"There's not much wrong with it unless the label is used to hurt the person labeled"
It offends me. Why is it ok to offend me, but not blacks or hispanics, or gays or women or asians or disabled people etc.
"Redneck" is not one of those words."
YOU don't get to decide that. I find it offensive, and even moreso because morons like you have decided it doesn;t offend me. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT OFFENDS ME?
Worse, you continue to justify racism because you don't think it's that bad.
"Walk over to a Windows machine that you don't own or control. An average users' machine. Tell me what software they have installed"
All of which, amazingly, is installed for free in OEM form. Not $500 for a word processor and spreadsheet like you claimed.
Listen, you're changing your argument every time someone responds, because they refute you. Your point was that you have to buy software to make Windows useful, not that the user base has commercial software installed more than OSS.
So unless you plan to address the real issue, which was that you made a false statment and tried to pawn it off as fact, then I'll just assume you expected to get away with it without getting called on it.
"If you really can't see the difference, then think about it for a while."
Do you honestly think I haven't thought about it, for a hell of a lot longer than a while? Of course I have.
"Personally, I am a redneck. And no, I don't give a shit if somebody calls me one."
Personally, I don't care. I have a problem with it, and since I am also a "redneck" I'd like to know why it's ok to be racist against me. Well? You do realize that's what you did, endorse racism?
Just so I'm clear, it's ok to be racist, as long as the person you're racist against has things you don't, or has been on top of the social structure for a while.
So, if I go to Africa, can I start throwing around slurs? What about Saudi Arabia? Japan?
I think YOU need to think about it a while. You have what could be the dumbest view on this subject I've ever heard (but you're not the only with with this dumb idea, so don't feel bad)
It's either ok or it's not. It's not. Case closed, subject over, period, fin.
"Yeah, I'm sure New Orleans, as both a city and a port will do just fine if we don't allow any residences to be built there. None of those businesses need workers, we'll just replace them all with robots. That should work well."
So why exactly do they need to live below sea level? There aren't any places to build that are more well suited? Of course there are.
"Refusing to help people that just want to go home is being cold"
They don't "just want to go home" they want to use other's resources to make an extremely poor choice, namely rebuilding in an area that is not suitable. You call it cold, I call it pragmatic. You won't change my mind.
People have a right to live where they want. They DO NOT have a right to leech off of the government in order to live where they want.
"New Orleans is a large city. You could easily walk 5 miles and still be in... New Orleans. You could walk 20 miles and be in the suburbs of New Orleans. Either way, you'd be screwed since you'd be out in the open with a hurricane on the way!"
Except there was morethan ample warning, allowing for nearly THREE DAYS of time to evacuate. Don't act like this storm came as a surprise.
"That also doesn't address the elderly, sick, and families with children. Heaven knows they aren't walking anywhere in the 90-100 degree heat."
Except we're discussing the poor, not the elderly or invalid. Stop constructing fake arguments and address the point.
Those people who really tried to get out before the storm did so easily. Those who stayed are looking for someone to blame other than themselves, but there isn't anyone. They had plenty of warning, they just chose to ignore it.
"Our Constitution uses the term people to mean every human, everywhere."
And apart from your opinion, what case law can you cite that proves this?
The Constitution is and always has been open to interpretation. That you fail to recognize that makes it clear you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
And yet, amazingly you're the only one that engaged in namecalling...
You are arguing points I never made. I never suggested not using models, and I don't know why you think arguing BS made up scenarios adds credence to the idea that there are UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES to poorly planned actions. If you were able to engage in reasonable discourse, you'd understand that.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, nor obviously, what I was writing about. Instead you're taking a position against something I never suggested, which was doing away with models.
So, in addition to a stats class, I would suggest an english class to assist you with your reading comprehension, then a rhetoric class so you'll know what a "straw man" and "appealing to the masses" are.
"No, I am saying that if we want to reduce CO2 output, a hell of a lot of it can be reduced by curtailing our output, not so much by worrying about the soil."
No you weren't, you said this
" Soil released 8% that is really not all that much"
Only one thing could be inferred from that, so stop backtracking and admit you threw out an BS opinion.
God, why is it so hard for you people to admit it when you get caught making shit up?
Ok, it's interesting that you chose to bring up logic, then engaged in a classic logical fallacy.
The models used for weather prediction are different than the models used for climate prediction. There are DEGREES of accuracy (understand, or should I go slower?). Are you unable to tell the difference? A stats class would help.
"Are our models for world climate flawed and imperfect? Certainly. Are their predictions unambigious and all in perfect agreement? Of course not. But do the vast majority of them indicate warming is going on? Blah blah blah..."
I've got one for you. Do we know that decreasing carbon emissions will have a POSITIVE impact on our climate? No, we don't. It might cause an ice age. It might do nothing. It MIGHT mean the extinction of the human race.
So basing our actions on models that are known to be inaccurate, especially on a global scale is dumb. It's bad science, which, based on your post, is something you seem to have an affinity for.
"I suggest you talk to some people who are barely at the edge of survival now, like about 1/4 of the Earth's population."
So, which should I prioritize then, said people's survival, or the long term prosperity of the human race? WELL?
While you seem to have the feel good touchy touchy crap down, the science and pragamtism of the situation escapes you.
I suggest you try to develop a more sophisticated view and stop relying on your emotions to make decisions. You'll be able to avoid taking such ridiculous positions in the future.
When the discussion began about modeling the earth's atmosphere, I politley suggested that using models to decide policy was a bad idea. Particularly because of unknowns such as this one.
What I would like to know is where are all the people who were accusing me of being a toady for Bush?
Why won't you people admit that flawed inputs means flawed models and as a result the predictions are likely inaccurate.
Stop trying to change the world until you know how and what should be changed. And yes, that may mean it gets much worse before it gets better.
Slashdot Mirror
"There's not much wrong with it unless the label is used to hurt the person labeled"
It offends me. Why is it ok to offend me, but not blacks or hispanics, or gays or women or asians or disabled people etc.
"Redneck" is not one of those words."
YOU don't get to decide that. I find it offensive, and even moreso because morons like you have decided it doesn;t offend me. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT OFFENDS ME?
Worse, you continue to justify racism because you don't think it's that bad.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
"Walk over to a Windows machine that you don't own or control. An average users' machine. Tell me what software they have installed"
All of which, amazingly, is installed for free in OEM form. Not $500 for a word processor and spreadsheet like you claimed.
Listen, you're changing your argument every time someone responds, because they refute you. Your point was that you have to buy software to make Windows useful, not that the user base has commercial software installed more than OSS.
So unless you plan to address the real issue, which was that you made a false statment and tried to pawn it off as fact, then I'll just assume you expected to get away with it without getting called on it.
Thanks.
"If you really can't see the difference, then think about it for a while."
Do you honestly think I haven't thought about it, for a hell of a lot longer than a while? Of course I have.
"Personally, I am a redneck. And no, I don't give a shit if somebody calls me one."
Personally, I don't care. I have a problem with it, and since I am also a "redneck" I'd like to know why it's ok to be racist against me. Well? You do realize that's what you did, endorse racism?
Just so I'm clear, it's ok to be racist, as long as the person you're racist against has things you don't, or has been on top of the social structure for a while.
So, if I go to Africa, can I start throwing around slurs? What about Saudi Arabia? Japan?
I think YOU need to think about it a while. You have what could be the dumbest view on this subject I've ever heard (but you're not the only with with this dumb idea, so don't feel bad)
It's either ok or it's not. It's not. Case closed, subject over, period, fin.
I agree about the AM thing.
The only radio I listen to these days is AM, because of its non-music content.
Why anyone would want FM with the crap playlists that get repeated every 30 minutes is beyond me.
"It is too small"
What kind of complaint is this?
"I can't believe how small this thing that's supposed to be small is. Can you believe they actually made this small thing so small?"
Next you'll be comlpaining about Ferraris
"I can't believe how fast this thing is. Why would they want to make a car that's supposed to be fast this fast? Stupid Ferrari..."
I noticed somthing interesting (and disturbing) during the Fourth of July holiday this year.
A friend purchased some fireworks which were called "Redneck Rockets". Not too bad, I didn't get fired up, until I put a little more thought into it.
You'd never be able to call them "Nigger Rockets" so why is it ok to call them "Redneck Rockets"?
The answer is it's not, yet it's done anyway.
Makes no sense to me.
You didn't address his point though, which was that you were making shit up.
You DON'T have to use $500 worth of proprietary stuff, yet that is exactly what you claimed.
So address the point.
"Yeah, I'm sure New Orleans, as both a city and a port will do just fine if we don't allow any residences to be built there. None of those businesses need workers, we'll just replace them all with robots. That should work well."
So why exactly do they need to live below sea level? There aren't any places to build that are more well suited? Of course there are.
"Refusing to help people that just want to go home is being cold"
They don't "just want to go home" they want to use other's resources to make an extremely poor choice, namely rebuilding in an area that is not suitable. You call it cold, I call it pragmatic. You won't change my mind.
People have a right to live where they want. They DO NOT have a right to leech off of the government in order to live where they want.
"May God bless you all!"
Isn't god the one that made the hurricane? Seems like god has other ideas for those people.
"...and who are you to compare ??"
A consumer and frequent user of both.
"...when have you latest installed a Linux ??"
Two weeks ago, and again a month before that. Overall, six or seven times in the last year or so.
"...when have you latest made a full Windows installation (full = non-OEM Windows on a clean system) ??"
Two months ago.
So, is it ok for me to have an opinion now? Do I meet your criteria?
"Good companies have shown us time and time again, too many options confuse people and make them pissed off."
Yeah, Baskin Robbins and Campbell's soup really have a hard time.
Oh, wait you are making shit up
"I'm sorry but windows is *not* an "easy-to-install", "easy-to-use" desktop OS. "
Compared to Linux it is.
"The only use i could see to living on titan would be as a hydrocarbon miner. Theres really no other reason of interest to be there"
S-C-I-E-N-C-E
That's reason enough.
"New Orleans is a large city. You could easily walk 5 miles and still be in... New Orleans. You could walk 20 miles and be in the suburbs of New Orleans. Either way, you'd be screwed since you'd be out in the open with a hurricane on the way!"
Except there was morethan ample warning, allowing for nearly THREE DAYS of time to evacuate. Don't act like this storm came as a surprise.
"That also doesn't address the elderly, sick, and families with children. Heaven knows they aren't walking anywhere in the 90-100 degree heat."
Except we're discussing the poor, not the elderly or invalid. Stop constructing fake arguments and address the point.
Those people who really tried to get out before the storm did so easily. Those who stayed are looking for someone to blame other than themselves, but there isn't anyone. They had plenty of warning, they just chose to ignore it.
"Our Constitution uses the term people to mean every human, everywhere."
And apart from your opinion, what case law can you cite that proves this?
The Constitution is and always has been open to interpretation. That you fail to recognize that makes it clear you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
"That's why you are a troll."
And yet, amazingly you're the only one that engaged in namecalling...
You are arguing points I never made. I never suggested not using models, and I don't know why you think arguing BS made up scenarios adds credence to the idea that there are UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES to poorly planned actions. If you were able to engage in reasonable discourse, you'd understand that.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, nor obviously, what I was writing about. Instead you're taking a position against something I never suggested, which was doing away with models.
So, in addition to a stats class, I would suggest an english class to assist you with your reading comprehension, then a rhetoric class so you'll know what a "straw man" and "appealing to the masses" are.
"No, I am saying that if we want to reduce CO2 output, a hell of a lot of it can be reduced by curtailing our output, not so much by worrying about the soil."
No you weren't, you said this
" Soil released 8%
that is really not all that much"
Only one thing could be inferred from that, so stop backtracking and admit you threw out an BS opinion.
God, why is it so hard for you people to admit it when you get caught making shit up?
Ok, it's interesting that you chose to bring up logic, then engaged in a classic logical fallacy.
The models used for weather prediction are different than the models used for climate prediction. There are DEGREES of accuracy (understand, or should I go slower?). Are you unable to tell the difference? A stats class would help.
"Are our models for world climate flawed and imperfect? Certainly. Are their predictions unambigious and all in perfect agreement? Of course not. But do the vast majority of them indicate warming is going on? Blah blah blah..."
I've got one for you. Do we know that decreasing carbon emissions will have a POSITIVE impact on our climate? No, we don't. It might cause an ice age. It might do nothing. It MIGHT mean the extinction of the human race.
So basing our actions on models that are known to be inaccurate, especially on a global scale is dumb. It's bad science, which, based on your post, is something you seem to have an affinity for.
"I suggest you talk to some people who are barely at the edge of survival now, like about 1/4 of the Earth's population."
So, which should I prioritize then, said people's survival, or the long term prosperity of the human race? WELL?
While you seem to have the feel good touchy touchy crap down, the science and pragamtism of the situation escapes you.
I suggest you try to develop a more sophisticated view and stop relying on your emotions to make decisions. You'll be able to avoid taking such ridiculous positions in the future.
And exactly what research is this based on? What SCIENCE have you used to draw such a completely arbitrary conclusion?
How do we know that 0.8% isn't significant? Are you basing your opinion on models?
And even worse, you got modded up.
"Is it a worse idea than using religion? How about public opinion polls? Corporate donations?"
Who cares? That wasn't my point, so stop arguing straw men.
You know, if you're going to steal your screed from agent Smith, you should do a better job of disguising it.
And really, couldn't you pick a better movie to base your world view on?
When the discussion began about modeling the earth's atmosphere, I politley suggested that using models to decide policy was a bad idea. Particularly because of unknowns such as this one.
What I would like to know is where are all the people who were accusing me of being a toady for Bush?
Why won't you people admit that flawed inputs means flawed models and as a result the predictions are likely inaccurate.
Stop trying to change the world until you know how and what should be changed. And yes, that may mean it gets much worse before it gets better.
I have a friend who spouts off every time a woman looks at him in a bar.
"Dude, I think she's into me"
That's what this sounds like.
"Those requirements you speak of only apply to applicants, not people they approach"
Let ME clarify, no they don't only apply to applicants. You have a very serious misunderstanding of the hiring process if you believe otherwise.
Many companies are required to maintain certain diversity in their workplace, often by internal corporate mandates, not just laws.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Who's the bigger ass?
Gates Vs. ESR