Ok, I get it. you're one of those people who refuses to discuss things rationally. Fine.
Nothin you've said refutes me. making statements like "His support for the hate-based constitutional amendment."God hates fags" is the only possible argument for that." is an example. There are numerous other reasons, but you seem to deny that they even EXIST.
How can someone discuss things rationallly with you when you fail to even admit there is a counter viewpoint?
"No, this is solely a Republican issue."
Then why did so many Democrats support the ban? WELL? Oh, wait, you're uninformed and lying.
"Spouting more misinformed nonsense isn't a refutation."
Then why are you doing it? You're yet another example of a pseudo-intellectual, who discounts FACTS because he disagrees with them.
GO FIND A LIST OF DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORT A BAN ON GAY-MARRIAGE. Do some research (look the word up, since you obviously don;t know what it means).
I have always found it hilarious that individuals such as yourself, find so much pleasure in calling others "uninformed" then make such an obvious and glaring mistake.
You've been lied to, and you're too stubborn and too ignorant to know it.
"Give me one example where two EU countries went to war (or let others wage war to another EU country) in the last 25 years."
First of all, 25 years is an eyeblink. If you think that LESS THAN ONE GENERATION of peace is something to crow about, well bully for you.
Second, why does it have to be 2 countries from the EU warring against each other? What does it matter WHO an EU country makes war against? Probably because you're smart enough to realize that this war
http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.ht m
belies your point. EU countries STILL go to war. I'm not sure the who really matters.
"Not in the biological sense of 'instinct'."
YES in the biological instinct. When attacked you have two options, fight or don't. The "don't" part can mean any number of things from negotiation to submission, but fighting an attacker IS instinctual. Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about here.
"The nature of man's social interaction is not, or at least not only, defined by 'instinctive' forms of aggression, and thus, we have a choice between more then one attitude that we use in social interactions."
You're trying at a straw man. I never claimed "The nature of man's social interaction is not, or at least not only, defined by 'instinctive' forms of aggression" nor did I imply it. Stop making up points to rail against. Even better, you made my point for me. The very same "choice between more then one attitude that we use in social interactions" allows, hell it GUARANTEES that there will be people that CHOOSE to make war, for any number of reasons.
"One can call that 'peacenik-talk', but one can not deny we have continiously progressed towards a less violent society."
Agreed however, you seem to have this ill founded belief that war is about violence. Violence is a TOOL used in war. Equating the two is being intelectually dishonest.
Here is my final point, which will refute you and all that follow with your view point.
As long as people who seek to dominate others are allowed to exist, war is a possibility. Nothing you say can refute that. Evil has and will ALWAYS exist, and if you disagree, you have an incomplete, or purposely distorted understanding of humanity.
War is instinctual. It is tremendously easy to say "let's not go to war anymore" but all it takes it one jerk peeing in the punchbowl, and suddenly you have a fight on your hands.
You can try to claim Europe has changed it's stance on war, but all it takes it the right combination of circumstances and they'll be at it again. They've been able to adjust their thinking because, quite frankly, they've had others to fight their wars for them if necessary.
I'm so tired of this peacenik garbage. People war because ultimately, at some point, there will be a person whose desire for control exceeds their desire for peaceful interaction. If that person controls a country, then war. And all the philosophical nonsense gets tossed when you get punched in the nose.
War sucks. We ALL agree, even those who make war for a living. But the nature of man's social interaction makes war an unfortunate reality, that all the pie-in-the-sky-thinking can't refute.
"A good vote-rigger would only swing the votes a few percentage points. Not enough that the 'actual' votes are extremely different from the 'expected' votes. So, you don't win every race and district. You just have to win enough..."
To win the entire state, because the ELECTORAL COLLEGE casts votes. 3 percentage points don't mean squat if the other guy still wins.
So your conspiracy theory is not only wrong, but betrays a total misunderstanding of how the electoral process works.
People like YOU are what's wrong with this country.
PS You'll notice I didn't give my party affiliation. I don't have one, and didn't vote for Bush. Spare me the partisan attacks please.
"The $2 Billion USD it would have taken to fix the levee system there was diverted to the Iraqi war."
Why is a local project like levies the responsibility of the FEDERAL government? You're acting like this hasn't been the position of the Republicans for decades. Local government takes care of local projects.
"The National Guard troops (and their equipment) were in Iraq instead of being available to aid the people of Louisiana and Mississippi in theri time of need."
Lie. Do one erg of research, and you'll realize there were ample troops and supplies to deal with the emergency. The failure was in organizing them. THAT failure has little to nothing to do with the war (which I ALSO believe is a waste of resources and good men).
If you have any intention of EVER converting someone like me (who is entrenched firmly in the middle, and didn't vote for Bush) you need to stop lying.
"They both rant long and hard about how god hates fags."
Find one reference to Bush doing this.
When GP stated that Democrats will use racial/sexual issues to gain power, this is exactly what he meant.
Do their views intersect somewhat on this matter? Sure. But acting as though they are in lockstep with each other is 1. A lie ans 2. intellectually dishonest.
You're using inflammatory rhetoric to overstate the truth of the situation, because the truth of the situation isn't what you want people to believe.
THAT is the current platform of the Democratic party.
And I voted third party, so save that "Bush lover" crap you guys keep in deck when someone disagrees with you. It doesn't describe me, and it's ALSO intellectually dishonest.
"An enormous number of people just couldn't vote at all because they didn't have the option of waiting that long"
Absentee ballot.
If they're too damned lazy or complacent to plan ahead, then they have to wait in line.
If I have one major quibble with NASA, it's not blowing up astronauts, but losing Hubble.
It seems like the Hubble puts out new stuff all the time, and some if it is absolutely amazing.
I think they got their priorities wrong with that decision.
Not really. I didn't make any statements that you can disagree with, and I didn't draw any conclusions about Earth's climate based on what happened on Mars.
I simply drew attention to the fact that climatologists have continuously revised their models based on new evidence. No one could reasonably disagree.
My question is why are you being so rude when all I did was state fact, which no climatologis or scientist could find much fault.
WHAT EXACTLY did I say that makes me an idiot? Or are you just namecalling because you're embarassed about messing up?
Except in this case "allow" speaks to rules, not the universe.
If anything, I would be anthropormorphizing rules. I didn't, I'm a better writer than that.
By the way, enable ALSO has an anthropomorphic implication, so if you're going to suggest alternatives, suggest one that's not worse than what you're replacing.
I don't. I've seen literally dozens of stories that are only peripherally associated with MS, only to also see dozens of slashbots decide that's the right time to complain about them.
I GUARANTEE that if you changed this headline to Internet Explorer, and left ALL of the other facts the same, you'd easily have 500 posts slamming MS.
And you know I'm right, which is the worst part.
This place continually tries to throw MS under the bus, and avoids looking at genuine problems in open source software. I have no problem with bringing that hypocrisy to light when it occurs, if only because I hate intellectual dishonesty.
Listne, you clearly don't understand the difference between free speech issues
"www.mozillaeatsass.com"
And trademarking issues. There are numerous legal cases that are far too complicated for someone of your limited intellect to understand.
The point is that if you call yourslf by a name, and are in an industry that is associated with the holder of that name, you are affiliated. yes I know, logic is difficult for you, but that's how it is.
"Looks like I was right!"
Maybe, but you're incorrect. No legal argument anywhere agrees with you, and you know I'M correct, because you can't find any.
"in no way affiliated with www.moron.com"
I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, I'm sure your long history of personal use will protect you against any trademark disputes.
"There are numerous legal cases to use as reference if you'd like some insight."
Ok, Matlock. Let's have em. At which point I'll describe why you are wrong on each point in excruciating detail. At which point you'll again try to claim a name isn't a link, which is a ridiculous claim not supported by ANY law at all.
The only thing you've done is state "Nuh uh" over and over in lengthy but elementary level prose, and insist that you are correct against any legal precedent or use of common sense.
And you're calling other people morons. Look up hypocrisy, then come back and apologize to your better.
"An affiliation is a link between two groups. Mozilla has no ties with this group, therefore there is no affiliation."
Ok, I'll say it S-L-O-W-L-Y. They USE THE NAME. Therefore, there is a link between them. Your own post admits an affiliation is a link, so you have proven me correct.
"I would like you to provide proof that there is a trademark on the name Mozilla in Korea."
Not required to be enforceable. But you didn't know that did you, because the sum total of your argument is nonsense.
Seriously two organizations that share in part the name "Mozilla" not being affiliated? You honestly thought you could get that past anyone?
"You sir, are a true moron."
This is the best you have? You get shown to be factually wrong, you are shown to be logically incorrect, and now you resort to namecalling?
Do some research before you throw around epithets, especially when you're so obviously ignorant of the facts.
"In a single stroke, you make climatologists look like idiots"
They do an excellent job of that on their own.
"Do you really expect readers to be naive enough to believe that Martian or terrestrial climatologists have not incorporated solar output into their models?"
Well, we know they don't incorporate the CO2 given off by the earth, or at least they didn't until very recently. Not because they didn't want to, but because they couldn't. Who's to say that the calculations these climatologists have made aren't similarly flawed?
"Solar output is taken into account both for climate models on Mars and on earth, and it fails to account for global warming on earth"
In some models. Which are probably flawed, because of insufficient measuring equipment and understanding of how the processes work together.
I think you need to take a serious look at why you're swallowing one side's lines, and treating other people like idiots if they don't. The scientists you listen to have agendas as well, and they're not all out to save the planet.
"One could argue that Mozilla Foundation should be in the business of stomping out these "fan" sites which distibute officially looking binaries, and it might come to that"
I would argue exactly that.
"But it will still not solve this "problem" since it will be next to impossible..."
Depends on what you consider the "problem" to be. If it's modified code, then yes of course you're correct. But if the "problem" is modified code that in some way affiliates itself with Mozilla (even in name only) then you are completely wrong, wrongitty wrong wrong wrong. The ONLY problem in this situation is the negative publicity inflicted on the Mozilla name.
Which is exactly what trademarking protects against.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I get it. you're one of those people who refuses to discuss things rationally. Fine.
Nothin you've said refutes me. making statements like "His support for the hate-based constitutional amendment."God hates fags" is the only possible argument for that." is an example. There are numerous other reasons, but you seem to deny that they even EXIST.
How can someone discuss things rationallly with you when you fail to even admit there is a counter viewpoint?
"No, this is solely a Republican issue."
Then why did so many Democrats support the ban? WELL? Oh, wait, you're uninformed and lying.
"Spouting more misinformed nonsense isn't a refutation."
Then why are you doing it? You're yet another example of a pseudo-intellectual, who discounts FACTS because he disagrees with them.
GO FIND A LIST OF DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORT A BAN ON GAY-MARRIAGE. Do some research (look the word up, since you obviously don;t know what it means).
I have always found it hilarious that individuals such as yourself, find so much pleasure in calling others "uninformed" then make such an obvious and glaring mistake.
You've been lied to, and you're too stubborn and too ignorant to know it.
"You must yearn for the day when women were being executed in soccer stadiums in Afghanistan, don't you?"
So, witless one liners is how you respond to a reasoned post about war. You're a real winner ther, aren't you.
I'm pretty sure I said war sucks. I'm pretty sure I meant it.
So apart from a pathetic attempt to slam someone you disagree with, what was the point of your post?
All you did was demonstrate what I was talking about. Given the opportunity and circumstances, people will choose to become confrontational.
Thank you for proving my point.
"Give me one example where two EU countries went to war (or let others wage war to another EU country) in the last 25 years." First of all, 25 years is an eyeblink. If you think that LESS THAN ONE GENERATION of peace is something to crow about, well bully for you. Second, why does it have to be 2 countries from the EU warring against each other? What does it matter WHO an EU country makes war against? Probably because you're smart enough to realize that this war http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.ht m
belies your point. EU countries STILL go to war. I'm not sure the who really matters.
"Not in the biological sense of 'instinct'."
YES in the biological instinct. When attacked you have two options, fight or don't. The "don't" part can mean any number of things from negotiation to submission, but fighting an attacker IS instinctual. Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about here.
"The nature of man's social interaction is not, or at least not only, defined by 'instinctive' forms of aggression, and thus, we have a choice between more then one attitude that we use in social interactions."
You're trying at a straw man. I never claimed "The nature of man's social interaction is not, or at least not only, defined by 'instinctive' forms of aggression" nor did I imply it. Stop making up points to rail against. Even better, you made my point for me. The very same "choice between more then one attitude that we use in social interactions" allows, hell it GUARANTEES that there will be people that CHOOSE to make war, for any number of reasons.
"One can call that 'peacenik-talk', but one can not deny we have continiously progressed towards a less violent society."
Agreed however, you seem to have this ill founded belief that war is about violence. Violence is a TOOL used in war. Equating the two is being intelectually dishonest.
Here is my final point, which will refute you and all that follow with your view point.
As long as people who seek to dominate others are allowed to exist, war is a possibility. Nothing you say can refute that. Evil has and will ALWAYS exist, and if you disagree, you have an incomplete, or purposely distorted understanding of humanity.
How does this crap get modded insightful.
War is instinctual. It is tremendously easy to say "let's not go to war anymore" but all it takes it one jerk peeing in the punchbowl, and suddenly you have a fight on your hands.
You can try to claim Europe has changed it's stance on war, but all it takes it the right combination of circumstances and they'll be at it again. They've been able to adjust their thinking because, quite frankly, they've had others to fight their wars for them if necessary.
I'm so tired of this peacenik garbage. People war because ultimately, at some point, there will be a person whose desire for control exceeds their desire for peaceful interaction. If that person controls a country, then war. And all the philosophical nonsense gets tossed when you get punched in the nose.
War sucks. We ALL agree, even those who make war for a living. But the nature of man's social interaction makes war an unfortunate reality, that all the pie-in-the-sky-thinking can't refute.
"Here's a hint: why is the US the only industrialized nation without universal health care?"
Because we see how poorly it works in other countries, and as such, reject it and the exorbitant cost associated with it?
Because we understand that EVERY time the government starts a program, the inevitable follow on is corruption and inefficiency?
Because WE LIKE CHOICE, and want the option of deciding for ourselve what our health care should encompass.
Because we don't trust the government to protect our best interests.
Choose any of the above for a more accurate representation of the feeling in the US about "socialized medicine".
You're an imbecile. IF YOU READ THE POST YOU'RE RESPONDING TO, you'll realize they DO provide an ID for voting purposes, for ... wait for it...
Free
As well, this is NOT a poll tax, because the fee is for an ID, which has uses outside of voting. You know, for like, driving and stuff.
Stop repeating the lies you're too stupid to invalidate by doing research. And PLEASE don't vote. Pretty please.
"A good vote-rigger would only swing the votes a few percentage points. Not enough that the 'actual' votes are extremely different from the 'expected' votes. So, you don't win every race and district. You just have to win enough..."
To win the entire state, because the ELECTORAL COLLEGE casts votes. 3 percentage points don't mean squat if the other guy still wins.
So your conspiracy theory is not only wrong, but betrays a total misunderstanding of how the electoral process works.
People like YOU are what's wrong with this country.
PS You'll notice I didn't give my party affiliation. I don't have one, and didn't vote for Bush. Spare me the partisan attacks please.
"The $2 Billion USD it would have taken to fix the levee system there was diverted to the Iraqi war."
Why is a local project like levies the responsibility of the FEDERAL government? You're acting like this hasn't been the position of the Republicans for decades. Local government takes care of local projects.
"The National Guard troops (and their equipment) were in Iraq instead of being available to aid the people of Louisiana and Mississippi in theri time of need."
Lie. Do one erg of research, and you'll realize there were ample troops and supplies to deal with the emergency. The failure was in organizing them. THAT failure has little to nothing to do with the war (which I ALSO believe is a waste of resources and good men).
If you have any intention of EVER converting someone like me (who is entrenched firmly in the middle, and didn't vote for Bush) you need to stop lying.
"They both rant long and hard about how god hates fags."
Find one reference to Bush doing this.
When GP stated that Democrats will use racial/sexual issues to gain power, this is exactly what he meant.
Do their views intersect somewhat on this matter? Sure. But acting as though they are in lockstep with each other is 1. A lie ans 2. intellectually dishonest.
You're using inflammatory rhetoric to overstate the truth of the situation, because the truth of the situation isn't what you want people to believe.
THAT is the current platform of the Democratic party.
And I voted third party, so save that "Bush lover" crap you guys keep in deck when someone disagrees with you. It doesn't describe me, and it's ALSO intellectually dishonest.
"An enormous number of people just couldn't vote at all because they didn't have the option of waiting that long" Absentee ballot. If they're too damned lazy or complacent to plan ahead, then they have to wait in line.
If I have one major quibble with NASA, it's not blowing up astronauts, but losing Hubble. It seems like the Hubble puts out new stuff all the time, and some if it is absolutely amazing. I think they got their priorities wrong with that decision.
"Now, is that better?"
Not really. I didn't make any statements that you can disagree with, and I didn't draw any conclusions about Earth's climate based on what happened on Mars.
I simply drew attention to the fact that climatologists have continuously revised their models based on new evidence. No one could reasonably disagree.
My question is why are you being so rude when all I did was state fact, which no climatologis or scientist could find much fault.
WHAT EXACTLY did I say that makes me an idiot? Or are you just namecalling because you're embarassed about messing up?
I love it.
No "you know what, you're right you CAN't prove a negative"
No "I apologize, you have a valid point"
Just a pathetic attempt to salvage some shred of dignity after making a classic beginners mistake.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Oh, one last thing. MY post had a valid point about anthropomorphizing a star. Your post was just a lame, incorrect attempt at a slam.
So, it's not even the pot calling the kettle black.
I think it's hilarious that you managed to screw up TWICE in the same thread.
Except in this case "allow" speaks to rules, not the universe.
If anything, I would be anthropormorphizing rules. I didn't, I'm a better writer than that.
By the way, enable ALSO has an anthropomorphic implication, so if you're going to suggest alternatives, suggest one that's not worse than what you're replacing.
Thanks
"Your statement was idiotic"
Which statement would that be exactly? Because it wasn't MY statement you were responding to.
OOPS! You didn't bother to notice that you were conversing with TWO DIFFERENT people.
Now, let's see if you're willing to own up to your mistake, of if you'll go on calling me an idiot.
Seriously, if you're going to call names, make sure you call then right person names. I just came in to this conversation.
You want to call Shivetya (243324) an idiot.
You owe me an apology, man up and do it.
"How is trolling insightful?"
It's not, that's why YOU got modded down.
BURN!
How exactly could I prove stars are NOT intelligent? You do realize you can't prove a negative.
In your rush to appear smart, you made a classic mistake. Next time think it through a bit more.
"And you know for a fact that stars are not intelligent and self aware?"
No, because you can't prove a negative.
PS It's one of my pet peeves when people try to look smart, but instead actually just look like contrarian assholes.
Oh wait, no it's not, it's just funny.
It's a good thing I didn't do that then.
"No... Stars form however they damn well please"
No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.
P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize inanimate objects.
"Somehow, I kinda doubt we'll see that..."
I don't. I've seen literally dozens of stories that are only peripherally associated with MS, only to also see dozens of slashbots decide that's the right time to complain about them.
I GUARANTEE that if you changed this headline to Internet Explorer, and left ALL of the other facts the same, you'd easily have 500 posts slamming MS.
And you know I'm right, which is the worst part.
This place continually tries to throw MS under the bus, and avoids looking at genuine problems in open source software. I have no problem with bringing that hypocrisy to light when it occurs, if only because I hate intellectual dishonesty.
Listne, you clearly don't understand the difference between free speech issues
"www.mozillaeatsass.com"
And trademarking issues. There are numerous legal cases that are far too complicated for someone of your limited intellect to understand.
The point is that if you call yourslf by a name, and are in an industry that is associated with the holder of that name, you are affiliated. yes I know, logic is difficult for you, but that's how it is.
"Looks like I was right!"
Maybe, but you're incorrect. No legal argument anywhere agrees with you, and you know I'M correct, because you can't find any.
"in no way affiliated with www.moron.com"
I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, I'm sure your long history of personal use will protect you against any trademark disputes.
"There are numerous legal cases to use as reference if you'd like some insight."
Ok, Matlock. Let's have em. At which point I'll describe why you are wrong on each point in excruciating detail. At which point you'll again try to claim a name isn't a link, which is a ridiculous claim not supported by ANY law at all.
The only thing you've done is state "Nuh uh" over and over in lengthy but elementary level prose, and insist that you are correct against any legal precedent or use of common sense.
And you're calling other people morons. Look up hypocrisy, then come back and apologize to your better.
"An affiliation is a link between two groups. Mozilla has no ties with this group, therefore there is no affiliation."
Ok, I'll say it S-L-O-W-L-Y. They USE THE NAME. Therefore, there is a link between them. Your own post admits an affiliation is a link, so you have proven me correct.
"I would like you to provide proof that there is a trademark on the name Mozilla in Korea."
Not required to be enforceable. But you didn't know that did you, because the sum total of your argument is nonsense.
Seriously two organizations that share in part the name "Mozilla" not being affiliated? You honestly thought you could get that past anyone?
"You sir, are a true moron."
This is the best you have? You get shown to be factually wrong, you are shown to be logically incorrect, and now you resort to namecalling?
Do some research before you throw around epithets, especially when you're so obviously ignorant of the facts.
"In a single stroke, you make climatologists look like idiots"
They do an excellent job of that on their own.
"Do you really expect readers to be naive enough to believe that Martian or terrestrial climatologists have not incorporated solar output into their models?"
Well, we know they don't incorporate the CO2 given off by the earth, or at least they didn't until very recently. Not because they didn't want to, but because they couldn't. Who's to say that the calculations these climatologists have made aren't similarly flawed?
"Solar output is taken into account both for climate models on Mars and on earth, and it fails to account for global warming on earth"
In some models. Which are probably flawed, because of insufficient measuring equipment and understanding of how the processes work together.
I think you need to take a serious look at why you're swallowing one side's lines, and treating other people like idiots if they don't. The scientists you listen to have agendas as well, and they're not all out to save the planet.
"One could argue that Mozilla Foundation should be in the business of stomping out these "fan" sites which distibute officially looking binaries, and it might come to that"
I would argue exactly that.
"But it will still not solve this "problem" since it will be next to impossible..."
Depends on what you consider the "problem" to be. If it's modified code, then yes of course you're correct. But if the "problem" is modified code that in some way affiliates itself with Mozilla (even in name only) then you are completely wrong, wrongitty wrong wrong wrong. The ONLY problem in this situation is the negative publicity inflicted on the Mozilla name.
Which is exactly what trademarking protects against.