Heh. Here at my work, we're using something called Vintela. Interesting that it hasn't been mentioned at all here.
I asked, "why are we spending all this money on Vintela when I can set up AD integration with Linux' native tools?" and the answer was "because we've already paid for Vintela."
Since the Big Boss is an avid golfer, I'd be willing to make a small bet that the Vintela salesman is too....
It isn't a "bad" product -- at least it actually works. But their advertising really offends me (in which M$ Kerberos is referred to as "a standard", for instance).
A classic example was the recent statement by Bush at the G8 meeting in Japan.
"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter" --Pres. George W. Bush
I am not making this up. The dickhead really said this.
Yes. It was a JOKE. Do you need that concept explained to you?
Cheney has censored climate change reports
No, he censored junk science from becoming part of the public record. As he should have. What he "censored" has nothing to do with climate change; it was pure speculation on the part of some masturbators at the CDC.
and Bush has pressured the EPA to not regulate greenhouse gases. This administration isn't just ignoring the issue of climate change. It is actively working against it.
Yes, it's nice to see this administration finally get a backbone. I've never liked Mr. Bush, but with his spirited defense against the greatest threat our nation faces today -- the environmentalist lobby -- he may yet achieve a legacy.
Now, what part of "There hasn't been any global warming since 1998" do you not understand? Of COURSE he's resisted doing anything about the "problem" -- because there is no "problem".
I think this administration thinks that the only way to salvage the economy after its disastrous policies
WHAT "disastrous policies"? The economy was heading into a recession when he took office and he turned it around. Not only has the economy been GREAT during his term, but it has sustained itself through most of this decade.
People love to point at the flashy business owner (trust me, at lot of these people don't remain in business that long if they are spending $100k on flashy toy that has no practical application what so ever) and then snicker. Mostly out of jealously it seems. Which, if you made $100k and want to buy a hummer, more power to you, uut for everyone of them, there are a lot more successful business owners who go out, use the tax advantage to exactly what it was designed for: buy equipment, expand their business, and continue to add value to the economy.
Then you miss the point. It is the government effectively *pays* a lawyer, doctor, or whomever $25,000 (very rough number, but close enough) to buy a $100,000 truck over a $100,000 car.
NO, the GP didn't miss any points at all. In fact, s/he got it exactly right, and YOU'RE the one who is missing the point.
Allowing someone to keep more of his own money is not a "benefit", and does not constitute "paying" anyone. It's HIS money, not the Government's.
BTW, my wife's a doctor and our family cars are a 2003 minivan and an Oldsmobile. This fat-cat doctor meme needs to die as the unjustified expression of class envy that it is.
They are a convenient example of a profession that gets a write off for trucks that has no need for trucks.
And just who are YOU to decide who "has a need for a truck" and who does not?
That's none of the Government's business; neither is it any of yours.
The writeoffs are there to stimulate the economy, which is exactly what they did. It's been proven time and again that so-called "tax breaks for the rich" actually INCREASE tax revenue, not the other way round.
The only reason to buy an iPhone is in some desperate hope that by using it at somewhere like Starbucks someone equally as vacuous but attractive will see you using it and want to have sex with you.
Because it is such a private and special act[....] Sexual intercourse is meant to be an act performed in private for the two parties that love and care for each other deeply enough to create a stronger bond. Who says it should always be private, or particularly special? Who says it should only be with someone you love and care deeply for? Hell, for that matter, who says it should only involve two people? Just where, exactly, is THAT written in stone?
Those poor oil companies, I can't imagine how they can afford to pay anyone for anything. I mean seriously, how could the most profitable corporation in the world afford to pay people to do marketing for them,
That's not the point, and you know it. The point is that there are simply too many global warming skeptics in the atmospheric science community for the oil companies to pay them all off.
You didn't seriously just put Fred Singer in that list did you? The guy who was a senior fellow with AdTI, the known shills who will make any study to show anything you want if you pay them? The one who was the chief reviewer of their report "Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination", which called the mountains of evidence linking smoking to lung cancer "junk science" and attacked anyone and everyone involved in trying to pass laws regulating tobacco? The man who is a researcher with the "independant institute" that is funded by philip morris and exxon?
Yes, I did seriously just put Fred Singer in the list. I had to research your claims before answering (something you obviously did not do) so it took me a while to respond.
Now let's deal with FACTS, shall we?
The guy who was a senior fellow with AdTI, the known shills who will make any study to show anything you want if you pay them?
Uh-huh. In 1994. TWELVE years ago. What AdTI has done to sully their reputation in the last 2-4 years (basically corresponding with the beginning of their Micro$oft funding) does not affect what happened twelve years ago.
The one who was the chief reviewer of their report "Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination..."
Yes, the same one.
...which called the mountains of evidence linking smoking to lung cancer "junk science"
I see that you've never actually read the report. I suggest you do. [Hint: you're lying about what it says]
The man who is a researcher with the "independant [sic] institute" that is funded by philip morris and exxon?
What's your point? Does doing science that was paid for by someone that YOU don't like automatically make one a moral failure or something? How about all of the researchers that have been funded by radical Left-wing extremist groups? What about all of the researchers that were funded by the U.S. Government when Al Gore was controlling the purse strings? Why don't any of THEM ever show up on your radar? Hmmm?
All you've done is a pathetic attempt to smear the reputation of a fine, well-respected scientist. Which is, sadly, the modus operandi of the entire Global Warming Alarmist movement.
When you don't have the facts on your side (which the environmental movement never does), then smear your opponents. What a nice bunch of people we're dealing with here. And rational, too!
Note that you haven't actually argued about the truth or falsehood of the UCS's statement.
I see that you completely missed the point, which was that the UCS isn't about science; it's about Left-wing politics.
The fact that they're funded by Left-wing extremists isn't a logical fallacy; it's a clue as to their actual agenda as opposed to their stated agenda. Ideologues aren't going to pour funding into a group unless said group is producing something for them. And the Left is no more interested in Science than are the Creationists on the other end of the Wacko spectrum. They're only interested in "science" that seems to support their cause.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a group that has no credibility. Zero, zip, nada. They have a very long history of dishonesty dating back to their very beginning -- not to mention the very "politicization of science" they complain about, which they've also been doing since their beginning. They've been debunked time and time again (basically, every time they issue a press release, because said releases are almost invariably fraudulent) but it hasn't stopped them one bit in continuing to spread their propaganda.
Were it not for the long-observed fact that dishonesty is endemic to the culture of the Left, and shared by all of the Left-wing front groups (including the UCS and pretty much every other environmentalist organization out there), you might be able to claim a logical fallacy. But history shows that it's an integral part of their modus operandi, and that is no fallacy.
Note that you haven't actually argued about the truth or falsehood of the UCS's statement. You're comitting a logical fallacy which is unfortunately all too common in conservative circles. It's known as bulverism and it means substituting an argument about some subject with an argument about the opponent. For example:
"X is true"
"You're only saying that because you're a (man/woman/Christian/Muslim/liberal/conservative)"
While this type of "reasoning" is quite widespread on Fox News (with the argument about the opponent often a personal attack), it's still completely wrong.
Oh, the Global Warming Alarmists NEVER do that, do they? Oh no, they never attack their opponents with accusations about being "an ExxonMobil shill" or "being paid off by the oil companies" or ANYTHING like that.
Common in conservative circles, my ass. More like another piece of classic pot/kettle bullshit.
But I see it being used all the time by the other side.
But you said They are the same "scientists" who were so prominently skeptical about the "inconclusive" science behind smoking being harmful. Plural.
You still have several dozen people to go.
"will lie in order to persuade someone"
I am not trying to persuade you. I assumed you were the typical head in the sand dumbass, in which case nothing would persuade you. If you wanted to know the truth you would already have found it.
The point is that you were lying.
And the reality is that I DO want to know the truth, which is why I was able to find it. Go ahead, do the research. You'll find out that I'm right and you're wrong.
The allegations concern "then-Senator (later vice president) Al Gore". Which means the allegations were made about activities that happened when Bush was President.
Gore's political suppression of science certainly started while he was still a Senator, but it certainly didn't end when he became part of the White House.
In fact, it intensified. To save time & space, I only quoted one egregious example. But it was well-known in the climate science community during that time that atmospheric research that didn't agree with "the views of the Vice President" (as it was delicately worded) wasn't going to get funded.
But somehow, the UCS has never raised any quibbles about that.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not a conservative. And by the way number two, that's an ad hominem distraction intended to derail the discussion. Nice try, Sparky.
Slashdot Mirror
You clearly do not use your email for anything important, some of us have especially sensitive information at stake.
and you send it through EMAIL???
But it's hard to find good looking women on slashdot.
Wait - this isn't a dating site?
I think that comes under "Stuff that matters"...
Where the hell they went after graduation I'm not sure though. Out in the working world I've only ever encountered male programmers :'(.
Several lady programmers here at my work. Some are cute, some not so much.
Dunno if any of the straight ones are single though....
Spammers and virus writers employed by spammers to create their zombie pools have been turning up dead for almost two years now.
Two bodies, and one of them by his own hand. Not exactly a trend... unfortunately....
Technologically, the Neandertals spent much of their time on this planet in a stasis. Advancement and innovation was excruciatingly slow....
Hey! You're describing the place where I work!
Heh. Here at my work, we're using something called Vintela. Interesting that it hasn't been mentioned at all here.
I asked, "why are we spending all this money on Vintela when I can set up AD integration with Linux' native tools?" and the answer was "because we've already paid for Vintela."
Since the Big Boss is an avid golfer, I'd be willing to make a small bet that the Vintela salesman is too....
It isn't a "bad" product -- at least it actually works. But their advertising really offends me (in which M$ Kerberos is referred to as "a standard", for instance).
...what the 'crats have been doing for, what, about fifteen-twenty years now?
I always knew 'pubs were a little slow, but... wow, fifteen years behind the curve... now THAT'S slow!
To cut taxes now, they effectively are leaving the burden to your children.
You are obviously clueless about how taxes work. Cutting taxes RAISES government revenue.
How many in the Slashdot crowd would quit their jobs to be a police officer? It is a low paid profession....
Not when you count the income from bribes....
A classic example was the recent statement by Bush at the G8 meeting in Japan.
"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter" --Pres. George W. Bush
I am not making this up. The dickhead really said this.
Yes. It was a JOKE. Do you need that concept explained to you?
Cheney has censored climate change reports
No, he censored junk science from becoming part of the public record. As he should have. What he "censored" has nothing to do with climate change; it was pure speculation on the part of some masturbators at the CDC.
and Bush has pressured the EPA to not regulate greenhouse gases. This administration isn't just ignoring the issue of climate change. It is actively working against it.
Yes, it's nice to see this administration finally get a backbone. I've never liked Mr. Bush, but with his spirited defense against the greatest threat our nation faces today -- the environmentalist lobby -- he may yet achieve a legacy.
Now, what part of "There hasn't been any global warming since 1998" do you not understand? Of COURSE he's resisted doing anything about the "problem" -- because there is no "problem".
I think this administration thinks that the only way to salvage the economy after its disastrous policies
WHAT "disastrous policies"? The economy was heading into a recession when he took office and he turned it around. Not only has the economy been GREAT during his term, but it has sustained itself through most of this decade.
If that's a "disaster" then I want more disaster.
People love to point at the flashy business owner (trust me, at lot of these people don't remain in business that long if they are spending $100k on flashy toy that has no practical application what so ever) and then snicker. Mostly out of jealously it seems. Which, if you made $100k and want to buy a hummer, more power to you, uut for everyone of them, there are a lot more successful business owners who go out, use the tax advantage to exactly what it was designed for: buy equipment, expand their business, and continue to add value to the economy.
Then you miss the point. It is the government effectively *pays* a lawyer, doctor, or whomever $25,000 (very rough number, but close enough) to buy a $100,000 truck over a $100,000 car.
NO, the GP didn't miss any points at all. In fact, s/he got it exactly right, and YOU'RE the one who is missing the point.
Allowing someone to keep more of his own money is not a "benefit", and does not constitute "paying" anyone. It's HIS money, not the Government's.
Economics 101, dude. Go take a class. Please.
BTW, my wife's a doctor and our family cars are a 2003 minivan and an Oldsmobile. This fat-cat doctor meme needs to die as the unjustified expression of class envy that it is.
They are a convenient example of a profession that gets a write off for trucks that has no need for trucks.
And just who are YOU to decide who "has a need for a truck" and who does not?
That's none of the Government's business; neither is it any of yours.
The writeoffs are there to stimulate the economy, which is exactly what they did. It's been proven time and again that so-called "tax breaks for the rich" actually INCREASE tax revenue, not the other way round.
The point is that by upping the max to $100K, lots of doctors and lawyers went out and bought Hummers on the tax payers' dime.
No, they did not. They bought them with their own money.
Sheesh. Some people REALLY do not understand where money comes from.
The only reason to buy an iPhone is in some desperate hope that by using it at somewhere like Starbucks someone equally as vacuous but attractive will see you using it and want to have sex with you.
Hey! That's why I bought mine!
It works, too....
Factoring large primes isn't difficult. It's impossible.
A prime is a number that cannot be factored.
Sounds like you've been learning your security from Bill Gates.
This was discussed in the pages of Reason Magazine nearly two years ago. Can't find the URL right now; I'm at work.
I would gladly give up my own personal freedom and well being to make sure my children grow up safe.
Then give up your OWN freedom. Don't mess with everyone else's freedom.
And oh, by the way, this isn't about the "freedom" to look at child porn. 'Coz you know good and well that it won't stop there.
Those poor oil companies, I can't imagine how they can afford to pay anyone for anything. I mean seriously, how could the most profitable corporation in the world afford to pay people to do marketing for them,
That's not the point, and you know it. The point is that there are simply too many global warming skeptics in the atmospheric science community for the oil companies to pay them all off.
You didn't seriously just put Fred Singer in that list did you? The guy who was a senior fellow with AdTI, the known shills who will make any study to show anything you want if you pay them? The one who was the chief reviewer of their report "Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination", which called the mountains of evidence linking smoking to lung cancer "junk science" and attacked anyone and everyone involved in trying to pass laws regulating tobacco? The man who is a researcher with the "independant institute" that is funded by philip morris and exxon?
Yes, I did seriously just put Fred Singer in the list. I had to research your claims before answering (something you obviously did not do) so it took me a while to respond.
Now let's deal with FACTS, shall we?
The guy who was a senior fellow with AdTI, the known shills who will make any study to show anything you want if you pay them?
Uh-huh. In 1994. TWELVE years ago. What AdTI has done to sully their reputation in the last 2-4 years (basically corresponding with the beginning of their Micro$oft funding) does not affect what happened twelve years ago.
The one who was the chief reviewer of their report "Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination..."
Yes, the same one.
I see that you've never actually read the report. I suggest you do. [Hint: you're lying about what it says]
The man who is a researcher with the "independant [sic] institute" that is funded by philip morris and exxon?
What's your point? Does doing science that was paid for by someone that YOU don't like automatically make one a moral failure or something? How about all of the researchers that have been funded by radical Left-wing extremist groups? What about all of the researchers that were funded by the U.S. Government when Al Gore was controlling the purse strings? Why don't any of THEM ever show up on your radar? Hmmm?
All you've done is a pathetic attempt to smear the reputation of a fine, well-respected scientist. Which is, sadly, the modus operandi of the entire Global Warming Alarmist movement.
When you don't have the facts on your side (which the environmental movement never does), then smear your opponents. What a nice bunch of people we're dealing with here. And rational, too!
Note that you haven't actually argued about the truth or falsehood of the UCS's statement.
I see that you completely missed the point, which was that the UCS isn't about science; it's about Left-wing politics.
The fact that they're funded by Left-wing extremists isn't a logical fallacy; it's a clue as to their actual agenda as opposed to their stated agenda. Ideologues aren't going to pour funding into a group unless said group is producing something for them. And the Left is no more interested in Science than are the Creationists on the other end of the Wacko spectrum. They're only interested in "science" that seems to support their cause.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a group that has no credibility. Zero, zip, nada. They have a very long history of dishonesty dating back to their very beginning -- not to mention the very "politicization of science" they complain about, which they've also been doing since their beginning. They've been debunked time and time again (basically, every time they issue a press release, because said releases are almost invariably fraudulent) but it hasn't stopped them one bit in continuing to spread their propaganda.
Were it not for the long-observed fact that dishonesty is endemic to the culture of the Left, and shared by all of the Left-wing front groups (including the UCS and pretty much every other environmentalist organization out there), you might be able to claim a logical fallacy. But history shows that it's an integral part of their modus operandi, and that is no fallacy.
Note that you haven't actually argued about the truth or falsehood of the UCS's statement. You're comitting a logical fallacy which is unfortunately all too common in conservative circles. It's known as bulverism and it means substituting an argument about some subject with an argument about the opponent. For example: "X is true" "You're only saying that because you're a (man/woman/Christian/Muslim/liberal/conservative)"
While this type of "reasoning" is quite widespread on Fox News (with the argument about the opponent often a personal attack), it's still completely wrong.
Oh, the Global Warming Alarmists NEVER do that, do they? Oh no, they never attack their opponents with accusations about being "an ExxonMobil shill" or "being paid off by the oil companies" or ANYTHING like that.
Common in conservative circles, my ass. More like another piece of classic pot/kettle bullshit.
But I see it being used all the time by the other side.
Now let's get to the point (see next post)
So Jeff Johnson has left Red Hat, eh? Anybody know what happened?
The good-news part of this is that we won't have him blocking improvements to RPM any more.
I see that my comments in this thread, which were formerly modded +3 insightful, are suddenly getting modded into oblivion as "Troll".
What better way to suppress views with which you're uncomfortable... why bother engaging the person's ideas when you can just silence him, eh?
No "politicization" there... No siree! [Kaff hack kaff]....
Okay, you've mentioned ONE.
But you said They are the same "scientists" who were so prominently skeptical about the "inconclusive" science behind smoking being harmful. Plural.
You still have several dozen people to go.
"will lie in order to persuade someone"
I am not trying to persuade you. I assumed you were the typical head in the sand dumbass, in which case nothing would persuade you. If you wanted to know the truth you would already have found it.
The point is that you were lying.
And the reality is that I DO want to know the truth, which is why I was able to find it. Go ahead, do the research. You'll find out that I'm right and you're wrong.
The allegations concern "then-Senator (later vice president) Al Gore". Which means the allegations were made about activities that happened when Bush was President.
Gore's political suppression of science certainly started while he was still a Senator, but it certainly didn't end when he became part of the White House.
In fact, it intensified. To save time & space, I only quoted one egregious example. But it was well-known in the climate science community during that time that atmospheric research that didn't agree with "the views of the Vice President" (as it was delicately worded) wasn't going to get funded.
But somehow, the UCS has never raised any quibbles about that.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not a conservative. And by the way number two, that's an ad hominem distraction intended to derail the discussion. Nice try, Sparky.