Why should I deliver a "proper" response when you can't follow what I told you at least three times? You can't even begin to stick to a point, and your arguments are full of nonsense that has nothing to do with anything I've written. You think *I'm* delivering insults? I'm calling a spade a spade. You, on the other hand, don't have the least idea what the fuck you're talking about, and you do it with a gusto that makes me wonder if you're not a bot.
Look, is it useful to populate the comments of every Slashdot post with snotty diatribes explaining how you don't care because this issue doesn't directly affect you? No. It's not. I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you, so if you still don't get it, I recommend you seek professional help.
The point, which you missed by at least a mile, is that some Slashdotter's personal preferences are immaterial to the issue being presented here. Gawd, but there are some dim folks in this world.
I receive a number of HTML newsletters that are decidedly not spam. So lay off the "we" stuff. You're not the only person on this planet, you know.
Moreover, if you think this will decrease the volume of HTML email you're receiving, you're wrong. What it will do is increase the odds that you find yourself opening un-renderable mail, and it will make the lives of those of us who work for a living (and have to meet the expectations of clients, who are not schooled in this stuff) twice as difficult. Part of the beauty of CSS is that it has the potential to decrease the size of a styled email by a substantial amount. So much for that -- now you'll just get gigantic images in your in box.
My primary problem with DRM is its extra-legality. Enforcing copyright by technological means could result in a copyright regime that totally favors the copyright holder and fails to respect the rights of the rest of us. What happens when a work's copyright expires, but it is still wrapped in DRM? What happens if the law changes, increasing my rights as a consumer, but the DRM still conforms to the old law?
I'll buy DRM when everyone else becomes willing to buy cars that won't go faster than 65mph.
Let's continue down this road. When our income inequality is the same as that of Brazil, let's take another look at the crime rate. If it's bad, we'll just redistribute all the dough, yes?
That's an excellent point. If you're a bridge builder, you build bridges. If you're an auto engineer, you build autos. Fine. But a computer is essentially a devices for making virtual machines. So you take a guy, tell him how to write C, and then say, build a virtual automobile that builds bridges and can fly and keep an appointment book. There's no job title for a guy who makes one of those, and once you're done making one, you're unlikely to make another one.
Each day you see the sun rise, unless it's cloudy. Each day you see it set. The rest of the time, you don't see it. Now that's pretty incomplete. So tell me, how can you possibly assume it's the same sun you're seeing each day?
I disagree vehemently. If you spend enough time getting to know it, you'll find that Javascript is a very elegant language. It's true that the various implementations are a weak spot, but there are plenty of good frameworks (prototype and dojo in particular) that insulate you from a lot of that nonsense. I've been developing JS since around 1997, and I can tell you it has blossomed in the last couple of years. JS is now an absolute pleasure to develop, and if I had my druthers, I'd toss my PHP and Perl out the window.
They need to pick somebody other than Al "I created the Internet" Gore if they plan on making us take the topic seriously.
Aside from the fact that the "I created the Internet" meme is bunk, nobody "picked" Gore for this -- he's just *doing* it. See, that's the way it is in the real world: people who want to see something done don't wait for someone to pick them, they just do it. As for taking the topic seriously, plenty of people do, and Gore has won over plenty more (the recent greening of the U.S. governors is not entirely his work, but he helped). Just because *you* don't take it seriously doesn't mean others don't
...various mumblings about the validity of the theory...
I'm not going to rebut all your inanities. They've been publically rebutted a thousand times. If you want to wander afield from the topic at hand, that's your business, but I'm not getting involved.
Bring forth somebody without an agenda (political or otherwise),
People without agendas don't make political arguments. The moment someone makes a point that global warming is real and a danger, by your logic, they suddenly have an agenda and are invalidated. That doesn't make any sense. Agendas are the means by which people accomplish ends. There's nothing inherently wrong with having an agenda, so long as it can be supported.
somebody who isn't trying to say "do it my way or we all die",
Gore has never issued any such ultimatums. He has described the problem and its severity, and he has offered suggestions as to how it might be fought. You don't like his ideas? Offer some counter ideas. Oh, wait, you don't believe there's a problem. So what's your deal? Shut up then. Nobody's hurting you by talking about global warming.
somebody who can explain the facts, the opinions, and the predictions, and not get them confused, and *maybe* the topic will be taken seriously by all.
If you're really that confused you must just be dim.
I for one would make an effort to really listen and not cringe and think "oh great, another wack-job tell me that cow farts are killing the ozone". Until then, I'll just sit back and laugh at Al Gore and his prediction of "the earth will end in 10 years... just like I did at Ted Danson and his 10 year prediction... 12 years ago...
No, you wouldn't make an effort. You are judging the guy based on a bunch of preconceptions -- many wildly erroneous -- and you don't even have a clue what he's actually saying. You've heard bits and pieces here and there and you just mischaracterize them in order to avoid jostling your mental map of the world.
But you know what? That doesn't matter. Al Gore is a man of considerably more influence than you, and that will only become more so. There are always crackpots. You want to be one, be my guest.
No, I'm inclined to believe that the act of putting forward a political argument is best done by a politician, and Al Gore is going to be a far sight better on this topic than, say, Sam Brownback.
But it might not take a genius amount of forethought to understand that putting Al Gore's name on the movie doesn't help to de-politicize the issue.
If it never becomes a political issue, it will never be addressed. The science is what it is, but once the science has been done, politics necessarily enter the scene. And what better person to put forward a political argument than a politician? They may be stinky, and we may all hate them, etc., but I'm sorry -- global warming researchers haven't got the clout or political savvy to move the issue where it needs to move. Perhaps Al Gore doesn't either, but who are you going to get? George Bush?
So Gore is the Josef Mengele of global warming? That's a pretty tortured argument, if you ask me.
Moreover, reading your post, I don't think you've even seen the film. Suggesting it is about Al's politics is like saying On the Waterfront is about Communism.
A quote which is attributed to Friedman goes: "The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders." Taken to the limit, this means that a company will take any action neccessary to secure and guard profits.
I'm of the opionion that this is one of the major shortcomings of capitalism: it is excellent at allocating resources in the short- to mid-term, but is largely incapable of long-term planning. For example: it's a no-brainer that the oil industry won't do well if they cause the kind of major ecological cataclysm that seems to be lurking off the port bow, but the pressure of quarterly returns makes it impossible for them to make a serious effort at addressing returns a century from now. It seems to me that Friedman's error was that he was thinking about current shareholders and neglecting future ones.
The fall of the Soviet Union hardly counts as repudiation of everything Karl Marx ever said, and if you think it does, your understanding of Marx must be pretty shallow. Marx's influence on theories of economic history is massive and can't be written off with the sort of knee-jerk opposition to his name engendered by the likes of Ronald Regan.
I don't do SL, and I feel fulfilled enough with doing stuff with my wife and kids, working around the house, and trying to take care of the yardwork and intermitently trying to finish the basement.
... and posting smug messages to Slashdot informing everyone of your vast superiority.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you have anything better to do than flame people?
Why should I deliver a "proper" response when you can't follow what I told you at least three times? You can't even begin to stick to a point, and your arguments are full of nonsense that has nothing to do with anything I've written. You think *I'm* delivering insults? I'm calling a spade a spade. You, on the other hand, don't have the least idea what the fuck you're talking about, and you do it with a gusto that makes me wonder if you're not a bot.
Hey, if you're dim, you're dim. And you're dim.
Look, is it useful to populate the comments of every Slashdot post with snotty diatribes explaining how you don't care because this issue doesn't directly affect you? No. It's not. I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you, so if you still don't get it, I recommend you seek professional help.
The point, which you missed by at least a mile, is that some Slashdotter's personal preferences are immaterial to the issue being presented here. Gawd, but there are some dim folks in this world.
I receive a number of HTML newsletters that are decidedly not spam. So lay off the "we" stuff. You're not the only person on this planet, you know.
Moreover, if you think this will decrease the volume of HTML email you're receiving, you're wrong. What it will do is increase the odds that you find yourself opening un-renderable mail, and it will make the lives of those of us who work for a living (and have to meet the expectations of clients, who are not schooled in this stuff) twice as difficult. Part of the beauty of CSS is that it has the potential to decrease the size of a styled email by a substantial amount. So much for that -- now you'll just get gigantic images in your in box.
Geez, if you can't study a controversial subject in school, where can you study it?
My primary problem with DRM is its extra-legality. Enforcing copyright by technological means could result in a copyright regime that totally favors the copyright holder and fails to respect the rights of the rest of us. What happens when a work's copyright expires, but it is still wrapped in DRM? What happens if the law changes, increasing my rights as a consumer, but the DRM still conforms to the old law?
I'll buy DRM when everyone else becomes willing to buy cars that won't go faster than 65mph.
Let's continue down this road. When our income inequality is the same as that of Brazil, let's take another look at the crime rate. If it's bad, we'll just redistribute all the dough, yes?
That's an excellent point. If you're a bridge builder, you build bridges. If you're an auto engineer, you build autos. Fine. But a computer is essentially a devices for making virtual machines. So you take a guy, tell him how to write C, and then say, build a virtual automobile that builds bridges and can fly and keep an appointment book. There's no job title for a guy who makes one of those, and once you're done making one, you're unlikely to make another one.
Yes, please, let's perform blind, reckless experiments on the only environment we have.
I almost died of thirst in drought-stricken Africa yesterday. Could you send me that half-full glass?
incomplete and inaccurate data
Each day you see the sun rise, unless it's cloudy. Each day you see it set. The rest of the time, you don't see it. Now that's pretty incomplete. So tell me, how can you possibly assume it's the same sun you're seeing each day?
Indeed. Can you imagine a group shilling for something as irresponsible and money-grubbing as science?!?
Huh? You're saying Star Wars wasn't a derivitive work? You must have missed, oh, most of the history of cinema and fiction before that.
I disagree vehemently. If you spend enough time getting to know it, you'll find that Javascript is a very elegant language. It's true that the various implementations are a weak spot, but there are plenty of good frameworks (prototype and dojo in particular) that insulate you from a lot of that nonsense. I've been developing JS since around 1997, and I can tell you it has blossomed in the last couple of years. JS is now an absolute pleasure to develop, and if I had my druthers, I'd toss my PHP and Perl out the window.
Still waiting on server-side compiled JS...
Let's start with a community of settlements on really tall stilts.
They need to pick somebody other than Al "I created the Internet" Gore if they plan on making us take the topic seriously.
Aside from the fact that the "I created the Internet" meme is bunk, nobody "picked" Gore for this -- he's just *doing* it. See, that's the way it is in the real world: people who want to see something done don't wait for someone to pick them, they just do it. As for taking the topic seriously, plenty of people do, and Gore has won over plenty more (the recent greening of the U.S. governors is not entirely his work, but he helped). Just because *you* don't take it seriously doesn't mean others don't
I'm not going to rebut all your inanities. They've been publically rebutted a thousand times. If you want to wander afield from the topic at hand, that's your business, but I'm not getting involved.
Bring forth somebody without an agenda (political or otherwise),
People without agendas don't make political arguments. The moment someone makes a point that global warming is real and a danger, by your logic, they suddenly have an agenda and are invalidated. That doesn't make any sense. Agendas are the means by which people accomplish ends. There's nothing inherently wrong with having an agenda, so long as it can be supported.
somebody who isn't trying to say "do it my way or we all die",
Gore has never issued any such ultimatums. He has described the problem and its severity, and he has offered suggestions as to how it might be fought. You don't like his ideas? Offer some counter ideas. Oh, wait, you don't believe there's a problem. So what's your deal? Shut up then. Nobody's hurting you by talking about global warming.
somebody who can explain the facts, the opinions, and the predictions, and not get them confused, and *maybe* the topic will be taken seriously by all.
If you're really that confused you must just be dim.
I for one would make an effort to really listen and not cringe and think "oh great, another wack-job tell me that cow farts are killing the ozone". Until then, I'll just sit back and laugh at Al Gore and his prediction of "the earth will end in 10 years... just like I did at Ted Danson and his 10 year prediction... 12 years ago...
No, you wouldn't make an effort. You are judging the guy based on a bunch of preconceptions -- many wildly erroneous -- and you don't even have a clue what he's actually saying. You've heard bits and pieces here and there and you just mischaracterize them in order to avoid jostling your mental map of the world.
But you know what? That doesn't matter. Al Gore is a man of considerably more influence than you, and that will only become more so. There are always crackpots. You want to be one, be my guest.
No, I'm inclined to believe that the act of putting forward a political argument is best done by a politician, and Al Gore is going to be a far sight better on this topic than, say, Sam Brownback.
Holy cow! A clear thinking, rational human on Slashdot! Must be a sign of the end times!
But it might not take a genius amount of forethought to understand that putting Al Gore's name on the movie doesn't help to de-politicize the issue.
If it never becomes a political issue, it will never be addressed. The science is what it is, but once the science has been done, politics necessarily enter the scene. And what better person to put forward a political argument than a politician? They may be stinky, and we may all hate them, etc., but I'm sorry -- global warming researchers haven't got the clout or political savvy to move the issue where it needs to move. Perhaps Al Gore doesn't either, but who are you going to get? George Bush?
So Gore is the Josef Mengele of global warming? That's a pretty tortured argument, if you ask me.
Moreover, reading your post, I don't think you've even seen the film. Suggesting it is about Al's politics is like saying On the Waterfront is about Communism.
A quote which is attributed to Friedman goes: "The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders." Taken to the limit, this means that a company will take any action neccessary to secure and guard profits.
I'm of the opionion that this is one of the major shortcomings of capitalism: it is excellent at allocating resources in the short- to mid-term, but is largely incapable of long-term planning. For example: it's a no-brainer that the oil industry won't do well if they cause the kind of major ecological cataclysm that seems to be lurking off the port bow, but the pressure of quarterly returns makes it impossible for them to make a serious effort at addressing returns a century from now. It seems to me that Friedman's error was that he was thinking about current shareholders and neglecting future ones.
The fall of the Soviet Union hardly counts as repudiation of everything Karl Marx ever said, and if you think it does, your understanding of Marx must be pretty shallow. Marx's influence on theories of economic history is massive and can't be written off with the sort of knee-jerk opposition to his name engendered by the likes of Ronald Regan.
I don't do SL, and I feel fulfilled enough with doing stuff with my wife and kids, working around the house, and trying to take care of the yardwork and intermitently trying to finish the basement.
... and posting smug messages to Slashdot informing everyone of your vast superiority.
Child porn is just ones and zeros, if you want to get reductive about it.