Exactly. Chernobyl was caused in the large part by inexperienced and/or badly trained technicians disabling safety devices that were *built in* so they could run some idiot experiment they were ordered to.
I'll add that, despite the US having *many more reactors* (don't forget our Navy reactors, people) we've *NEVER* had a serious accident. NEVER.
(3Mile island people can go read up on it)
I'm not saying that it's impossible we'll ever have an accident here; what I'm saying is that US engineers, workers, and administrators, have done a damned good job of keeping them running safely. NEVER had.
If there wasn't a virtual moratorium on building new reactors (stupid public fueled by greedy media and politicos rears it's ugly head) for the last, what, twenty years? we'd have a lot less reliance on foreign energy sources. Think about it. Perhaps with more widely available *cheap* electricity, there would have been more research into battery technology for cars... - it's a stretch, and I'll admit that. But you know what? I lived with nuclear power supplying my electricity for years on and off.
The whole phear and doubt about nuclear power in this country is stupid propoganda initiated by the media nearly 25 years ago, and promulgated since by a lot of people who don't want it to happen/removes tinfoil hat
Meanwhile we're losing 1-2 soldiers in Iraq....defending our "interests" over there...um, our "interests" in democracy and freedom...which our government (the same one that initiated the war) is busy starving at home....
flame me, comment, I don't really give a rat's left testicle. I'm sick of this shit. I'm not some teenage read it on the internet kid, I remember 3M Island, I remember Chernobyl (and it sounds like the gov there is still doing the same ol' denial routine, bastards) and like many other people who don't wear tinfoil hats for a living, realize that fission reactors are our best option. Maybe someday there'll be something better. THERE ISN'T NOW.
Don't preach to me about byproduct storage, either. So we can't find a site because NIMBY? So? So it's being stored all over the damned country, in MOST EVERYONE'S BACKYARD, IN THE MEANTIME. Oh, that's really, really smart.
If it was *really* that much of a problem, this country would spend the money to find a site. Or develop a 99.9% reliable booster to make it not a problem. Don't tell me we can't do it, we sent more than a half dozen expeditions to the fucking Moon, fer chrissakes, with one - one! failure.
Bullshit. It's a political football. It'll get kicked around until it *really* becomes a problem. In the meantime there's the Hanford facility...man, I could go on and on about this.
Mod whatever, reply whatever, I might even answer you. I'm likely going to bed. Fucking politics. If politics ever finds reality, the temperature in hell will be -90C.
The Russian Gov at the time (and still to a large extent, like most other governments) is/was composed of ignorant, power-hungry idiots. Gee...what's new. When will it become legal to shoot these fuckers? (I'd guess that a large number of people might support such a measure, the problem would be the public having a quoram on who to shoot first:) [Oh, and BTW, to the Feds/national security nuts - I'm just talking, ok? I believe I have a constitutional right to. But I'm really not dangerous:) as long as you *behave* - (damn kids need a spanking, grumble!) ]
*disgusted with this shit already after watching it get kicked around for two decades+*
Might or might not respond to comments. If you don't like it, sue me.
Server seems to have at least the half-life of the elements present in all the pix....
still working fast here.
SB
Re:Great picture of Bill?!?
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
Last summer I showed that pic to a geek friend of mine who hadn't seen it before. His response was "What the hell is that thing around his neck, a primitive version of a tinfoil hat?"
SB
Re:Cha ching, reloaded.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
Also, what is Gates holding in that picture? A joint?
That picture is *so much* Photoshop bait. Bet by the end of the weekend there's at least a dozen Pshopped pix floating around the web.
But it's not the plumbing that's hard, it's the idiot regulations
Ah, well:) being an electrician is still much worse in that regard, argh
Seriously, having a trade skill as a fallback is a real lifesaver. It saved my ass, and paid my school bills (and I was going to college back in the 80s - anyone remember the glut of CS students in the late 80s anymore?)
Oh, and this latest iron/steel shortage shit is really grating me...I mean, wtf is up with suppliers not being able to get iron? (fuck the Iraq war answer, I don't believe it anymore) Any more supplier outsourcing and my gentle, mellow boss may even go postal. Hrmph.:)
As someone who has done quite a bit of plumbing (on with the jokes) the closest you usually get to sex is wiping the accumulated cunt hairs off the toilet bolts you're replacing...or cleaning the piss off of the toilet you're fixing. Truly glamorous profession (if profitable, you wouldn't believe how profitable it can be if you work for yourself; ever wonder why plumbers demand high wages? Well, HEH:) and WHY DOES EVERYONE WONDER WHY PLUMBERS AND CRACK ARE ASSOCIATED?
*sniff*
*gag*
Jesus, people, clean your bathrooms occasionally....:)
No, really, there's been a notable absence of the RIAA from slashdot. Are they gathering their energies for another strike, or simply have passed beyond absurd to infinitely irrelevant?
As I understand it, the claim is that the bubbles create fusion temperatures in very small regions - not improbable, tho I'm pretty skeptical about it so far.
In any case the regions in question would be too small for any kind of sustainable reaction. Sustainability requires that the atoms have enough energy to spread the reaction to others in a chain reaction sort of way. SL 'fusion' probably won't ever get there (tho it'd be cool if it would - it would certainly modify a lot of current theory)
For the faunal extinction, I have physical evidence: fossils. Pollen levels are no substitute for copious amounts of plant fossils (i.e., leaf impressions, large lignite seams associated with short, quick deposition of plant matter).
I don't understand why you think that there would be large lignite seams. If the deposition happened fast enough, at the most there might be a few traces left in some places. It's not like there would be long term plant deposits. In any case, there is some indications of short term ones.
On the issue of faunal extinction immediately following a floral extinction, that is my point. You have said that one necessarily leads to the other. Where is your evidence?
Given that most dinosaurs either relied upon flora for their survival, or relied upon eating other dinosaurs which relied upon flora (and this is fairly well established, I think), what exactly are you asking for?
I don't need to know that if, for example, the world suffered enormous, nationwide crop failures, that people would starve. The food chain is pretty well established.
Guess I'm not sure what you're asking for, here. Proof that destruction of a food source on a massive scale tends to eliminate those species who rely on that food source?
I have fossils of dinosaurs.
So do I. So what? I tend to rely on the observations of people who do this for a living - and whose articles (and opposing ones) I've read for more than twenty years. Plus some field geology -
I'm an hours drive from the Badlands of South Dakota, where one can directly observe the K/T boundary. What's your point? I've hiked there (I don't take fossils from there out of respect, thank you, but I do and have reported my finds)
You have:
1) Meteor 2)????? 3) Profit!!!
Now that was exactly what I meant by trollish responses.
Oh, you also have your stomping of feet regarding my not providing links. I have run several queries of GeoREF for your evidence of large, global floral extictions and have found none.
Well, here's a couple links (I mostly rely on my personal library, but what the hell)
This one is also worth reading. I have many more. What I don't have is the time, nor the inclination, to post them.
I did, however, run a GeoRef search myself, and you're right. Using "K/T global flora extinction" I found very little. I suspect this is more a problem with my search terms, however, as running a Google search I found a lot more articles (not necessarily peer reviewed, but most were based on PR research). So I consider it likely that my search WRT to GeoRef was poorly worded. You might try different ones (assuming you have time). I don't.
--
Anyway, I'm sorry about the troll comment. This is an issue that I've been reading about since I saw the original Alvarez papers, and I'm thoroughly convinced. Disagreement tends to push my buttons:) and I'm busy enough that I tend to give short shrift to the arguments - not that I want to, it's just the way life is.
This is really interesting to me, but, like I said before, let's move it to my journal, or elsewhere (and you might want to google usenet, BTW), if you'd like to continue. I'd love to have something interesting to blog about there, other than slashdot stuff. In any case, this discussion on slashdot about this subject is completely irrelevant, and I'm sure you have better things to do (like writing more papers:)
This whole discussion reminds me somewhat of the debates about plate tectonics in the '60s:)
This will be my last post in this thread. Thanks for the discussion, but it's inappropriate to continue it here.
I was wondering if anyone else had noticed that. I got off work and saw this/. article, and started streaming the audio call in the background while reading comments. When he mentioned that 20k figure, I started laughing so hard I fell off my chair. That had to be *humiliating* for Mr. Financial Officer to say.
Note how quick he went on the defense, saying that "expectations" were that licensing revenue would "increase". Ha. hahahahahahaha....then a lot of the statements after that were pure spin.
Man, between Darl and (Ron, wasn't it?) I'm wondering who's feeding who bullshit....
What do y'wanna bet that the entire $20k figure was EV1?
(I'm saving the Q&A part to listen to tomorrow, I need the humor right now, as we're busy switching over from OpenServer to Microsoft at work, and it hasn't been painless - doesn't help that the corp guy doing it for us apparently has never done anything like this before...he's working with a hands-free cellphone to one of their techs. Huh. His side of the conversation is, um, interesting:)
I apologize; I missed the links in your original post.
I *do* believe that one can trace back influences in a particular piece of writing, if you have enough references; no, I don't think it's 100% accurate, but I think one can at least trace back enough to find similarites with sufficient correlations to other writing styles that it's likely that one has found the original (or close) author. Finding historical references to the author which have no direct ties is another question.
On the tool note, I do believe that some etymology comparison programs are good enough to trace back origins - but I think that people are better. I'm no expert in that field - I just go on my instincts; which means I can see traces of influences in most every piece of writing I read nowadays. I guess that was what led me to argue with you.
In any case, I need to get some sleep; if you want to continue this, post a note in my journal.
In humility, seriously: you've made me think about this. Sorry if it's not very coherent, it's late here.
We're in agreement, I was just making a lame joke:)
I don't know what Rush L. is smoking, but then again, I'm not sure he needs it, either.... he's a CF radio troll anyway one looks at it.../me cracks another Sam Adams and lights a Camel
I've seen no evidence of large *flora* extinctions.
Research fossil pollen levels.
The K/T boundary is defined by the large faunal extinction.
So...if you have an explanation for large floral extinctions during the Cretaceous, that wouldn't involve large fauna extinctions (most of the dinosaur genra were veg eaters, with the corresponding food chain) then you should share it with the scientific community, not slashdot. Odd...I have read very little that gives me any indication that a 60% extinction of the food source for a fauna which evolved for 50 million+ years along that particular food chain could survive having their food chain amputated. But hey, you're entitled to your beliefs. Actually, the very fact that you're posting this to slashdot, without links, without serious background, makes me suspect that you're trolling. But, hey, I'll bite. For tonite. After tonite, you'll have to grab my attention.
As for producing evidence, those who make positive assertions of fact are expected to provide the evidence.
Which is why I asked you to provide some. Obviously you're not willing to.
To me, the assumptions that underlie the theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs requires consistancy. The chain of events that starts with a meteor impact that leads, in turn, to solar intensity problems, that creates food shortages leading to herbavore extinction followed closely by carnivore extinction..... had *better* provide more convincing evidence of *global* flora extinction.
If you are asking me to support my contention that there is *no* convincing evidence of global flora extinctions, consider the possibility that you are asking me to prove a negative.
Environmental changes on a global scale that lead to species extinction are pretty well documented. I think you should do some more reading.
Prove a negative? Those who make positive assertions of fact are expected to provide the evidence.
What part of disproving theory don't you understand? Other than giving evidence, that is. For evidence, look at the many other posts in this article. You are chasing a strawman, and you won't catch him.
I have no more time for this. If you want to continue it, do so in my journal - just post a comment anywhere there, and... if you can present a good argument, then I'll open a dialogue. Otherwise this is totally OT and has no business here.
Darl & Co. have already demonstrated their dance steps. They'll likely dance even in court with the SEC./rant
I suspect that only a really severe cluestick (of whatever form, but something that threatens their livelihood directly) will intrude into their fantasy world.
It's an indication of the fantasy world they live in that they feel that they needed to hire bodyguards. Against whom? What, does Darl think he's worthy of a bullet, like some thought JFK was? Like the president does? Does Darl think he's some freakin' *important* person? (Nevermind, obviously he does; or at least he'd like to think that, judging from his releases. Then there's his syncophants, but I won't go into that here, there' pages of material there)
Apparently Darl thinks he's one of the most important people in the IT world nowadays. Oh, fer fucks' sakes. Darl, get off the crack already - you do know that paranoia is one of the symptoms?
I hope this ends soon - tho I'll miss the funnies, repetitive as most of them are getting - I just want it to end in a virtual nuking of SCO, TCG, and all those other greedy, narcissistic assholes who seem to think that they can extort enough money to support their crack^H^H^H^H^H money habit for the rest of their lives, regardless of street prices^H-^23 rise of living due to inflation....or whatever. I'm just sick and tired of hearing the latest bullshit from SCO. We need a international cluestick organization (thanks Germany) that can bitchslap idiots like these greedy fucks without prejudice.
Fuckin' A, Darl, what the hell would you do for a living without your connections, your suit, and your tan? Screw you. You wouldn't survive a day in my job. You aren't worth the time I'd spend to teach you how to fix your fucking toilet. You are a useless piece of shit. You aren't worth the cost of your pretty, slicked hair and your overPR'd, cockeyed smile face.
DIRECT TO DARL;
Darl, Bite my Cobwebbed, Dull Overworked Ass. FUCK YOU. SUE ME. I RUN LINUX. I WILL ALWAYS RUN LINUX. YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, COME TO MY HOUSE AND DELIVER IT TO ME IN FUCKING PERSON. IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO DO THAT, (AND YOU AREN'T) YOU ARE A COWARDLY MISERABLE PIECE OF BUFFALO DUNG. FUCK YOU. I AM SICK OF YOUR BULLSHIT. Does that get the message across??? /rant, and pardon my bitterness NOT
SB
PS I take the bit about Buffalo Dung back; I'll not malign buffalo that badly.
Re:Russion mission aborted because of "smell"
on
Meet the Nasalnaut
·
· Score: 1
If one smells an "acrid" (I'm taking that as non-organic) odor in the lifesupport system, maybe that is an indication of something really, really wrong (like burning electronics?)
God, Popular Science's website sucks nowadays. Where's the text? *squints* Oh! There it is! 1 1/2 let column of links, 1 column text, 1 column links, and the rest of the page on the right side is blank.
Someone has to teach them what relative table width means. Fer chrissakes.../rant
I agree with you - really - so let's put some geeks together and find some advertising funding, so we can edit articles 24/7 - then listen to people whine about our editing.
I've been in a couple motels owned by Indians (from India) whose spice intake, and subsequent body smell, actually made my eyes water. Now, I love spices, but not in that concentration.
(not a troll, it's true - two motels in Flagstaff, AZ in '91)
If there is no tool that can be used to determine it, there is no way to disprove the theory that is being used to determine it. Therefore you can't say with certainty that deconstruction is not valid.
Making an argument against a certain method, then when challenged on it, saying there is no way to "determine anything, really" means that you don't have any evidence either way.
Basically it's a strawman argument. If you want to debunk literary deconstructionism, do so with facts, not just by saying that it can't be used to analyze a document. That was the point of my first response.
Slashdot Mirror
Damned insightful. Try 20 years from now, tho; assuming that there is any real history still taught by then.
SB
Exactly. Chernobyl was caused in the large part by inexperienced and/or badly trained technicians disabling safety devices that were *built in* so they could run some idiot experiment they were ordered to.
/removes tinfoil hat
:) [Oh, and BTW, to the Feds/national security nuts - I'm just talking, ok? I believe I have a constitutional right to. But I'm really not dangerous :) as long as you *behave* - (damn kids need a spanking, grumble!) ]
I'll add that, despite the US having *many more reactors* (don't forget our Navy reactors, people) we've *NEVER* had a serious accident. NEVER.
(3Mile island people can go read up on it)
I'm not saying that it's impossible we'll ever have an accident here; what I'm saying is that US engineers, workers, and administrators, have done a damned good job of keeping them running safely. NEVER had.
If there wasn't a virtual moratorium on building new reactors (stupid public fueled by greedy media and politicos rears it's ugly head) for the last, what, twenty years? we'd have a lot less reliance on foreign energy sources. Think about it. Perhaps with more widely available *cheap* electricity, there would have been more research into battery technology for cars... - it's a stretch, and I'll admit that. But you know what? I lived with nuclear power supplying my electricity for years on and off.
The whole phear and doubt about nuclear power in this country is stupid propoganda initiated by the media nearly 25 years ago, and promulgated since by a lot of people who don't want it to happen
Meanwhile we're losing 1-2 soldiers in Iraq....defending our "interests" over there...um, our "interests" in democracy and freedom...which our government (the same one that initiated the war) is busy starving at home....
flame me, comment, I don't really give a rat's left testicle. I'm sick of this shit. I'm not some teenage read it on the internet kid, I remember 3M Island, I remember Chernobyl (and it sounds like the gov there is still doing the same ol' denial routine, bastards) and like many other people who don't wear tinfoil hats for a living, realize that fission reactors are our best option. Maybe someday there'll be something better. THERE ISN'T NOW.
Don't preach to me about byproduct storage, either. So we can't find a site because NIMBY? So? So it's being stored all over the damned country, in MOST EVERYONE'S BACKYARD, IN THE MEANTIME. Oh, that's really, really smart.
If it was *really* that much of a problem, this country would spend the money to find a site. Or develop a 99.9% reliable booster to make it not a problem. Don't tell me we can't do it, we sent more than a half dozen expeditions to the fucking Moon, fer chrissakes, with one - one! failure.
Bullshit. It's a political football. It'll get kicked around until it *really* becomes a problem. In the meantime there's the Hanford facility...man, I could go on and on about this.
Mod whatever, reply whatever, I might even answer you. I'm likely going to bed. Fucking politics. If politics ever finds reality, the temperature in hell will be -90C.
The Russian Gov at the time (and still to a large extent, like most other governments) is/was composed of ignorant, power-hungry idiots. Gee...what's new. When will it become legal to shoot these fuckers? (I'd guess that a large number of people might support such a measure, the problem would be the public having a quoram on who to shoot first
*disgusted with this shit already after watching it get kicked around for two decades+*
Might or might not respond to comments. If you don't like it, sue me.
/rant
SB
Server seems to have at least the half-life of the elements present in all the pix....
still working fast here.
SB
Last summer I showed that pic to a geek friend of mine who hadn't seen it before. His response was "What the hell is that thing around his neck, a primitive version of a tinfoil hat?"
SB
Also, what is Gates holding in that picture? A joint?
That picture is *so much* Photoshop bait. Bet by the end of the weekend there's at least a dozen Pshopped pix floating around the web.
*makes note to self to go looking Sunday night*
SB
Link to the n00b raptor camping posters. There's some really good ones in there....
SB
Mod parent 100% True
But it's not the plumbing that's hard, it's the idiot regulations
Ah, well
Seriously, having a trade skill as a fallback is a real lifesaver. It saved my ass, and paid my school bills (and I was going to college back in the 80s - anyone remember the glut of CS students in the late 80s anymore?)
Oh, and this latest iron/steel shortage shit is really grating me...I mean, wtf is up with suppliers not being able to get iron? (fuck the Iraq war answer, I don't believe it anymore) Any more supplier outsourcing and my gentle, mellow boss may even go postal. Hrmph.
SB
It has.
:) and WHY DOES EVERYONE WONDER WHY PLUMBERS AND CRACK ARE ASSOCIATED?
:)
As someone who has done quite a bit of plumbing (on with the jokes) the closest you usually get to sex is wiping the accumulated cunt hairs off the toilet bolts you're replacing...or cleaning the piss off of the toilet you're fixing. Truly glamorous profession (if profitable, you wouldn't believe how profitable it can be if you work for yourself; ever wonder why plumbers demand high wages? Well, HEH
*sniff*
*gag*
Jesus, people, clean your bathrooms occasionally....
SB
What happened to the RIAA?
No, really, there's been a notable absence of the RIAA from slashdot. Are they gathering their energies for another strike, or simply have passed beyond absurd to infinitely irrelevant?
Acquiring minds want to know.
SB
As I understand it, the claim is that the bubbles create fusion temperatures in very small regions - not improbable, tho I'm pretty skeptical about it so far.
In any case the regions in question would be too small for any kind of sustainable reaction. Sustainability requires that the atoms have enough energy to spread the reaction to others in a chain reaction sort of way. SL 'fusion' probably won't ever get there (tho it'd be cool if it would - it would certainly modify a lot of current theory)
SB
That was brilliant. You made my friends list for that hilarity
(winces horribly at pun
SB
For the faunal extinction, I have physical evidence: fossils. Pollen levels are no substitute for copious amounts of plant fossils (i.e., leaf impressions, large lignite seams associated with short, quick deposition of plant matter).
:) and I'm busy enough that I tend to give short shrift to the arguments - not that I want to, it's just the way life is.
:)
:)
I don't understand why you think that there would be large lignite seams. If the deposition happened fast enough, at the most there might be a few traces left in some places. It's not like there would be long term plant deposits. In any case, there is some indications of short term ones.
On the issue of faunal extinction immediately following a floral extinction, that is my point. You have said that one necessarily leads to the other. Where is your evidence?
Given that most dinosaurs either relied upon flora for their survival, or relied upon eating other dinosaurs which relied upon flora (and this is fairly well established, I think), what exactly are you asking for?
I don't need to know that if, for example, the world suffered enormous, nationwide crop failures, that people would starve. The food chain is pretty well established.
Guess I'm not sure what you're asking for, here. Proof that destruction of a food source on a massive scale tends to eliminate those species who rely on that food source?
I have fossils of dinosaurs.
So do I. So what? I tend to rely on the observations of people who do this for a living - and whose articles (and opposing ones) I've read for more than twenty years. Plus some field geology -
I'm an hours drive from the Badlands of South Dakota, where one can directly observe the K/T boundary. What's your point? I've hiked there (I don't take fossils from there out of respect, thank you, but I do and have reported my finds)
You have:
1) Meteor
2)?????
3) Profit!!!
Now that was exactly what I meant by trollish responses.
Oh, you also have your stomping of feet regarding my not providing links. I have run several queries of GeoREF for your evidence of large, global floral extictions and have found none.
Well, here's a couple links (I mostly rely on my personal library, but what the hell)
FLORAL TURNOVER AND CLIMATIC CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CRETACEOUS/PALEOGENE (K/T) BOUNDARY, NORTH DAKOTA, USA;
This one is also worth reading. I have many more. What I don't have is the time, nor the inclination, to post them.
I did, however, run a GeoRef search myself, and you're right. Using "K/T global flora extinction" I found very little. I suspect this is more a problem with my search terms, however, as running a Google search I found a lot more articles (not necessarily peer reviewed, but most were based on PR research). So I consider it likely that my search WRT to GeoRef was poorly worded. You might try different ones (assuming you have time). I don't.
--
Anyway, I'm sorry about the troll comment. This is an issue that I've been reading about since I saw the original Alvarez papers, and I'm thoroughly convinced. Disagreement tends to push my buttons
This is really interesting to me, but, like I said before, let's move it to my journal, or elsewhere (and you might want to google usenet, BTW), if you'd like to continue. I'd love to have something interesting to blog about there, other than slashdot stuff. In any case, this discussion on slashdot about this subject is completely irrelevant, and I'm sure you have better things to do (like writing more papers
This whole discussion reminds me somewhat of the debates about plate tectonics in the '60s
This will be my last post in this thread. Thanks for the discussion, but it's inappropriate to continue it here.
SB
I was wondering if anyone else had noticed that. I got off work and saw this /. article, and started streaming the audio call in the background while reading comments. When he mentioned that 20k figure, I started laughing so hard I fell off my chair. That had to be *humiliating* for Mr. Financial Officer to say.
:)
Note how quick he went on the defense, saying that "expectations" were that licensing revenue would "increase". Ha. hahahahahahaha....then a lot of the statements after that were pure spin.
Man, between Darl and (Ron, wasn't it?) I'm wondering who's feeding who bullshit....
What do y'wanna bet that the entire $20k figure was EV1?
(I'm saving the Q&A part to listen to tomorrow, I need the humor right now, as we're busy switching over from OpenServer to Microsoft at work, and it hasn't been painless - doesn't help that the corp guy doing it for us apparently has never done anything like this before...he's working with a hands-free cellphone to one of their techs. Huh. His side of the conversation is, um, interesting
SB
I apologize; I missed the links in your original post.
I *do* believe that one can trace back influences in a particular piece of writing, if you have enough references; no, I don't think it's 100% accurate, but I think one can at least trace back enough to find similarites with sufficient correlations to other writing styles that it's likely that one has found the original (or close) author. Finding historical references to the author which have no direct ties is another question.
On the tool note, I do believe that some etymology comparison programs are good enough to trace back origins - but I think that people are better. I'm no expert in that field - I just go on my instincts; which means I can see traces of influences in most every piece of writing I read nowadays. I guess that was what led me to argue with you.
In any case, I need to get some sleep; if you want to continue this, post a note in my journal.
In humility, seriously: you've made me think about this. Sorry if it's not very coherent, it's late here.
SB
We're in agreement, I was just making a lame joke
I don't know what Rush L. is smoking, but then again, I'm not sure he needs it, either.... he's a CF radio troll anyway one looks at it...
SB
I've seen no evidence of large *flora* extinctions.
Research fossil pollen levels.
The K/T boundary is defined by the large faunal extinction.
So...if you have an explanation for large floral extinctions during the Cretaceous, that wouldn't involve large fauna extinctions (most of the dinosaur genra were veg eaters, with the corresponding food chain) then you should share it with the scientific community, not slashdot. Odd...I have read very little that gives me any indication that a 60% extinction of the food source for a fauna which evolved for 50 million+ years along that particular food chain could survive having their food chain amputated. But hey, you're entitled to your beliefs. Actually, the very fact that you're posting this to slashdot, without links, without serious background, makes me suspect that you're trolling. But, hey, I'll bite. For tonite. After tonite, you'll have to grab my attention.
As for producing evidence, those who make positive assertions of fact are expected to provide the evidence.
Which is why I asked you to provide some. Obviously you're not willing to.
To me, the assumptions that underlie the theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs requires consistancy. The chain of events that starts with a meteor impact that leads, in turn, to solar intensity problems, that creates food shortages leading to herbavore extinction followed closely by carnivore extinction..... had *better* provide more convincing evidence of *global* flora extinction.
If you are asking me to support my contention that there is *no* convincing evidence of global flora extinctions, consider the possibility that you are asking me to prove a negative.
Environmental changes on a global scale that lead to species extinction are pretty well documented. I think you should do some more reading.
Prove a negative? Those who make positive assertions of fact are expected to provide the evidence.
What part of disproving theory don't you understand? Other than giving evidence, that is. For evidence, look at the many other posts in this article. You are chasing a strawman, and you won't catch him.
I have no more time for this. If you want to continue it, do so in my journal - just post a comment anywhere there, and... if you can present a good argument, then I'll open a dialogue. Otherwise this is totally OT and has no business here.
SB
LOL.
/rant
/rant, and pardon my bitterness NOT
What is the point of asking questions, tho?
Darl & Co. have already demonstrated their dance steps. They'll likely dance even in court with the SEC.
I suspect that only a really severe cluestick (of whatever form, but something that threatens their livelihood directly) will intrude into their fantasy world.
It's an indication of the fantasy world they live in that they feel that they needed to hire bodyguards. Against whom? What, does Darl think he's worthy of a bullet, like some thought JFK was? Like the president does? Does Darl think he's some freakin' *important* person? (Nevermind, obviously he does; or at least he'd like to think that, judging from his releases. Then there's his syncophants, but I won't go into that here, there' pages of material there)
Apparently Darl thinks he's one of the most important people in the IT world nowadays. Oh, fer fucks' sakes. Darl, get off the crack already - you do know that paranoia is one of the symptoms?
I hope this ends soon - tho I'll miss the funnies, repetitive as most of them are getting - I just want it to end in a virtual nuking of SCO, TCG, and all those other greedy, narcissistic assholes who seem to think that they can extort enough money to support their crack^H^H^H^H^H money habit for the rest of their lives, regardless of street prices^H-^23 rise of living due to inflation....or whatever. I'm just sick and tired of hearing the latest bullshit from SCO. We need a international cluestick organization (thanks Germany) that can bitchslap idiots like these greedy fucks without prejudice.
Fuckin' A, Darl, what the hell would you do for a living without your connections, your suit, and your tan? Screw you. You wouldn't survive a day in my job. You aren't worth the time I'd spend to teach you how to fix your fucking toilet. You are a useless piece of shit. You aren't worth the cost of your pretty, slicked hair and your overPR'd, cockeyed smile face.
DIRECT TO DARL;
Darl, Bite my Cobwebbed, Dull Overworked Ass. FUCK YOU. SUE ME. I RUN LINUX. I WILL ALWAYS RUN LINUX. YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, COME TO MY HOUSE AND DELIVER IT TO ME IN FUCKING PERSON. IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO DO THAT, (AND YOU AREN'T) YOU ARE A COWARDLY MISERABLE PIECE OF BUFFALO DUNG. FUCK YOU. I AM SICK OF YOUR BULLSHIT. Does that get the message across???
SB
PS I take the bit about Buffalo Dung back; I'll not malign buffalo that badly.
Applying logic to human decisions is.... is....
:)
Well, see your sig
SB
Are you insinuating that Rush *needs crack* to be a fat, mean, biased idiot?
That'd be redundant.
SB
Use a bit less lotion and the fire will start.
posted by Sick Boy
I think I've seen it all now....
SB
If one smells an "acrid" (I'm taking that as non-organic) odor in the lifesupport system, maybe that is an indication of something really, really wrong (like burning electronics?)
IMO
SB
God, Popular Science's website sucks nowadays. Where's the text? *squints* Oh! There it is! 1 1/2 let column of links, 1 column text, 1 column links, and the rest of the page on the right side is blank.
Someone has to teach them what relative table width means. Fer chrissakes...
SB
I agree with you - really - so let's put some geeks together and find some advertising funding, so we can edit articles 24/7 - then listen to people whine about our editing.
It happens *everywhere*, dude.
BTW, I enjoy Ghosts of Slashdot.
SB
I've been in a couple motels owned by Indians (from India) whose spice intake, and subsequent body smell, actually made my eyes water. Now, I love spices, but not in that concentration.
(not a troll, it's true - two motels in Flagstaff, AZ in '91)
SB
If there is no tool that can be used to determine it, there is no way to disprove the theory that is being used to determine it. Therefore you can't say with certainty that deconstruction is not valid.
Making an argument against a certain method, then when challenged on it, saying there is no way to "determine anything, really" means that you don't have any evidence either way.
Basically it's a strawman argument. If you want to debunk literary deconstructionism, do so with facts, not just by saying that it can't be used to analyze a document. That was the point of my first response.
SB