Or follow Dr Edwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator#Brad_Edwards.27_proposal) recommendation and use a mobile sea platform, and locate it in an area with low probability lightning storms. If a storm is coming, simply move the platform. If orbital debris is coming at the cable, just move the platform.
Also allows for moving the platform extremely close to the equator without (a) having to deal with potentially unstable equatorial governments and (b) allowing for some independence from a specific countries politics.
Thanks for proving my point - you have been acting in exactly the way that you have been accusing me of acting by trolling and flaming in your own thread. I think posting comments and then not reading the replies is a classic sign of a troll.
And again, it is interesting that members of the slashdot community seem to have agreed with me, uprating my comments and downgrading your comments. Is that three of your comments that are currently rated as troll in just this thread? Seems like the community has spoken.
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate messages.
So, now, instead of responding to my points, you once again retreat behind name calling and blatant plagiarism. I thought, briefly, that your previous post was an indication that you might actually include some content, however flimsy, in your comments. By this post you have made clear that you are only interested in spamming with plagiarized quotes in an effort to avoid any sort of thought on your own part. Clearly, your first post was the peak of your ability, and was probably plagiarized itself.
As it appears that you are only spamming in an attempt to drown out a voice you don't want to hear and to get the last word in, I won't bother pointing out how hypocritical you are being again. Instead I will just bid your vacuous, flaming, trollish, plagiarizing self adieu.
P.S. Wow, I just realized why you are so pissed - I am actually getting uprated, and you are getting troll rated. Oh, the irony.
You are a flamer. Get help, and leave Slashdot alone.
Flaming is the act of sending or posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board on the Internet. Such messages are called flames, and are sometimes posted in response to flamebait. Flaming is said by some to be one of a class of economic problems known as The Tragedy of the Commons, when a group holds a resource (in this case, communal attention), but each of the individual members has an incentive to overuse it. Flamers usually call their flames justified attacks.
The rest of the quote is truncated for brevity
First off, thanks for posting something that has any content - it is a nice change. And thanks for the morning laugh - knew I could count on you.
Secondly, wow, do you know what user IDs are, or kharma bonus? I have been reading and participating on Slashdot for years, and based on user IDs, for many years longer than you. So, as your Slashdot "elder" I will politely refuse your suggestion that I go just because you can't handle someone calling you to task for posting a crappy comment, no matter how much you whine.
Thirdly, attribution is an appropriate thing to do, even if it is "only" wikipedia. While I appreciate you finally posting some content, if you don't at least giving a link to the article that you ripped off whole sale, it is called plagiarism. It's also kinda embarrassing that you don't fight your own fight, and instead rely on other people's words without admitting it. I respect research, but not stealing other people's words.
Finally, to the meat of the issue. Did I state that I was posting a flaming comment? Yes, in my very first comment, so you don't really make much of a point. Did I raise valid issues that were relevant to the thread? Yes, issues that you never even tried to address. Basically, I mocked you relentlessly for the fact that you started a thread by questioning scientifically valid data with no reference, making strawman arguments, and critiquing a movie you never saw with an invalid comparison. Then I continued to mock you when you failed to ever respond to the content of any of my comments. The interesting thing is that the wikipedia article you cut and past states:
Similarly, a normal, non-flame message may have elements of a flame -- it may be hostile, for example -- but it is not a flame if it is seriously intended to advance the discussion.
So, just because a post is hostile (like mine), if it raises valid points, it is not a flame in the strict definition of the word. Did you even bother to read the article you were ripping off?
On the other hand, did I say you lived with your mom? No. Did I say you lived in a basement? No. Do I encourage you to commit suicide? No. Tell you to get a life? No. Did I say you had a negative value for society? No? Call you a cancer? Did I plagiarize? No. Did I ever tell you to "leave Slashdot alone?" No. These are all things you did, without ever trying to reply to basic points of any of my comments. I, on the other hand was using logic and valid points as a basis for mocking you.
You, sir are the true flamer here, reacting to valid criticisms (albeit with an overtly aggressive tone) with ad hominem attacks and an utter lack of content. Kettle, meet pot. Not only is it sad, it is quite hypocritical.
Too bad you blew your wad too quick and had to post twice. I will go ahead and combine them here for convenience.
Hahaha.
You think I'm still reading your posts?
That's soooo cute.
Ummm. Yes, I do think you are still reading my posts - in fact, I think you are responding to them. At least that is what I see on slashdot when I check my account - two responses from, surprise, surprise, YOU. Again, you might want to try that critical thinking course - would probably do you a world of good. And yes, I think that you are still reading, as your second comment, where you recommend I kill myself, pretty clearly shows that not are your responding, you are reacting. Now, whether or not you are reading the entirety of my comment is up for debate. However, it is somewhat irrelevant, as I think the majority of it would just go over your head.
Hahaha.
Glad you are still laughing, cause to me this is just sad.
Seriously, get a real life.
Try a competitive sport or something, its a lot more fun to "slap someone down" in real life, as opposed to the internet. Retard.
Again, I have a real life - I am actually working at the job of my dreams. Doesn't mean that I can't take a few minutes to call a dumbass a dumbass.
If this post makes you angry, don't reply - get therapy.
I know this is your sig, but since you seem to have changed it based on my comments (that you aren't reading) I thought I should respond. The whole point of slashdot is to respond, whether you are angry, inspired, amused or saddened. That is why it is called an online "community" - you might want to look it up. And sorry to say, slashdot is known for flaming dumb comments - welcome to the party.
On to the second comment
People like you are a cancer on Slashdot.
You take an inoffensive post about global warming and start a flame-war over it.
You totally de-rail any sort of constructive discussion or transfer of useful information.
Basically, you are less than worthless - you have a negative value for society.
Do the world a favor and kill yourself.
I mean it.
Interesting that you would call me a cancer on slashdot - you are the one that started a conversation thread based on bad science (can't trust the temperature since it was before thermometers), bad logic (false dichotomy/strawman), and FUD (misleading statements about a movie you haven't even seen). What I consider a true cancer on slashdot is misinformed readers posting bullsh** on slashdot when they should know better and then getting kharma for it. I consider it an even bigger cancer to be unable or unwilling to back up you bullsh**, and instead resort to puerile insults and calls to suicide. Pathetic.
Now I know you think I don't have a life, but I actually need to get back to mine (although I have a warm fuzzy in my heart knowing that I will probably start the day tomorrow with a dumbass comment from you to make me laugh). So, unless you want to try and address some of the valid points I made in my initial post (even if they were on the harsh side), I don't think there is much point in continuing to point out the errors in your ways. You could always get that feedback from a critical thinking course.
P.S. The "I mean it" about me committing suicide was a nice touch - showed a certain level of sincerity, even if a bit juvenile.
Wow, now that was a witty rejoinder. Couldn't even come up with a new one, you had to repeat the same one you used in your last comment? Are you re-using it because you came up with it all on your own and are oh-so-proud of it? Or are you that much of a one trick pony? As to getting off the computer, why would I? I am proud to say I am a geek, and I make my living on the computer.
I must say, you are one classy act. You try and cast FUD on one of the most serious issues facing us today, and when it pisses me off and I call you on your bullsh** rhetoric and strawman arguments, you get all whiny and say I am taking Global Warming too seriously - you just end up sounding like a wimp, unable to back your sh** up.
For myself, I know that I was flaming when I posted my first comment, and I copped to that, but at least there is content. All you're doing is getting your whine on. You might want to stop posting here and try taking critical thinking class or a perhaps a course on logic? It might help you keep your foot out of your mouth and your head out of your ass.
Wow - thought I might have been wrong to flame, as I don't do it very often, but you just fully justified it. Thanks:) I know I was flaming, but at least it had content. As for getting bent out of shape, it wasn't so much the slashdot, although it is disappointing when a site that I truly value seems to value such inanity. I got bent out of shape because of the subject matter, which I consider a critical issue that has been successfully fudded to the point where a site devoted to a group that values insight and intelligence rates as interesting and insightful when it is neither.
Next time feel free to flame, but at least include some content in your diatribe. Might make you feel like less of a loser when you get slapped down.
Are you serious? Please tell me this is a humorous comment and I am missing the punchline, because I cannot otherwise believe that such a non-insightful, non-critically thinking misinformed comment got rated a 5 on slashdot. The parent comment is anti-science, based on false dichotomies, and false information. I don't normally flame, but this is ridiculous - please go ahead and mod me down as long as you mod the parent down as well!
1) Galileo invented the thermometer in 1593.
I don't trust any temperature data for dates prior to 1593.
They can extrapolate the temperatures based an various bits of information found in glacier ice. Its called science by some, research by others - you might want to give it a try sometime. I assume you also don't trust that any of our history from before the video camera is true since you can't watch the video with your own eyes? There are many things that can not be measured directly, but can be inferred, including such things as I.Q. - think about it.
12) Isn't global warming better than another ice age?
That is like saying why should I stop smoking when colon cancer is worse than lung cancer - it is a false dichotomy, as the choice is not between ice age and global warming, but rather a choice between sustainable resource utilization or burying our heads in the sand until our butts are burning.
3) You know Al Gore's movie, where they show the glacier photos, before and after?
Are the before and after both from the same season?
Because the glaciers change size seasonally.
Did Al Gore show winter 1980 vs. summer 2005?
Watch the f***cking movie. Until you do so, your critique of it is pointless. The shown changes were not normal seasonal changes, they were sudden massive changes in previously stable glaciers. If you had bothered to watch the movie before trying to debunk it, you might have saved some yourself some embarrassment. Unf***ing believable that this would get a 5.
My understanding is that they have a luanch window from the 19th (end of missile defense tests) to the 21st (beginnning of holiday shut-down). I know that you were probably referring to delays due to malfunctions, but obviously, that is impossible to say - just like asking what the latest ship date for Duke Nuke-Em forever is:)
Actually, this is probably the 20th delay - well not really, but it has had a number of delays. SpaceX was most recently supposed to launch on Oct 31st, and delayed it until now to finish testing a problem discovered during the qualification of one of the engines. Prior to that they were delayed trying to launch out of Vandenburg AFB waiting for a high priority to launch before them - becuase of the high priority and cost of the other launch, the AF wouldn't let them launch for fear of the Falcon launch going bust and take out the other rocket as well.
What SpaceX is doing is a very difficult thing - after all it is Rocket Science - so it is expected that they would have numerous delays. If they didn't have delays, I would think they were rushing things!
I think that is the more important question! I recall (not so fondly) meeting up with partners in computer engineering classes after we had been working on a project all night, and I must say the combo of no sleep, no toothbrush, coffee and cigarettes did not make for a pleasant breathing environment!
US Research
A US study3 published in 2001 carried out by Western Ecosystems Technology for the National Wind Coordinating Committee puts wind turbine collisions into perspective with bird collisions with other structures. This review of existing studies and data dealing with avian (bird) collision mortality produced the following figures for avian collisions:
Vehicles: 60 million - 80 million
Buildings and Windows: 98 million - 980 million
Powerlines: tens of thousands - 174 million
Communication Towers: 4 million - 50 million
Wind Generation Facilities: 10,000 - 40,000
It is worth noting that the Altimont wind farms seem to be a notable exception. Due to the size of the farm, older wind turbine design, and poor placement along migratory paths of birds and in hunting grounds of birds, the Altimont wind farm does cause 1000s of deaths per year. However, this can be significantly mitigated by better location selection and using recent turbine designs.
Thank you for attempting to set the record straight - there is so much bullshit and spin that gets sent around, it in great to hear the straight shit from someone who lived in New Orleans.
I didn't have any mod points (and you already have a 5), so all you get is this stupid post:)
I believe the cooperation between the Chinese and the Russian space programs stopped in the 60s. And you are correct, their manned capsule is based on the Soyuz. Even if their launches were just lauches of China built Soyuz, this would still be a significant accomplishment, as it would demostrate their ability to maintain an self-sufficient branch of safe manned space exploration, especially given that the US is currently demostrating an inability to maintain a such a program (the Soyuz has a much better track record than the shuttle, and as such, with the CEV we are actually moving towards something that is more like the Soyuz than the shuttle).
However, it is more than that - the Chinese are doing more than just maintaining the designs that they Russians shared with them in the 60s - they are developing and refining and updating those designs, so that it represents a fully independent developing branch of space travel. It is essentially expanding the market of Manned space travel, so that the opportunity to get into space is not limited to two countries.
Hopefully the time comes soon when a private entity such as SpaceX can provide for access to space separate from government institutions, but until that time, I am happy to see more entries onto the space stage.
I am sorry to say, but telling someone to "GET OVER IT" when the problems are still ongoing. Being a step dad, and consistently hearing of my 15 year old step daughter being told she has "a nice ass" or hearing about a guy in "The Gap" coming up and telling her she has nice tits, I am all too aware that women are objectified in an ongoing and consistent manner from a young age, and objectificaiton that goes well beyond anything I experienced at any time in my life. That kind of ongoing objectification has an impact, reinforcing over and over again that the most important thing about her is her looks - that is what she is taught she brings to the table. I try and counteract that as much as I can, tutoring her in math and biology, emphasizing the importance of school and of who she is, but it is hard to get past the ongoing cultural bias. And then, to look globally, and see things like the proposed constitution in Iraq that would relegate a whole country of women to a second class and our government not considering it a show stopper - what kinda of a message does that send to the women of today?
I am sorry, but it is far to early to say "GET OVER IT" even if it does make you feel better, feel like you and I haven't had an unfair advantage compared to women.
Amen to that! Believe it or not, there is even a history of it happening with large corporations - I am a Comcast subscriber, and heard an interview with one of the Comcast Bigwigs talking about On Demand, and how cool it was, and free, and easy, and blah blah blah. I figured they were talking blue sky, something in the future, but when I went home and looked at the menu - there it was! Dozens of free movies, more movies watchable from HBO and Shotime, many sereis, etc etc, all watchable as it on a DVD, and very user friendly and easy to use. And what did this feature cost me? Nothing beyond my normal cable bill. This is a corporation making it easy for the customer - this makes me want to stay with Comcast. This DRM shit makes me want to avoid this other shit like the plague.
And no, I don't work for Comcast - I am just really impressed!
I don't really have any experience with www.fair.org publishes, but when I RTFA, it does bring up some very good points. I think it is healthy to have skeptism for certian sources (such as any website that has a particular agenda), but it does not mean they do not have good points. There is information in this article that could be double checked prior to dismissing it out of hand. In general, it is bad form to deny the validity of a source without addressing any of the information. At least VON-MAN provided a reference supporting his claim that Saddam did not kick the inspectors out in 1998, but rather Butler pulled them out. From the article,
The Washington Post, like numerous other media outlets, reported it accurately at the time (12/17/98): "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night."
I don't have a Washington Post subscription to confirm the quote, but if you really believe fair.org is unreliable, it should not be too difficult to debunk this claim.
Are you seriously saying that since Clinton lied about getting a blowjob, it is OK that the Bush administration lied about intelligence to justify going to war?
It doesn't make Bush look bad to say that he lied about WMD; it makes you look bad. If you stick to things you can prove and don't overstate your case, you can drum up plenty of opposition to Bush. But remember that opposition alone is not enough -- you also need to bring forth ideas and a person that people are willing to support. Kerry was not such a person, and never was going to be.
So, the basic problem is two fold - (1) that I don't think that I will loose credibility when I say the Bush administration lied in the runup to the Iraq war as the majority of Americans already believe that they were mislead, which I will argue in more detail in the following paragraph, and (2) I was not trying to drum up support for a presidential candidate or the Democratic party, I was trying to point out that it is ridiculous to justify Bush's behavior by saying Clinton lied about a blowjob.
To the first part of the problem - If I loose credibility with you, that is fine, but to say that I will look bad in general is a pretty bold statement that you offer no proof for. Do you have any polls showing that Americans don't believe Bush lied? Any polls showing that calling Bush a liar will cause the speaker to loose credibility? No, probably not, and you definitely don't offer any proof, so I will reserve my right to think you don't know what you are talking about. And, as I mentioned before, I think you are being particularly hypocritical to say I loose credibility for calling Bush a liar, and then turn around and call Kerry a "putrescent cup of moldy milk". Regardless of whether or not Kerry could win or not, it doesn't justify calling him that, and I think both lowers the levle of discourse, and calls your credibility into question. And a final point - that your Boss's wife would be an "very active in the higher echelons of the Democratic Party" offers you no credibility by osmosis. In addition, that "The day Kerry was nominated, they gave up on 2004 and started thinking about 2008" makes me mad - 2004 was lost by the thinnest of margins, and the fact that somebody in a position of power in the Democratic party gave up the fight before it even started makes me think that it could have been won if Democrats like your bosses wife had actually fought the fight. Actually, using your bosses wife who gave up the fight for 2004 as a credential showing you have a good feel for the pulse of the American public actually proves to me that you are totally disconnected from the pulse.
Of course he had. In fact, keeping Iraq in check and attempting to impose a regime change had been part of US policy from the beginning of the first Gulf War up through that point
Actually, you almost make my point for me - yes there had been over a decade of history of keeping Iraq in check without invasion. Why the sudden need for war? Because Bush wanted to be a wartime president - he told Mickey Herskowitz "One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief... My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it... If I have a chance to invade... if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it"
starting with GHW Bush's mishandling of the end of the first war, continuing through Clinton's multiple strikes on Iraq in office (and, I might add, being about to invade up until Kofi Annan talked him out of it, which given what we learned afterwards about the oil-for-food program is not so surprising...)
Given the current state of our occupation of Iraq, it seems that Bush Sr did not make such a bad decision, recognizing that it would be very difficult to successfully occupy Iraq, and that it could destabilize the region. Yeah, if only Bush Jr. mishandled things so well. The problems with the oil for food program are disgraceful, but they do nothing to justify war.
This is not a sudden surprise change in US policy for either party. Note how few Democrats (in office, that is) actually opposed the war; it's not because they were suddenly in this one instance lied to by Bush, although it's certainly beneficial (given rising opposition to our actions there here at home) for incumbents to suggest that they felt that way.
Note how few diplomats (active and retired) military officers, politicians, democratic and republican, supported the war? Note how many other nations did not support the war? Note how public opinion, even in many of the the countries that supported the war, was against the war? Even in America.
There was a ton of information available that Saddam did not have WMDs, but this information, and the people who presented this information, was ignored and attacked by the administration.
And all that proves is that there was conflicting evidence on both sides, such that a reasonable person could come to either conclusion. Again, that doesn't make Bush a liar.
No, what this means is that Bush's administration attacked people and their reputations to prevent intelligence coming forward that would cast doubt on their claims of imminent danger - they were fixing the intelligence to suit their political desires. What this means is that Saddam was not a clear and present danger and he was not an imminent threat to the US, both of which Bush claimed, but even the evidence he favored did not support this claim. It only supported that Saddam may become a threat to the US in the future! Taking into account the evidence significantly lowers the significance of Iraq's threat to the US.
The worst thing about painting Bush as a liar is that since it is so clearly false it really hurts efforts to unseat him, because if you tell someone who knows better that they shouldn't vote for Bush because he lied, then you come out looking like the liar, and you make the person you're trying to convince into a Bush supporter.
Wait, are you saying that I lose credibility when I say a politician lied? Particularly one who has demostrably lied about his service in the National Guard and how he got there. One whose advisor (Karl Rove) is claimed to have bugged his own office to discredit Democrats. Whose advisor Karl Rove was fired by Bush Sr. for revealing info to Novak and is currently under investigation for doing the same. Who sat back while t
Interesting articles - thanks for pointing them out.
However, reading the articles, there are some interesting points:
1st Article: The Nigerien told Wilson he assumed Sahhaf was interested in yellowcake. The intelligence-committee report contains similar information.
Note that he was interested, not had. So he wanted to start up a nuclear program, and how did that make him a bigger threat than Iran and North Korea, both of whom have active Nuclear Programs?
2nd Article: "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," [David Kay]he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."
So, it is possible that Saddamd had a small amount of WMDs or components for a WMD program that went to Syria. So the end result of the Iraq war is that a possibly non-existent weapons program in a country that was regularly inspected by UN instpectors and hampered by embargoes and sanctions gets moved to a country with no UN inpectors and fewer import restrictions. Sounds like, if Saddam had WMDs, the war maybe facilitated WMD proliferation.
Basically both of these articles lend credence to the possibility that Saddamm wanted WMDs and may have had small, but emphasize the fact that he was less of a threat than Iran and North Korea, and the war actually exacerbated the problem of WMD proliferation.
Clearly you have no historical context on the last 5000 years of military history.
Never claimed to be. However, the majority of this conversation does not need a 5000 year perspective - a 3 year perspective is quite informative on it's own.
Of course, when there is an imminent threat the US, the military should be used to counteract that threat. However, even if the intelligence that Saddam had limited quantities of WMDs and Uranium yellow cake had been true (it wasn't) and the intelligence indicating didn't have those things was false (it wasn't) he was still not an imminent threat to the US. Why do I say that? He had no ability to deliver these WMDs to the US, no ability to process the Uranium, and was not cooperating with Al Quada to deliver these to the US. Who was an imminent threat?
Osama Bin Laden. He had shown the capability to attack the US.
North Korea. Has the ability to build nuclear bombs, and has shown a pre-disposition to seelign weapons to "rogue" nations. Durring Bush's watch, has gone from threatening to build weapons to likely having weapons.
Iran. Actively developing capability to build nuclear weapons.
However, instead of addressing these issues, we have over-extended our military to attack the country that was the least likely to be a threat to the US.
Military intelligence is the art of guessing the other side's secrets, and at essentially no point has there been a case of any military intelligence organization that knew all of the other side's secrets. Even in World War II when the Allies had cracked the Enigma code, that didn't allow them to discover all of Nazi Germany's military secrets, though it did allow them to find out a treasure trove of operational intelligence (which was the main use of Enigma).
Interesting background - I appreciate the information. However, the difference here is we didn't decide to go to war or not based on the intelligence gleaned from Enigma. We based strategic and tactical decisions based on it. Huge difference.
In the case of the Iraq WMD issue, there were a lot of people looking at the same intelligence - including both Republicans and Democrats (including John Kerry BTW), the UN, the major European powers, etc. Everyone who looked at it had some degree of concern that Iraq was interested in WMD's - and Saddam didn't do much to dissuade from that conclusion.
Yes, many people had concerns, but they also had concerns about the validity of the intelligence. Say I have concerns that the guy across the street is dealing drugs - no concrete proof, but some indications that he is and some indications that he is not. Do I try and blow up his house? No, I call the police, and hope they search his house for drugs and drug paraphenalia - just as the weapon inspectors were searching for WMDs and associated infrastructure.
Remember that the other side in any conflict isn't just going to let their secrets be an open book... The point is that both sides are deliberatly trying to mislead each other.
Of course this was a case of misdirection and lying and smokescreens. However, there was no concrete evidence of WMDs in spite of years of inspections. And there was no imminent threat from Saddam, so why go to war?
If one side does in fact get misled, does that mean that they are lying or does it mean that they made a mistake in analysis or judgement, or that the other side's ruse was complete?
Unless there's clear evidence that all indications were pointing against WMD's, I don't think it's at all a fair characterization that Bush was "lying"
So I am a bit unclear on your point here? The Bush administration was suckered by Saddam into thinking that he had WMDs, so they aren't lying? Ok, I will revise my statement - The Bush administration was either lieing or incompetent.
That was 30-300 years. Figure anywhere from a total of 10,000 to 100,000 dead (soldiers and civilians) divided by 365 days/year, and you get somewhere between approximately 30-300 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Or follow Dr Edwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator#Brad_Edwards.27_proposal) recommendation and use a mobile sea platform, and locate it in an area with low probability lightning storms. If a storm is coming, simply move the platform. If orbital debris is coming at the cable, just move the platform.
Also allows for moving the platform extremely close to the equator without (a) having to deal with potentially unstable equatorial governments and (b) allowing for some independence from a specific countries politics.
brandido
Thanks for proving my point - you have been acting in exactly the way that you have been accusing me of acting by trolling and flaming in your own thread. I think posting comments and then not reading the replies is a classic sign of a troll.
And again, it is interesting that members of the slashdot community seem to have agreed with me, uprating my comments and downgrading your comments. Is that three of your comments that are currently rated as troll in just this thread? Seems like the community has spoken.
So, now, instead of responding to my points, you once again retreat behind name calling and blatant plagiarism. I thought, briefly, that your previous post was an indication that you might actually include some content, however flimsy, in your comments. By this post you have made clear that you are only interested in spamming with plagiarized quotes in an effort to avoid any sort of thought on your own part. Clearly, your first post was the peak of your ability, and was probably plagiarized itself.
As it appears that you are only spamming in an attempt to drown out a voice you don't want to hear and to get the last word in, I won't bother pointing out how hypocritical you are being again. Instead I will just bid your vacuous, flaming, trollish, plagiarizing self adieu.
P.S. Wow, I just realized why you are so pissed - I am actually getting uprated, and you are getting troll rated. Oh, the irony.
First off, thanks for posting something that has any content - it is a nice change. And thanks for the morning laugh - knew I could count on you.
Secondly, wow, do you know what user IDs are, or kharma bonus? I have been reading and participating on Slashdot for years, and based on user IDs, for many years longer than you. So, as your Slashdot "elder" I will politely refuse your suggestion that I go just because you can't handle someone calling you to task for posting a crappy comment, no matter how much you whine.
Thirdly, attribution is an appropriate thing to do, even if it is "only" wikipedia. While I appreciate you finally posting some content, if you don't at least giving a link to the article that you ripped off whole sale, it is called plagiarism. It's also kinda embarrassing that you don't fight your own fight, and instead rely on other people's words without admitting it. I respect research, but not stealing other people's words.
Finally, to the meat of the issue. Did I state that I was posting a flaming comment? Yes, in my very first comment, so you don't really make much of a point. Did I raise valid issues that were relevant to the thread? Yes, issues that you never even tried to address. Basically, I mocked you relentlessly for the fact that you started a thread by questioning scientifically valid data with no reference, making strawman arguments, and critiquing a movie you never saw with an invalid comparison. Then I continued to mock you when you failed to ever respond to the content of any of my comments. The interesting thing is that the wikipedia article you cut and past states:
So, just because a post is hostile (like mine), if it raises valid points, it is not a flame in the strict definition of the word. Did you even bother to read the article you were ripping off?
On the other hand, did I say you lived with your mom? No. Did I say you lived in a basement? No. Do I encourage you to commit suicide? No. Tell you to get a life? No. Did I say you had a negative value for society? No? Call you a cancer? Did I plagiarize? No. Did I ever tell you to "leave Slashdot alone?" No. These are all things you did, without ever trying to reply to basic points of any of my comments. I, on the other hand was using logic and valid points as a basis for mocking you.
You, sir are the true flamer here, reacting to valid criticisms (albeit with an overtly aggressive tone) with ad hominem attacks and an utter lack of content. Kettle, meet pot. Not only is it sad, it is quite hypocritical.
I think you forgot:
:)
brandido
6 ???
7 Profit!
Thanks for the assist
On to the second comment
Interesting that you would call me a cancer on slashdot - you are the one that started a conversation thread based on bad science (can't trust the temperature since it was before thermometers), bad logic (false dichotomy/strawman), and FUD (misleading statements about a movie you haven't even seen). What I consider a true cancer on slashdot is misinformed readers posting bullsh** on slashdot when they should know better and then getting kharma for it. I consider it an even bigger cancer to be unable or unwilling to back up you bullsh**, and instead resort to puerile insults and calls to suicide. Pathetic.
Now I know you think I don't have a life, but I actually need to get back to mine (although I have a warm fuzzy in my heart knowing that I will probably start the day tomorrow with a dumbass comment from you to make me laugh). So, unless you want to try and address some of the valid points I made in my initial post (even if they were on the harsh side), I don't think there is much point in continuing to point out the errors in your ways. You could always get that feedback from a critical thinking course.
P.S. The "I mean it" about me committing suicide was a nice touch - showed a certain level of sincerity, even if a bit juvenile.
Wow, now that was a witty rejoinder. Couldn't even come up with a new one, you had to repeat the same one you used in your last comment? Are you re-using it because you came up with it all on your own and are oh-so-proud of it? Or are you that much of a one trick pony? As to getting off the computer, why would I? I am proud to say I am a geek, and I make my living on the computer.
I must say, you are one classy act. You try and cast FUD on one of the most serious issues facing us today, and when it pisses me off and I call you on your bullsh** rhetoric and strawman arguments, you get all whiny and say I am taking Global Warming too seriously - you just end up sounding like a wimp, unable to back your sh** up.
For myself, I know that I was flaming when I posted my first comment, and I copped to that, but at least there is content. All you're doing is getting your whine on. You might want to stop posting here and try taking critical thinking class or a perhaps a course on logic? It might help you keep your foot out of your mouth and your head out of your ass.
Wow - thought I might have been wrong to flame, as I don't do it very often, but you just fully justified it. Thanks :) I know I was flaming, but at least it had content. As for getting bent out of shape, it wasn't so much the slashdot, although it is disappointing when a site that I truly value seems to value such inanity. I got bent out of shape because of the subject matter, which I consider a critical issue that has been successfully fudded to the point where a site devoted to a group that values insight and intelligence rates as interesting and insightful when it is neither.
Next time feel free to flame, but at least include some content in your diatribe. Might make you feel like less of a loser when you get slapped down.
My understanding is that they have a luanch window from the 19th (end of missile defense tests) to the 21st (beginnning of holiday shut-down). I know that you were probably referring to delays due to malfunctions, but obviously, that is impossible to say - just like asking what the latest ship date for Duke Nuke-Em forever is :)
Actually, this is probably the 20th delay - well not really, but it has had a number of delays. SpaceX was most recently supposed to launch on Oct 31st, and delayed it until now to finish testing a problem discovered during the qualification of one of the engines. Prior to that they were delayed trying to launch out of Vandenburg AFB waiting for a high priority to launch before them - becuase of the high priority and cost of the other launch, the AF wouldn't let them launch for fear of the Falcon launch going bust and take out the other rocket as well.
What SpaceX is doing is a very difficult thing - after all it is Rocket Science - so it is expected that they would have numerous delays. If they didn't have delays, I would think they were rushing things!
I think that is the more important question! I recall (not so fondly) meeting up with partners in computer engineering classes after we had been working on a project all night, and I must say the combo of no sleep, no toothbrush, coffee and cigarettes did not make for a pleasant breathing environment!
It is worth noting that the Altimont wind farms seem to be a notable exception. Due to the size of the farm, older wind turbine design, and poor placement along migratory paths of birds and in hunting grounds of birds, the Altimont wind farm does cause 1000s of deaths per year. However, this can be significantly mitigated by better location selection and using recent turbine designs.
In sum, the bird death issue is a red herron.Thank you for attempting to set the record straight - there is so much bullshit and spin that gets sent around, it in great to hear the straight shit from someone who lived in New Orleans.
:)
I didn't have any mod points (and you already have a 5), so all you get is this stupid post
I believe the cooperation between the Chinese and the Russian space programs stopped in the 60s. And you are correct, their manned capsule is based on the Soyuz. Even if their launches were just lauches of China built Soyuz, this would still be a significant accomplishment, as it would demostrate their ability to maintain an self-sufficient branch of safe manned space exploration, especially given that the US is currently demostrating an inability to maintain a such a program (the Soyuz has a much better track record than the shuttle, and as such, with the CEV we are actually moving towards something that is more like the Soyuz than the shuttle).
However, it is more than that - the Chinese are doing more than just maintaining the designs that they Russians shared with them in the 60s - they are developing and refining and updating those designs, so that it represents a fully independent developing branch of space travel. It is essentially expanding the market of Manned space travel, so that the opportunity to get into space is not limited to two countries.
Hopefully the time comes soon when a private entity such as SpaceX can provide for access to space separate from government institutions, but until that time, I am happy to see more entries onto the space stage.They will be putting the Lead in Led Zepplin?
Sorry, couldn't resist
I am sorry to say, but telling someone to "GET OVER IT" when the problems are still ongoing. Being a step dad, and consistently hearing of my 15 year old step daughter being told she has "a nice ass" or hearing about a guy in "The Gap" coming up and telling her she has nice tits, I am all too aware that women are objectified in an ongoing and consistent manner from a young age, and objectificaiton that goes well beyond anything I experienced at any time in my life. That kind of ongoing objectification has an impact, reinforcing over and over again that the most important thing about her is her looks - that is what she is taught she brings to the table. I try and counteract that as much as I can, tutoring her in math and biology, emphasizing the importance of school and of who she is, but it is hard to get past the ongoing cultural bias. And then, to look globally, and see things like the proposed constitution in Iraq that would relegate a whole country of women to a second class and our government not considering it a show stopper - what kinda of a message does that send to the women of today? I am sorry, but it is far to early to say "GET OVER IT" even if it does make you feel better, feel like you and I haven't had an unfair advantage compared to women.
Amen to that! Believe it or not, there is even a history of it happening with large corporations - I am a Comcast subscriber, and heard an interview with one of the Comcast Bigwigs talking about On Demand, and how cool it was, and free, and easy, and blah blah blah. I figured they were talking blue sky, something in the future, but when I went home and looked at the menu - there it was! Dozens of free movies, more movies watchable from HBO and Shotime, many sereis, etc etc, all watchable as it on a DVD, and very user friendly and easy to use. And what did this feature cost me? Nothing beyond my normal cable bill. This is a corporation making it easy for the customer - this makes me want to stay with Comcast. This DRM shit makes me want to avoid this other shit like the plague. And no, I don't work for Comcast - I am just really impressed!
To the first part of the problem - If I loose credibility with you, that is fine, but to say that I will look bad in general is a pretty bold statement that you offer no proof for. Do you have any polls showing that Americans don't believe Bush lied? Any polls showing that calling Bush a liar will cause the speaker to loose credibility? No, probably not, and you definitely don't offer any proof, so I will reserve my right to think you don't know what you are talking about. And, as I mentioned before, I think you are being particularly hypocritical to say I loose credibility for calling Bush a liar, and then turn around and call Kerry a "putrescent cup of moldy milk". Regardless of whether or not Kerry could win or not, it doesn't justify calling him that, and I think both lowers the levle of discourse, and calls your credibility into question. And a final point - that your Boss's wife would be an "very active in the higher echelons of the Democratic Party" offers you no credibility by osmosis. In addition, that "The day Kerry was nominated, they gave up on 2004 and started thinking about 2008" makes me mad - 2004 was lost by the thinnest of margins, and the fact that somebody in a position of power in the Democratic party gave up the fight before it even started makes me think that it could have been won if Democrats like your bosses wife had actually fought the fight. Actually, using your bosses wife who gave up the fight for 2004 as a credential showing you have a good feel for the pulse of the American public actually proves to me that you are totally disconnected from the pulse.
Actually, you almost make my point for me - yes there had been over a decade of history of keeping Iraq in check without invasion. Why the sudden need for war? Because Bush wanted to be a wartime president - he told Mickey Herskowitz "One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief ... My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it ... If I have a chance to invade ... if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it"
Given the current state of our occupation of Iraq, it seems that Bush Sr did not make such a bad decision, recognizing that it would be very difficult to successfully occupy Iraq, and that it could destabilize the region. Yeah, if only Bush Jr. mishandled things so well. The problems with the oil for food program are disgraceful, but they do nothing to justify war.
Note how few diplomats (active and retired) military officers, politicians, democratic and republican, supported the war? Note how many other nations did not support the war? Note how public opinion, even in many of the the countries that supported the war, was against the war? Even in America.
No, what this means is that Bush's administration attacked people and their reputations to prevent intelligence coming forward that would cast doubt on their claims of imminent danger - they were fixing the intelligence to suit their political desires. What this means is that Saddam was not a clear and present danger and he was not an imminent threat to the US, both of which Bush claimed, but even the evidence he favored did not support this claim. It only supported that Saddam may become a threat to the US in the future! Taking into account the evidence significantly lowers the significance of Iraq's threat to the US.
Wait, are you saying that I lose credibility when I say a politician lied? Particularly one who has demostrably lied about his service in the National Guard and how he got there. One whose advisor (Karl Rove) is claimed to have bugged his own office to discredit Democrats. Whose advisor Karl Rove was fired by Bush Sr. for revealing info to Novak and is currently under investigation for doing the same. Who sat back while t
Basically both of these articles lend credence to the possibility that Saddamm wanted WMDs and may have had small, but emphasize the fact that he was less of a threat than Iran and North Korea, and the war actually exacerbated the problem of WMD proliferation.
Never claimed to be. However, the majority of this conversation does not need a 5000 year perspective - a 3 year perspective is quite informative on it's own.
Of course, when there is an imminent threat the US, the military should be used to counteract that threat. However, even if the intelligence that Saddam had limited quantities of WMDs and Uranium yellow cake had been true (it wasn't) and the intelligence indicating didn't have those things was false (it wasn't) he was still not an imminent threat to the US. Why do I say that? He had no ability to deliver these WMDs to the US, no ability to process the Uranium, and was not cooperating with Al Quada to deliver these to the US. Who was an imminent threat?
However, instead of addressing these issues, we have over-extended our military to attack the country that was the least likely to be a threat to the US.
Interesting background - I appreciate the information. However, the difference here is we didn't decide to go to war or not based on the intelligence gleaned from Enigma. We based strategic and tactical decisions based on it. Huge difference.
Yes, many people had concerns, but they also had concerns about the validity of the intelligence. Say I have concerns that the guy across the street is dealing drugs - no concrete proof, but some indications that he is and some indications that he is not. Do I try and blow up his house? No, I call the police, and hope they search his house for drugs and drug paraphenalia - just as the weapon inspectors were searching for WMDs and associated infrastructure.
Of course this was a case of misdirection and lying and smokescreens. However, there was no concrete evidence of WMDs in spite of years of inspections. And there was no imminent threat from Saddam, so why go to war?
So I am a bit unclear on your point here? The Bush administration was suckered by Saddam into thinking that he had WMDs, so they aren't lying? Ok, I will revise my statement - The Bush administration was either lieing or incompetent.
That was 30-300 years. Figure anywhere from a total of 10,000 to 100,000 dead (soldiers and civilians) divided by 365 days/year, and you get somewhere between approximately 30-300 years.