One relevant piece: "By 1972 a large majority of a group of leading glacial-epoch experts at a conference agreed that 'the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near'" Also, there was at least one book published that predicted global cooling, not just 'certain magazines'.
Did you read past the piece at all? Or did you simply believe it and fail to check any further?
Sorry. I just thought you were being dumb about it. If there's an excuse, it's that so many people on both sides of that particular debate ARE dumb about it. Apologies.
Just to be clear, here are my views: The Earth's climate can change and has done so many times. Humans put a lot of crap into the environment and we should reduce that for lots of reasons. Whether those two things are connected in either direction is rather a moot point in my opinion.
I am just waiting for the point when you'll HAVE to have a computer just to solve the fucking CAPTCHA crap. Is that a wavy black line set up to fool computers, or is it a wavy capital "I"? Nope, it's a lowercase "l". While I concede the benefits to service providers, I HATE those things.
My assertion is made in the context of the real world.
Really? Voter turnout has been trending UP over the last 20 years?
Given the choice between a lesser evil that increases over time and a greater evil that increases over time, which do you choose? Keep in mind that if you don't pick one, one will be selected for you.
Well, doesn't that kind of show the 'importance' of your vote? Pick one of two horrible options, or one of the two will be forced upon you. I decline to participate in such a cheap charade. So should everyone else.
I can see supporting the greater evil (directly or indirectly) if you're hoping for things to get bad enough to force a revolution -- but if that's your goal, be explicit about it! We're not getting out any other way.
Not with that attitude, mister. Rather than playing a rigged game with loaded dice under the house's terms, decline to participate. Voting for even the lesser evil is DIRECTLY condoning evil. The fact that so few people care about that is the reason we're in the situation we're in. Stand up for what YOU believe in, not what you think a majority of other people do. No matter the hype, you are never voting AGAINST someone if you are voting FOR someone else.
A process that is not reversible is termed irreversible. In an irreversible process, finite changes are made; therefore the system is not at equilibrium throughout the process.
OK. So...how does this conflict with the post I made? You're the one who said it was irreversible, not me.
Also, you can say no to something before you are doing it. Do you have to be doing drugs to say no to it?
Does my saying no to drugs impact their existence? Also, how would one have personal global warming? I mean, drug use is a personal choice. Whether global warming is human-caused or not, it certainly would impact everyone, no matter their individual actions. Drug use is not a good analogy. Global warming isn't a choice. It's a process that we can affect only minimally, if at all. It's a natural cycle. That doesn't excuse bad behaviour, but it also means that good behaviour may not have any noticable effect upon the eventual outcome. Good luck trying to stop global cycles. Remember, back in the '70s, it was supposed to be global COOLING that was the problem. If humans caused global warming, maybe it was in response to the fear-mongers of the '70s. Be careful that you don't cause a similar overreaction, causing our children to face global cooling again. Then, every 20 years or so, we'll have to start up another giant scare to frighten people into overreacting in the opposite direction, just to keep overall balance. That could get quite tiresome.
-- Stop Global Warming! Just say no to irreversible processes!
How? If a process is irreversible, then you can't say no to it once it's started. That's sort of the definition of irreversible. So, either we shouldn't say no to global warming, or it isn't irreversible. Either way, your sig is wrong. Not trying to make you mad, just pointing it out.
Your saying so doesn't make it true. Besides which, what one side did I paint? I mean, yes I believe that both Republicans and Democrats are truly just one entity at the highest levels. So perhaps that's the 'one side' I was presenting. Or did you miss my criticism of Bush and focus only on the part of my comment with which you disagree, and then assert that this was the only point which I made?
Remember that constitutionally, the President can't authorize spending. That must be done by the (then Republican) House.
Which is ultimately controlled by the same people who control the Presidency. Note how quickly the two supposedly disparate parties unite to freeze third-party candidates out of the process, or to further themselves (politicians) at the expense of we who voted them in.
If you are going to raise spending, then you ought to raise taxes as well, and since Clinton would have vetoed the spending, they had to hold their nose and raise taxes. Once Bush was in, then they were free to incrase spending while cutting taxes.
Bush raised taxes as well. That's why Clinton's record largest tax increase is no longer the record. Republicans and Democrats are the two seperate arms of one ugly beast. Seperate, but not independant.
Well, of course; I've read Washington's fairwell address too. That said, we are where we are; nonparticipation doesn't help anything.
Yes, I'm asking you to support the lesser of two evils when it'd be better if something non-evil were an option. That said, if we don't support the lesser evil, we may well get the greater one -- and that's no fun at all.
If no one voted, no one could be elected. That directly contradicts your assertion. Also, as has been noted previously, the lesser of two evils IS STILL EVIL and should not be supported. Suppose we get the 'lesser evil'; how long do you believe that evil will be lesser? Evil does not tend in the direction of good. It tends in the direction of greater evil. Why not stop voting until the vote is useless as a cover for how things are really decided? Blindly following the existing, non-working, path to its logical conclusion is stupid, shortsighted, and the main reason we're in the situation we're in. I think Richard Pryor said it best in Brewster's Millions, Vote "None of the Above".
But lying under oath is not legal, not even when what you are trying to cover up is.
I don't remember Bill Clinton being convicted of perjury. His case was exactly what you described. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" Pretty cut and dried. Shocker, though, he didn't go to jail. Another shocker, neither will Gonzales. It ain't the party. It's the power.
They've been in the past, under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and for two years under Clinton. While that position did not exactly improve their character, they've never went on such an orgy of spending, power grabbing, and favor granting we saw from 2001-2006.
They sure tried. Just because they weren't as successful doesn't mean that they are blameless and perfect. Clinton, in particular, just didn't think big enough. The largest tax and government spending increases in U.S. history were his attempts at "greatness". Just because those records didn't last through Bush's first term doesn't mean they weren't records at the time. Besides, those who believe politicians have all the power are those who believe exactly what they're supposed to. Ever notice how politicians come and go, but giant companies almost always seem to get what they want regardless of who's in office? I have. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, America, keep your eyes on the Great and Powerful Oz!
Why don't you evaluate the candidates instead of just spewing cynicism without even looking hard first?
Because the system is set up how it is set up. Third party candidates do not win. Why not? Because the bifactional ruling system has a stranglehold on the process. The only people who can make it to the status of Republican or Democratic candidate for President are people who have been thoroughly vetted by the leadership of both parties (not the leadership for EACH party, mind you). That's why. I refuse to vote for anyone who is approved by the current leaders of our country, and no one who is not so approved will ever stand a chance. There was a reason that political parties weren't enshrined in our Constitution, and it wasn't because the FF were ignorant of them.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. It seems pretty clear-cut to me. Obviously it isn't as clear-cut for you. I respect that, however further arguments will not change my opinion. Nor yours, I suspect. I enjoyed the discussion greatly, though. Also, I can't help myself: what grabs attention on a billboard and what grabs attention on a computer screen are not only different, they're practically opposite. So that argument is a non-starter for me.
(please don't correct me if that's an incorrect usage of "whom"; it's a stupid word)
Why is it any more stupid than the word 'him' or the word 'her'? Should we just convert to using 'he' and 'she' and 'who' exclusively? Also, no correction necessary. Just use 'whom' when you could rewrite the sentence using 'him' or 'her' and use 'who' when you can rewrite the sentence using 'he' or 'she'. It really isn't that hard.
Why on EARTH would I assume that adding a drop shadow to a font was 'easiest'? Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that a plain font would be easier than one with a drop shadow? Even if the drop shadow thing was easy, why choose the same particular scheme as another unpopular application?
When you make a new design, do you do it in a vacuum? Do you do it outside of any influence on what you've seen before? Or, do you pick a few things to improve and a few areas to focus on and pick the prevailing "defaults" for everything else?
Well, if I'm using a prevailing 'default', would that not be classified as 'copying'? I thought you said it wasn't necessarily copying. Now you're changing your argument to, "Well, it's copying, but wouldn't you do the same thing?" The answer, in this particular case, is a resounding NO.
Designers have to pick their battles when making any system.
I have no argument with that statement.
And again, if you don't particularly like it (I do, it fills my needs and stays out of my way), its not (by far) your only choice in a desktop environment on a Linux box.
Again, no argument there. Which makes sense, because that wasn't the issue in dispute. That issue was: did the GNOME designers copy the horrible drop-shadow default font from Windows? Until presented with evidence to the contrary, my answer will remain a "yes". My questions is the same whether the design was concurrent development or outright thievery: WHY?!
When you have two different projects to accomplish the same task (provide a GUI to a desktop computer) you are going to find some design decisions that are similar. Does this mean that A is trying to be B?
No. Does it mean that A is NOT trying to be B? No. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis. In the case of the terrible fonts, it seems relatively far-fetched to me that two different teams would both settle on such a poor scheme. Therefore, applying Occam's Razor tells me that it was a case of the rip-offs. Could I be wrong about that? Sure. Is it likely? No.
No sir, it does not. It raises that question. To beg it would be to present it as answered when it has not yet been asked. Please don't use phrases that you don't understand to make yourself look better. It can backfire.
False modesty serves one no better than false pride. Safety is the key issue in whether one is a good driver or not. One cannot be a safe driver without also being a good driver. Improvement can always be achieved; after all, no one is perfect.
What do you mean, a safe driver is not an excellent driver? That's rubbish. What other possible criteria is there? Now, if we're referring to stunt drivers, you might have a point. However, the point of driving is to move from location A to location B without causing an accident. If you're not driving by this precept you're not a good driver. Also, as noted above, I have been driving for 15+ years (which means that for over 15 years, I have been legally operating motor vehicles on public roads) with no moving violations and no at-fault accidents. I average 50k miles per year. Can you be a safe driver and still have moving violations? Of course. Can you be a bad driver with no moving violations? Of course. However, in the real world, given the same length of time driving and the same approximate number of miles per year, the person with no moving violations is more likely to be a good driver than the person with some. Probability, not certainty.
I actually am an excelllent driver. I say this as a 15+ year driver with no moving violations and no at-fault accidents (although I've been hit by others a few times). I actively work to learn better control of my car and to familiarize myself with seldom-used manoeuvres. I constantly strive to pay full attention to the road and to other cars, and I'd rather wait a few extra minutes than engage in dangerous driving behaviour. However, that doesn't mean that I'm perfect or that I'll never cause an accident. Most drivers posess adequate driving skill. It's attention to the road that the worst drivers lack. Most accidents are caused by driver inattention. You don't have to be as obsessive as I am to be a good driver. All you have to do is pay attention to what you're doing. If you're going to tailgate, speed, play Pole Position on the highway, at least pay attention to what you're doing and don't drive poorly while also talking on the phone, applying makeup, reading the newspaper, or whatever else it is you morons do on the roads.
It's nice that our tax dollars are being used for the right stuff."
Says you. Why the FUCK should my money go to help open source software become 'more secure', whatever that means? What are the measurable goals? Why is this part of Homeland Security? Why is the presumption that nothing gets done unless government funds it? My experience leads me to believe that the reality is that when government funding is involved, things get done more slowly and with less positive results. For example: How long has the 'War on Some Drugs' been fought? How much progress has been made? Ditto the 'War on Illiteracy' and the 'War on Poverty'. So why should the 'Violent Struggle against Some Religious Fanatics' be any different?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
One relevant piece: "By 1972 a large majority of a group of leading glacial-epoch experts at a conference agreed that 'the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near'"
Also, there was at least one book published that predicted global cooling, not just 'certain magazines'.
Did you read past the piece at all? Or did you simply believe it and fail to check any further?
Sorry. I just thought you were being dumb about it. If there's an excuse, it's that so many people on both sides of that particular debate ARE dumb about it. Apologies.
Just to be clear, here are my views: The Earth's climate can change and has done so many times. Humans put a lot of crap into the environment and we should reduce that for lots of reasons. Whether those two things are connected in either direction is rather a moot point in my opinion.
I think we're on the same page.
My favorite was "They predicted global cooling in the 1970s".
The first sentence in that 'myth' said "Well, they did, but..."
If it was a myth, how can it also be true? Isn't that sort of the opposite of a myth?
I am just waiting for the point when you'll HAVE to have a computer just to solve the fucking CAPTCHA crap. Is that a wavy black line set up to fool computers, or is it a wavy capital "I"? Nope, it's a lowercase "l". While I concede the benefits to service providers, I HATE those things.
And if pigs could fly...
We'd all watch the skies a lot more carefully.
My assertion is made in the context of the real world.
Really? Voter turnout has been trending UP over the last 20 years?
Given the choice between a lesser evil that increases over time and a greater evil that increases over time, which do you choose? Keep in mind that if you don't pick one, one will be selected for you.
Well, doesn't that kind of show the 'importance' of your vote? Pick one of two horrible options, or one of the two will be forced upon you. I decline to participate in such a cheap charade. So should everyone else.
I can see supporting the greater evil (directly or indirectly) if you're hoping for things to get bad enough to force a revolution -- but if that's your goal, be explicit about it! We're not getting out any other way.
Not with that attitude, mister. Rather than playing a rigged game with loaded dice under the house's terms, decline to participate. Voting for even the lesser evil is DIRECTLY condoning evil. The fact that so few people care about that is the reason we're in the situation we're in. Stand up for what YOU believe in, not what you think a majority of other people do. No matter the hype, you are never voting AGAINST someone if you are voting FOR someone else.
A process that is not reversible is termed irreversible. In an irreversible process, finite changes are made; therefore the system is not at equilibrium throughout the process.
OK. So...how does this conflict with the post I made? You're the one who said it was irreversible, not me.
Also, you can say no to something before you are doing it. Do you have to be doing drugs to say no to it?
Does my saying no to drugs impact their existence? Also, how would one have personal global warming? I mean, drug use is a personal choice. Whether global warming is human-caused or not, it certainly would impact everyone, no matter their individual actions. Drug use is not a good analogy. Global warming isn't a choice. It's a process that we can affect only minimally, if at all. It's a natural cycle. That doesn't excuse bad behaviour, but it also means that good behaviour may not have any noticable effect upon the eventual outcome. Good luck trying to stop global cycles. Remember, back in the '70s, it was supposed to be global COOLING that was the problem. If humans caused global warming, maybe it was in response to the fear-mongers of the '70s. Be careful that you don't cause a similar overreaction, causing our children to face global cooling again. Then, every 20 years or so, we'll have to start up another giant scare to frighten people into overreacting in the opposite direction, just to keep overall balance. That could get quite tiresome.
--
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
How? If a process is irreversible, then you can't say no to it once it's started. That's sort of the definition of irreversible. So, either we shouldn't say no to global warming, or it isn't irreversible. Either way, your sig is wrong. Not trying to make you mad, just pointing it out.
Your saying so doesn't make it true. Besides which, what one side did I paint? I mean, yes I believe that both Republicans and Democrats are truly just one entity at the highest levels. So perhaps that's the 'one side' I was presenting. Or did you miss my criticism of Bush and focus only on the part of my comment with which you disagree, and then assert that this was the only point which I made?
Remember that constitutionally, the President can't authorize spending. That must be done by the (then Republican) House.
Which is ultimately controlled by the same people who control the Presidency. Note how quickly the two supposedly disparate parties unite to freeze third-party candidates out of the process, or to further themselves (politicians) at the expense of we who voted them in.
If you are going to raise spending, then you ought to raise taxes as well, and since Clinton would have vetoed the spending, they had to hold their nose and raise taxes. Once Bush was in, then they were free to incrase spending while cutting taxes.
Bush raised taxes as well. That's why Clinton's record largest tax increase is no longer the record. Republicans and Democrats are the two seperate arms of one ugly beast. Seperate, but not independant.
Well, of course; I've read Washington's fairwell address too. That said, we are where we are; nonparticipation doesn't help anything.
Yes, I'm asking you to support the lesser of two evils when it'd be better if something non-evil were an option. That said, if we don't support the lesser evil, we may well get the greater one -- and that's no fun at all.
If no one voted, no one could be elected. That directly contradicts your assertion.
Also, as has been noted previously, the lesser of two evils IS STILL EVIL and should not be supported. Suppose we get the 'lesser evil'; how long do you believe that evil will be lesser? Evil does not tend in the direction of good. It tends in the direction of greater evil. Why not stop voting until the vote is useless as a cover for how things are really decided? Blindly following the existing, non-working, path to its logical conclusion is stupid, shortsighted, and the main reason we're in the situation we're in.
I think Richard Pryor said it best in Brewster's Millions, Vote "None of the Above".
But lying under oath is not legal, not even when what you are trying to cover up is.
I don't remember Bill Clinton being convicted of perjury. His case was exactly what you described.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"
Pretty cut and dried. Shocker, though, he didn't go to jail. Another shocker, neither will Gonzales.
It ain't the party. It's the power.
They've been in the past, under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and for two years under Clinton. While that position did not exactly improve their character, they've never went on such an orgy of spending, power grabbing, and favor granting we saw from 2001-2006.
They sure tried. Just because they weren't as successful doesn't mean that they are blameless and perfect. Clinton, in particular, just didn't think big enough. The largest tax and government spending increases in U.S. history were his attempts at "greatness". Just because those records didn't last through Bush's first term doesn't mean they weren't records at the time. Besides, those who believe politicians have all the power are those who believe exactly what they're supposed to. Ever notice how politicians come and go, but giant companies almost always seem to get what they want regardless of who's in office? I have. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, America, keep your eyes on the Great and Powerful Oz!
Why don't you evaluate the candidates instead of just spewing cynicism without even looking hard first?
Because the system is set up how it is set up. Third party candidates do not win. Why not? Because the bifactional ruling system has a stranglehold on the process. The only people who can make it to the status of Republican or Democratic candidate for President are people who have been thoroughly vetted by the leadership of both parties (not the leadership for EACH party, mind you). That's why. I refuse to vote for anyone who is approved by the current leaders of our country, and no one who is not so approved will ever stand a chance. There was a reason that political parties weren't enshrined in our Constitution, and it wasn't because the FF were ignorant of them.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. It seems pretty clear-cut to me. Obviously it isn't as clear-cut for you. I respect that, however further arguments will not change my opinion. Nor yours, I suspect. I enjoyed the discussion greatly, though. Also, I can't help myself: what grabs attention on a billboard and what grabs attention on a computer screen are not only different, they're practically opposite. So that argument is a non-starter for me.
Oh...and the people who use 'myself' when they mean 'me'. That bugs myself to no end.
(please don't correct me if that's an incorrect usage of "whom"; it's a stupid word)
Why is it any more stupid than the word 'him' or the word 'her'? Should we just convert to using 'he' and 'she' and 'who' exclusively? Also, no correction necessary. Just use 'whom' when you could rewrite the sentence using 'him' or 'her' and use 'who' when you can rewrite the sentence using 'he' or 'she'. It really isn't that hard.
Assuming they didn't just do what was easiest.
Why on EARTH would I assume that adding a drop shadow to a font was 'easiest'? Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that a plain font would be easier than one with a drop shadow? Even if the drop shadow thing was easy, why choose the same particular scheme as another unpopular application?
When you make a new design, do you do it in a vacuum? Do you do it outside of any influence on what you've seen before? Or, do you pick a few things to improve and a few areas to focus on and pick the prevailing "defaults" for everything else?
Well, if I'm using a prevailing 'default', would that not be classified as 'copying'? I thought you said it wasn't necessarily copying. Now you're changing your argument to, "Well, it's copying, but wouldn't you do the same thing?" The answer, in this particular case, is a resounding NO.
Designers have to pick their battles when making any system.
I have no argument with that statement.
And again, if you don't particularly like it (I do, it fills my needs and stays out of my way), its not (by far) your only choice in a desktop environment on a Linux box.
Again, no argument there. Which makes sense, because that wasn't the issue in dispute. That issue was: did the GNOME designers copy the horrible drop-shadow default font from Windows? Until presented with evidence to the contrary, my answer will remain a "yes". My questions is the same whether the design was concurrent development or outright thievery: WHY?!
When you have two different projects to accomplish the same task (provide a GUI to a desktop computer) you are going to find some design decisions that are similar. Does this mean that A is trying to be B?
No. Does it mean that A is NOT trying to be B? No. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis. In the case of the terrible fonts, it seems relatively far-fetched to me that two different teams would both settle on such a poor scheme. Therefore, applying Occam's Razor tells me that it was a case of the rip-offs. Could I be wrong about that? Sure. Is it likely? No.
Yeah. Who could ever forget the Wookiees in Buck Rogers and the Force in Flash Gordon? Good times, good times.
No sir, it does not. It raises that question. To beg it would be to present it as answered when it has not yet been asked. Please don't use phrases that you don't understand to make yourself look better. It can backfire.
False modesty serves one no better than false pride. Safety is the key issue in whether one is a good driver or not. One cannot be a safe driver without also being a good driver. Improvement can always be achieved; after all, no one is perfect.
I thought it was obvious. I quoted the relevant portion. Perhaps you just missed it?
What do you mean, a safe driver is not an excellent driver? That's rubbish. What other possible criteria is there? Now, if we're referring to stunt drivers, you might have a point. However, the point of driving is to move from location A to location B without causing an accident. If you're not driving by this precept you're not a good driver. Also, as noted above, I have been driving for 15+ years (which means that for over 15 years, I have been legally operating motor vehicles on public roads) with no moving violations and no at-fault accidents. I average 50k miles per year. Can you be a safe driver and still have moving violations? Of course. Can you be a bad driver with no moving violations? Of course. However, in the real world, given the same length of time driving and the same approximate number of miles per year, the person with no moving violations is more likely to be a good driver than the person with some. Probability, not certainty.
I actually am an excelllent driver. I say this as a 15+ year driver with no moving violations and no at-fault accidents (although I've been hit by others a few times). I actively work to learn better control of my car and to familiarize myself with seldom-used manoeuvres. I constantly strive to pay full attention to the road and to other cars, and I'd rather wait a few extra minutes than engage in dangerous driving behaviour. However, that doesn't mean that I'm perfect or that I'll never cause an accident. Most drivers posess adequate driving skill. It's attention to the road that the worst drivers lack. Most accidents are caused by driver inattention. You don't have to be as obsessive as I am to be a good driver. All you have to do is pay attention to what you're doing. If you're going to tailgate, speed, play Pole Position on the highway, at least pay attention to what you're doing and don't drive poorly while also talking on the phone, applying makeup, reading the newspaper, or whatever else it is you morons do on the roads.
It's nice that our tax dollars are being used for the right stuff."
Says you. Why the FUCK should my money go to help open source software become 'more secure', whatever that means? What are the measurable goals? Why is this part of Homeland Security? Why is the presumption that nothing gets done unless government funds it? My experience leads me to believe that the reality is that when government funding is involved, things get done more slowly and with less positive results. For example: How long has the 'War on Some Drugs' been fought? How much progress has been made? Ditto the 'War on Illiteracy' and the 'War on Poverty'. So why should the 'Violent Struggle against Some Religious Fanatics' be any different?