We know that some arctic glaciers are receding, because the media won't shut up about. But there are also glaciers nearby that are advancing instead of receding. That isn't being reported. Glacial growth is significantly dependent on local conditions, so you cannot use the fact that some glaciers are receding as proof of any global trend, without first knowing the state of ALL glaciers.
This is such an important scientific criteria that it needs repeating. Local conditions do not predict global trends. If you want to make global predictions you need a sufficiently large, objectively selected, sample of local conditions. Otherwise you might as well be telling anecdotes on Slashdot.
So the question to ask is: How many tropical glaciers are advancing or staying the same instead of receding? The report does not say, so it is impossible to draw any global conclusions.
Dude, it's irony. Of course the official spokespeople of GNOME aren't saying Qt isn't free enough. I was referring to Slashdot Groupthink. Individual people sometimes have consistant opinions. But groupthink never does. When you look at the most frequent and highest modded comments on Slashdot, you begin to see Bizarro inconsistancies.
Consider the history of Qt's licensing, in relation to the loudest mouths on the matter on Slashdot:
1) Qt does not have a Free Software license: Not Free enough!!! 2) Qt has a Free Software QPL license approved by RMS: Not Free enough!!!! 3) Qt has dual GPL license for X11: Not Free enough!!! 4) All versions of Qt, including Qtopia, are under the GPL: Not Free enough!!!
I have a neuromuscular disorder and so avoiding the mouse can make me much more productive -- metacity does not give me that option
You heretic! You hideous bloated apostate! How dare you question the Fuhrer's user interface wisdom! You poeple saying you want configurability make me sick!
Are you saying that Qt should be LGPLed, as is the case with GTK+?
The "G" in "GNOME" stands for GNU. When GNOME rants about Qt not being free enough, it is really GNU saying that the GPL is not free enough. This Bizarro World like mentality does much to explain their user interface decisions.
As long as he's there convincing people of stuff, do you think we could get him to convince them to renounce communism as well? Free Software is largely meaningless without a Free Society to use it in.
I'm a huge rabid KDE fan. I use it on FreeBSD. It's fast, snappy responsive and quick. Other than some minor issues with HAL, it's also bug free. But then I needed a Linux distro for use with a project. I unfortunately chose Kubuntu. I swear Kubuntu must be an Ubuntu conspiracy to make people hate KDE. It's slow, bloated, buggy and a mess. And sluggish.
"Nazi" is used as a synonym for "totalitarian thug". It was meant to be a slightly hyperbolic over-the-top statement. GNOME developers are not really totalitarian thugs, but I have no doubt that a few of them would dearly love to make disobedience to the HIG punishable by a long vacation to the Siberian Gulag.
The only thing that offends them more than calling them interface nazis, is a configuration dialog that actually lets you configure an application.
You're right. One single BBC program trumps every corporate sponsored television show ever. Especially when you point out that sublime fact using BOLD UPPERCASE.
It doesn't take skill to get along with people who think just like you.
Bravo. If you can't get along with someone of a different political persuasion, then you're taking life WAAAAY too seriously. Take the cork out your ass and start acting human.
I'm a radical libertarian. My best friend in college was an affirmed and unashamed marxist. We had no problems getting along, even when discussing politics. But something has happened in the subsequent years. People on the left stopped talking to people on the right, and vice versa. They isolated themselves into insular enclaves.
We should not be tolerating racists, but we had damn well start tolerating people who disagree with us!
Is the success of Valley-area projects the result of a more creative environment, or is the cachet of the area (and the resulting money) the reason behind their success?
Neither. It's the fact that there is a concentration of engineers here. As simple as that. If you start up a software development company, you want to hire software developers. Guess where you'll find software developers? In Silicon Valley! That's also where you'll find sales and marketing folks with a software development background. Most people don't just sell their homes and move halfway across the country to join a startup. So you start it up where you have a concentration of potential employees.
I'll give you an "if". If she goes to jail over this, I'll pour hot grits down my pants. If she doesn't, you abase yourself before all of Slashdot and publicly state you're a fool for believing crap like this.
Yup! Just goes to show that Bill Gates should NOT be giving away his money. Philanthropy is evil, the filthy rich should keep their money to themselves. It is far better that people die of a disease than the be tainted with vaccines paid for with impure motives.
This isn't decades old. The device being reported on, that is. The concept is old, but the implementation is new. Despite your feeble protestations, it's still cool.
If you personally have to play fewer taxes, then you will have more money to spend. Unless you bury that money in your backyard, it will be spent in the economy. Aggregate yourself with several million more people, and you suddenly start seeing measurable results in the national economy. That extra economic kick can create more tax revenues than the cut eliminated.
All economists agree on this. Where they disagree is wether the increase in economic activity is sufficient to offset a particular level of tax reduction.
Selective amnesia is oh so convenient! A lot of fiscal conservatives were terribly pissed at Reagan for signing those appropriations bills. But spending is only part of the fiscal picture. Reagan also got some tax cuts through, which increased revenues in the long run, which meant there was more money to spend.
On the other hand, Clinton had to settle for the bills he did sign, because Congress wouldn't pass the ones he really wanted.
Of course, in the end, gridlock is good for everyone. The more the Congress and President fight each other, the less time they have to muck about with our lives. We've seen the damage that can happen when either the Democrats or Republicans control both sides of the street. It's far better when the power is split.
There is the pre-FDR Republican party, and the post-FDR Republican party. They're almost two different parties. The Republicans of the early 20th century were small government advocates, but the latter half of the century gave way to establishmentarian "country club" Republicans. You occasionally saw a throwback like Goldwater or Reagan, but for the most part recent Republican leadership has been unashamedly in favor of large powerful government.
Unfortunately, I don't see any small government types in the current crop of nomination seekers.
Trillion dollar deficit? Whatever are you talking about?
You are correct, however, that Reagan did a lousy job of getting spending under control. But I only place half the blame at Reagan's feet. The other half I place at the feet of congress, you kept sending him massive appropriations bills to sign.
Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas (and GOP presidential candidate)...
The senator is not a GOP presidential candidate. He is a candidate for the GOP nomination. Big difference. Thank goodness he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting it. None of the current nomination seekers thrill me, but Brownback is near the bottom of the list.
What ever happened to the party of "less government interference?" Fiscal conservatives and small government types have always been the black sheep in the Republican party. Reagan was not typical of the party.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you still need me to respond?
We know that some arctic glaciers are receding, because the media won't shut up about. But there are also glaciers nearby that are advancing instead of receding. That isn't being reported. Glacial growth is significantly dependent on local conditions, so you cannot use the fact that some glaciers are receding as proof of any global trend, without first knowing the state of ALL glaciers.
This is such an important scientific criteria that it needs repeating. Local conditions do not predict global trends. If you want to make global predictions you need a sufficiently large, objectively selected, sample of local conditions. Otherwise you might as well be telling anecdotes on Slashdot.
So the question to ask is: How many tropical glaciers are advancing or staying the same instead of receding? The report does not say, so it is impossible to draw any global conclusions.
Dude, it's irony. Of course the official spokespeople of GNOME aren't saying Qt isn't free enough. I was referring to Slashdot Groupthink. Individual people sometimes have consistant opinions. But groupthink never does. When you look at the most frequent and highest modded comments on Slashdot, you begin to see Bizarro inconsistancies.
Consider the history of Qt's licensing, in relation to the loudest mouths on the matter on Slashdot:
1) Qt does not have a Free Software license: Not Free enough!!!
2) Qt has a Free Software QPL license approved by RMS: Not Free enough!!!!
3) Qt has dual GPL license for X11: Not Free enough!!!
4) All versions of Qt, including Qtopia, are under the GPL: Not Free enough!!!
I have a neuromuscular disorder and so avoiding the mouse can make me much more productive -- metacity does not give me that option
You heretic! You hideous bloated apostate! How dare you question the Fuhrer's user interface wisdom! You poeple saying you want configurability make me sick!
Are you saying that Qt should be LGPLed, as is the case with GTK+?
The "G" in "GNOME" stands for GNU. When GNOME rants about Qt not being free enough, it is really GNU saying that the GPL is not free enough. This Bizarro World like mentality does much to explain their user interface decisions.
As long as he's there convincing people of stuff, do you think we could get him to convince them to renounce communism as well? Free Software is largely meaningless without a Free Society to use it in.
I'm a huge rabid KDE fan. I use it on FreeBSD. It's fast, snappy responsive and quick. Other than some minor issues with HAL, it's also bug free. But then I needed a Linux distro for use with a project. I unfortunately chose Kubuntu. I swear Kubuntu must be an Ubuntu conspiracy to make people hate KDE. It's slow, bloated, buggy and a mess. And sluggish.
"Nazi" is used as a synonym for "totalitarian thug". It was meant to be a slightly hyperbolic over-the-top statement. GNOME developers are not really totalitarian thugs, but I have no doubt that a few of them would dearly love to make disobedience to the HIG punishable by a long vacation to the Siberian Gulag.
The only thing that offends them more than calling them interface nazis, is a configuration dialog that actually lets you configure an application.
You're right. One single BBC program trumps every corporate sponsored television show ever. Especially when you point out that sublime fact using BOLD UPPERCASE.
Maybe if Wikipedia didn't allow anonymous edits, LOL PENIS edits wouldn't be nearly as frequent.
It doesn't take skill to get along with people who think just like you.
Bravo. If you can't get along with someone of a different political persuasion, then you're taking life WAAAAY too seriously. Take the cork out your ass and start acting human.
I'm a radical libertarian. My best friend in college was an affirmed and unashamed marxist. We had no problems getting along, even when discussing politics. But something has happened in the subsequent years. People on the left stopped talking to people on the right, and vice versa. They isolated themselves into insular enclaves.
We should not be tolerating racists, but we had damn well start tolerating people who disagree with us!
If you hate it so much, why don't you move?
This wasn't academia, it was some guys toy built using university equipment. Sheesh.
Is the success of Valley-area projects the result of a more creative environment, or is the cachet of the area (and the resulting money) the reason behind their success?
Neither. It's the fact that there is a concentration of engineers here. As simple as that. If you start up a software development company, you want to hire software developers. Guess where you'll find software developers? In Silicon Valley! That's also where you'll find sales and marketing folks with a software development background. Most people don't just sell their homes and move halfway across the country to join a startup. So you start it up where you have a concentration of potential employees.
OR the judge could send him to Siberia. Same deal.
Once you start sending lawyers after people for violating your copyright, you are in the same moral boat as Bill Gates.
"If her claims are true"? If? If!
I'll give you an "if". If she goes to jail over this, I'll pour hot grits down my pants. If she doesn't, you abase yourself before all of Slashdot and publicly state you're a fool for believing crap like this.
Yup! Just goes to show that Bill Gates should NOT be giving away his money. Philanthropy is evil, the filthy rich should keep their money to themselves. It is far better that people die of a disease than the be tainted with vaccines paid for with impure motives.
This isn't decades old. The device being reported on, that is. The concept is old, but the implementation is new. Despite your feeble protestations, it's still cool.
It's simple economics!
If you personally have to play fewer taxes, then you will have more money to spend. Unless you bury that money in your backyard, it will be spent in the economy. Aggregate yourself with several million more people, and you suddenly start seeing measurable results in the national economy. That extra economic kick can create more tax revenues than the cut eliminated.
All economists agree on this. Where they disagree is wether the increase in economic activity is sufficient to offset a particular level of tax reduction.
Selective amnesia is oh so convenient! A lot of fiscal conservatives were terribly pissed at Reagan for signing those appropriations bills. But spending is only part of the fiscal picture. Reagan also got some tax cuts through, which increased revenues in the long run, which meant there was more money to spend.
On the other hand, Clinton had to settle for the bills he did sign, because Congress wouldn't pass the ones he really wanted.
Of course, in the end, gridlock is good for everyone. The more the Congress and President fight each other, the less time they have to muck about with our lives. We've seen the damage that can happen when either the Democrats or Republicans control both sides of the street. It's far better when the power is split.
There is the pre-FDR Republican party, and the post-FDR Republican party. They're almost two different parties. The Republicans of the early 20th century were small government advocates, but the latter half of the century gave way to establishmentarian "country club" Republicans. You occasionally saw a throwback like Goldwater or Reagan, but for the most part recent Republican leadership has been unashamedly in favor of large powerful government.
Unfortunately, I don't see any small government types in the current crop of nomination seekers.
Trillion dollar deficit? Whatever are you talking about?
You are correct, however, that Reagan did a lousy job of getting spending under control. But I only place half the blame at Reagan's feet. The other half I place at the feet of congress, you kept sending him massive appropriations bills to sign.
Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas (and GOP presidential candidate)...
The senator is not a GOP presidential candidate. He is a candidate for the GOP nomination. Big difference. Thank goodness he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting it. None of the current nomination seekers thrill me, but Brownback is near the bottom of the list.
What ever happened to the party of "less government interference?"
Fiscal conservatives and small government types have always been the black sheep in the Republican party. Reagan was not typical of the party.
The number three problem in the world today: "OMG! Someone just threatened us! Quick, give them whatever they want!"