitude?
Let's hear about some real policy decisions she's made in the past, in detail - not "she hasn't learned from her iraq vote"
This is what pisses me off about the Hilary Clinton crap - everyone hates her, and they can't think of a good reason why. I hope to all hell that she doesn't get the nomination, because that's going to hurt the Dems chances a whole hell of a lot. Ever since Bill was in the whitehouse, the media has programmed this country to hate his wife - she even irritates me and I don't really know why. I'm a rational person, though, so I'll wait until the race has gotten a little more serious and do research on my own to form opinions about her RECORD AS A LAWMAKER and not her arrogance or stubbornness. Which, by the way, are two traits that couldn't possibly be illustrated better than a big framed picture of Dubya.
Yet again, it has to be pointed out...
Copyright infringement != theft of property.
No matter how many times the corporate shills repeat the phrase, intellectual "property" is not property, and it cannot be "stolen". There is no such thing as internet piracy, it's a term invented to make copyright infringement sound more naughty. Stop already, with the stupid fucking analogies which compare real life objects to intangible bits of information.
Ahh spouting off about strawman, the last desperate attempt of a slashdotter trying to argue an idiotic point. Morality and law are not the same thing, period, and you can keep concoting more and more elaborate arguments, but anyone with half a brain realizes the distinction. I'm not going to sit here and nitpick back and forth with you, as this discussion has become boring.
No we can't...
"Common moral space in that they are both against the law"
Obeying the law has absolutely zero to do with morals - in fact, obeying an unjust law could easily be argued to be amoral. He did not make a point that they are both against the law, he implied that morality means obeying the law. I don't have an inability to read between the lines, im calling a poster out for a bullshit statement.
Morality is defined by law now? Man I guess the religious right has gotten their way after all. Here I thought morality was based on a sense of right or wrong, not what some jackass politician wrote down and got a bunch of other jackass politicians to vote on.
You didn't check your facts, you found a transcribed audio interview from ten years ago. Your position was not simply that the CO2 levels were a certain amount, it was that this concept was fine and dandy - as far as my "where are the fact" statement? That was more a criticism of the entire bullshit political blog you linked to, which was full of ridiculous conclusions, most of which, like your argument, have just enough of a grain of possible validity to confuse people into believing the blog's lies.
Either way, nothing I say is going to convince you, and I've about run out of breath on this conversation, so please keep spouting partisan politics instead of reasonable science. You fit right in on the internets. Perhaps you could start your own blog, and keep that one devoid of rational conclusions as well.
several points -
1.) This is still an interview, and not a peer-reviewed journal. It nowhere mentions the "800 measurements around the world" and MORE IMPORTANTLY it doesn't show any kind of independent verification of these statements.
2.) You've take a whole lot of choice wordings out of context and arranged them to try to fit your "well within tolerances" conclusion. Remember this is a PALEONTOLOGIST talking - right in this very interview he describes a "rapid change" as a quarter of a million years. In the long term, large amounts of CO2 may (big may here, coming from a single transcribed interview with one man) have lead to an abundance of plant life and a corresponding increase in large animals. However, the timescales of human civilation are orders of magnitude shorter than the million-year time scale paleontologists think about. Just because it might have allowed dinosaurs to thrive for some period of time does NOT mean it's "well within tolerances" for human life and civilization to continue as we know it. You're making a massive jump here without any justification.
3.)The argument this man makes is essentially that the entire earth was really warm, and there were dinosaurs everywhere - so you could just as easily use this entire interview as an argument in FAVOR of CO2 in the atmosphere really screwing us over. I personally would never use such a weak source to try to justify my arguments, especially given the abundance of peer-reviewed research out there.
4.)The interview was conducted in 1996, a full decade ago - a lot has changed since then, including the amount of CO2 in our air. Using decade-old data and assumptions to talk about modern global warming debate is dangerous at best.
That is most certainly NOT a scientific journal. There is no mention of a peer review process, and more importantly, NO SCITATATIONS WHATSOEVER in any of the articles. Yet another political mouthpiece.