Prove that you're not a target by shutting the fuck up.
Make me.
Now that's baiting, flame or otherwise. And you'll fall for it.
You've no idea of the ennui that motivates me. Clearly you are a fanboi, else you would not have spent the effort to look at my posting history. Would you care to deny that you've been baited into entertaining me?
Perhaps your i-r-o-n-y would be more useful if it were less subtle?
And if it were less subtle, then it would not be irony.
Clearly, several people didn't get it (the responder, the person who marked it 'flamebait'), which probably means the fault is with your humor.
Oh yeah, 2 people, really meaningful sample size you got there. And how do you know the flamebaiter didn't just disagree with my point? People mod stuff they don't like flamebait all the time, after all I was baiting, although not flame-baiting, the copying-music-and-movies-is-theft crowd, plenty of their members here on the dot. At least he had the ballz to take his judgement in metamod, unlike those who use "overrated" for stuff they disagree with.
But I'm sure you'll blame everyone else for not being smart enough to get it, while missing the fact that people don't think you're funny.
Good, because I was not trying to be funny, else I would have used h-u-m-o-r.
Here's a trivially obtained, yet very apropos definition of irony, just for you: Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear and shall not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware, both of that "more" and of the outsider's incomprehension. --Henry Watson Fowler
Oil seems to be rather profitable lately. Why do they need federal funds for anything?
With nothing but cyncism to back me up, I'd say because the contracts the state government signed with the oil companies prevents the state from really cashing in on the windfall. They probably did something like cap revenues per barrel based on an expectation that oil prices would never get as high as they are now. (or rather an expectation of all kinds of campaign contributions if they made a stupid "error" like that in their contract negotiations with the oilcos).
The conclusion that I came to was "consumerist training". People are taught to think like that -- just watch TV if you don't believe me. These people have a strong "feeling" that if you pay for something it has to be better. In short, they're "Americans" with "American values".
Well, if paying for music and movies instead of downloading them for free is the "right" thing to do, then clearly it is "right" to pay for software instead of downloading it for free too.
Shamelessly plagarized but also edited for clarity:
A CFL in every Home = 1 Nuclear Power Plant
I spent a lot of my weekend doing research on energy, power generation, etc. (See my MyWeb links) I decided to run some rough numbers, and have come to the conclusion that the best use of government funds is to probably have a CFL handout/trade-in program.
There are an estimated 110M households in the US, so if you replaced one 60W incandescent with a similarly lumen-rated 13W CFL (I'd estimate a distribution cost of $100M-200M), you'd save just over $4.1B in electrical bills over the lifetime of the bulbs ($0.10/kWh over 8000 hours). At 5 hours/evening of usage (~4.4yr), we're looking at almost a billion bucks a year. That's not a bad ROI.
Another interesting figure that comes out of that is that we're talking about a significantly large amount of power saved. Over the bulb lifetime, the number comes out to over 41M MWh, or based on the 4.4y estimated lifetime, about 9.4M MWh/yr. That's more than your average 1000MW nuclear power plant will be able to generate (about 7.8M MWh at 90% efficiency), and a significantly lower cost ($2-4/MWh for handing out light bulbs versus $50-80/MWh).
So, replacing 1 incadescent light-bulb in each of the 110M households in the country would save the equivalent of one nuclear power plant (or better yet, a bunch of fossil fuel ones, which function at a much lower efficiency (around 60%) and are usually lower capacity).
It's probably fair to say that up to 4 bulbs per house could be replaced before the law of diminishing returns kicks in. So we could save the equivalent of 4 nuclear power plants or 8-10 "dirty" power plants at 1/10th the cost of operating them, plus saving all the externalities like reduced pollution too.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you think teaching abstinence would be effective if it weren't for the "it it feels good, do it" mindset of America's youth.
And if you ran a cable company, your techs would be right on time. Even if they spent the last 30 minutes re-running a cable for a customer they didn't anticipate doing it for. Somehow, they would still arrive on time.
It's called Operations Research and Industrial Engineering. It's not hard to find people with the skills to do it well.
That doesn't make statements about how black audiences yell at movies less racist. Or defending those statements, which qualifies you as a racist, too.
Lol. Where exactly did I "defend those statements?" Read very carefully now.
If using grammar so poorly as to say things you didn't mean, and then the juvenile denials of such sloppiness weren't enough, actually linking to the entry for irony at wikipedia is the clincher as to the level of your development.
Some of the early reviews compared SoaP to a 2000s-era "Rocky Horror Picture Show" for the level of audience participation involved. If you rented RHPS from Netflix and watched it at home, you wouldn't get the same experience as watching it at a theater full of eclectic movie fans.
Wait for the SoDaH release - Snakes on DVD at Home. Like Freddy Got Fingered and the Sin City director's cut, they will probably include a "live audience participation" track recorded at one of the showings with a better than average level of audience participation. That'll get you most of the effect.
(sorry about the stylized "dot" silliness, but something tells me that the traditional foo AT bar DOT com is probably already being mined by spammers - or will be soon)
As an aussie you can be forgiven not knowing this, but your method of obfuscation will have no effect on canadian spammers.
Re:Unfounded Criticism
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure what you're talking about, this isn't some technological "war" where both parties are on a level playing field. The enemy uses IED's and other low tech explosives and weapons to get the job done. To assume that they would go through the trouble or are even capable of checking for an "Electro Magnetic Leaks" is absurd.
Yeah, an IED that goes off when a cell phone rings within 10 feet is just too absurd to imagine. Cell phones never leak any EM at all, and nothing as low-tech as radio could ever detect such non-existant leakage anyway.
Not to mention it's near impossible to deduce which type of device is being used based on a probably non-existent electrical signal. If it were really an concern we would be using this technology to sniff out our enemies too, no? Why isn't this technology being used if it's so simple?
Maybe it is. How would you know? Something that simple would be a prime candidate for being classified since if the enemy knew about it, it would be trivial to avoid.
to imply we can be easily tracked and spotted when we don't want to be would mean we can be defeated.
Of course, as the article also says, the reason they were caught was because they accidentally started a chemical fire in the process of making their bombs. So, clearly it isn't quite so easy to pull off.
Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues.
So something like:
Go to "Applications -> Add/Remove..."
Select and install "Banshee"
Then click "Applications -> Sound and Video -> Banshee"
Plug in Ipod
You should see your iPod on the left panel, just like in iTunes.
It's like you're being deliberately dense. But to what purpose?
Ok, I'll spell it out since you've demonstrated that you are not wise enough for just a word to be sufficient. The only value the record companies provide is to hold the audience hostage. Payola being the prime example, exclusionary contracts with all the major brick & mortar stores is another. If they didn't hold the audience hostage, they would not be able to so absolutely dictate terms to the artists themselves. All the other "services" that they provide are just as available on the open market and at substantially lower cost than what the record company "charges" the artists.
Don't bother responding - payola and exclusionary contracts are well documented, indisputable facts of how business is done. If you think you can dispute the link between them and holding audiences hostage, you'll have to explain what other more plausible reason would explain those facts, and make sure your arguments aren't undone by the word oligopoly.
CarTalk is a humorous radio show which answers automotive questions, half-seriously, you never know if they're giving you good advice or just messing with you. They switched from RealPlayer several years ago, because as amazing as it seemed (even to them!), RealPlayer managed to be significantly worse than Windows Media Player -- Microsoft did far, far better than them by being almost mediocre.
Actually, the way I, as a radio-only listener, remember it, Cartalk switched to WM-only for about one month and then because of a huge number of complaints from listeners and more than just a few technical problems on the server side, they dumped MS and went back to Real.
If a cop knocks on your door tonight and asks if he can look around without a warrant and no apparent reason. Wouldn't you ask him "for what purpose?"
Sure I would. But I did not sign a contract that said the cops could come take a look around anytime they want to. These companies all did sign such contracts in exchange for the public listing of their shares.
If they don't like it, they can buy back their shares and go home.
I suspect some people would honestly answer "No" to the above question. Fine; that represents a fundamentally different philosophical outlook on reward for one's work, if desired, and so on. I trust, therefore, that your disdain for such a system also means you're not a part of activity that would leave you on the receiving end of a legal suit from the RIAA.
Why do you make that presumption?
If someone honestly believes that such material is not deserving of such restrictions, then just why is it that you expect them to honor such restrictions in the first place? That's like saying in a country with legalized slavery, you would trust that anyone who honestly believes slavery is wrong to never aid a slave in escaping to his freedom. Or in less inflammatory terms - if someone fundamentally disagrees with a law, believes it has no moral basis, he should still unquestionally obey it.
Slashdot Mirror
Prove that you're not a target by shutting the fuck up.
Make me.
Now that's baiting, flame or otherwise. And you'll fall for it.
You've no idea of the ennui that motivates me. Clearly you are a fanboi, else you would not have spent the effort to look at my posting history. Would you care to deny that you've been baited into entertaining me?
Oh yeah, 2 people, really meaningful sample size you got there. And how do you know the flamebaiter didn't just disagree with my point? People mod stuff they don't like flamebait all the time, after all I was baiting, although not flame-baiting, the copying-music-and-movies-is-theft crowd, plenty of their members here on the dot. At least he had the ballz to take his judgement in metamod, unlike those who use "overrated" for stuff they disagree with.
Good, because I was not trying to be funny, else I would have used h-u-m-o-r.
Here's a trivially obtained, yet very apropos definition of irony, just for you:
Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear and shall not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware, both of that "more" and of the outsider's incomprehension.
--Henry Watson Fowler
Oil seems to be rather profitable lately. Why do they need federal funds for anything?
With nothing but cyncism to back me up, I'd say because the contracts the state government signed with the oil companies prevents the state from really cashing in on the windfall. They probably did something like cap revenues per barrel based on an expectation that oil prices would never get as high as they are now. (or rather an expectation of all kinds of campaign contributions if they made a stupid "error" like that in their contract negotiations with the oilcos).
Dude - i-r-o-n-y - learn it, use it, love it.
The conclusion that I came to was "consumerist training". People are taught to think like that -- just watch TV if you don't believe me. These people have a strong "feeling" that if you pay for something it has to be better. In short, they're "Americans" with "American values".
Well, if paying for music and movies instead of downloading them for free is the "right" thing to do, then clearly it is "right" to pay for software instead of downloading it for free too.
A CFL in every Home = 1 Nuclear Power Plant
I spent a lot of my weekend doing research on energy, power generation, etc. (See my MyWeb links) I decided to run some rough numbers, and have come to the conclusion that the best use of government funds is to probably have a CFL handout/trade-in program.
There are an estimated 110M households in the US, so if you replaced one 60W incandescent with a similarly lumen-rated 13W CFL (I'd estimate a distribution cost of $100M-200M), you'd save just over $4.1B in electrical bills over the lifetime of the bulbs ($0.10/kWh over 8000 hours). At 5 hours/evening of usage (~4.4yr), we're looking at almost a billion bucks a year. That's not a bad ROI.
Another interesting figure that comes out of that is that we're talking about a significantly large amount of power saved. Over the bulb lifetime, the number comes out to over 41M MWh, or based on the 4.4y estimated lifetime, about 9.4M MWh/yr. That's more than your average 1000MW nuclear power plant will be able to generate (about 7.8M MWh at 90% efficiency), and a significantly lower cost ($2-4/MWh for handing out light bulbs versus $50-80/MWh).
So, replacing 1 incadescent light-bulb in each of the 110M households in the country would save the equivalent of one nuclear power plant (or better yet, a bunch of fossil fuel ones, which function at a much lower efficiency (around 60%) and are usually lower capacity).
It's probably fair to say that up to 4 bulbs per house could be replaced before the law of diminishing returns kicks in. So we could save the equivalent of 4 nuclear power plants or 8-10 "dirty" power plants at 1/10th the cost of operating them, plus saving all the externalities like reduced pollution too.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you think teaching abstinence would be effective if it weren't for the "it it feels good, do it" mindset of America's youth.
And if you ran a cable company, your techs would be right on time. Even if they spent the last 30 minutes re-running a cable for a customer they didn't anticipate doing it for. Somehow, they would still arrive on time.
It's called Operations Research and Industrial Engineering. It's not hard to find people with the skills to do it well.
That doesn't make statements about how black audiences yell at movies less racist. Or defending those statements, which qualifies you as a racist, too.
Lol. Where exactly did I "defend those statements?" Read very carefully now.
OK, kiddo. Go on believing that.
If using grammar so poorly as to say things you didn't mean, and then the juvenile denials of such sloppiness weren't enough, actually linking to the entry for irony at wikipedia is the clincher as to the level of your development.
Some of the early reviews compared SoaP to a 2000s-era "Rocky Horror Picture Show" for the level of audience participation involved. If you rented RHPS from Netflix and watched it at home, you wouldn't get the same experience as watching it at a theater full of eclectic movie fans.
Wait for the SoDaH release - Snakes on DVD at Home. Like Freddy Got Fingered and the Sin City director's cut, they will probably include a "live audience participation" track recorded at one of the showings with a better than average level of audience participation. That'll get you most of the effect.
(but it's hard to see how 'Damn straight' is sarcasm; more likely you were actually agreeing with the part you quoted)
Any sufficiently advanced humor is indistinguishable from regular prose to the underdeveloped mind.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, this isn't some technological "war" where both parties are on a level playing field. The enemy uses IED's and other low tech explosives and weapons to get the job done. To assume that they would go through the trouble or are even capable of checking for an "Electro Magnetic Leaks" is absurd.
Yeah, an IED that goes off when a cell phone rings within 10 feet is just too absurd to imagine. Cell phones never leak any EM at all, and nothing as low-tech as radio could ever detect such non-existant leakage anyway.
Not to mention it's near impossible to deduce which type of device is being used based on a probably non-existent electrical signal. If it were really an concern we would be using this technology to sniff out our enemies too, no? Why isn't this technology being used if it's so simple?
Maybe it is. How would you know? Something that simple would be a prime candidate for being classified since if the enemy knew about it, it would be trivial to avoid.
to imply we can be easily tracked and spotted when we don't want to be would mean we can be defeated.
Yeah, because we are sooo winning right now!!!
Look up the definition of the word irony some time, you nitwit.
Look up the definition of the word sarcasm some time, you nitwit.
Of course, as the article also says, the reason they were caught was because they accidentally started a chemical fire in the process of making their bombs. So, clearly it isn't quite so easy to pull off.
Craig Murray that is. Not you, you just cut and paste for mod points
Do not rebuke my brother so.
Did he not include the citation for his quotation as the very first line of his post?
So something like:
- Go to "Applications -> Add/Remove..."
- Select and install "Banshee"
- Then click "Applications -> Sound and Video -> Banshee"
- Plug in Ipod
- You should see your iPod on the left panel, just like in iTunes.
Is too difficult?It's like you're being deliberately dense. But to what purpose?
Ok, I'll spell it out since you've demonstrated that you are not wise enough for just a word to be sufficient. The only value the record companies provide is to hold the audience hostage. Payola being the prime example, exclusionary contracts with all the major brick & mortar stores is another. If they didn't hold the audience hostage, they would not be able to so absolutely dictate terms to the artists themselves. All the other "services" that they provide are just as available on the open market and at substantially lower cost than what the record company "charges" the artists.
Don't bother responding - payola and exclusionary contracts are well documented, indisputable facts of how business is done. If you think you can dispute the link between them and holding audiences hostage, you'll have to explain what other more plausible reason would explain those facts, and make sure your arguments aren't undone by the word oligopoly.
But she did have a bottle of water so, you know, it was just as bad.
Actually, the way I, as a radio-only listener, remember it, Cartalk switched to WM-only for about one month and then because of a huge number of complaints from listeners and more than just a few technical problems on the server side, they dumped MS and went back to Real.
If a cop knocks on your door tonight and asks if he can look around without a warrant and no apparent reason.
Wouldn't you ask him "for what purpose?"
Sure I would. But I did not sign a contract that said the cops could come take a look around anytime they want to. These companies all did sign such contracts in exchange for the public listing of their shares.
If they don't like it, they can buy back their shares and go home.
Why do you make that presumption?
If someone honestly believes that such material is not deserving of such restrictions, then just why is it that you expect them to honor such restrictions in the first place? That's like saying in a country with legalized slavery, you would trust that anyone who honestly believes slavery is wrong to never aid a slave in escaping to his freedom. Or in less inflammatory terms - if someone fundamentally disagrees with a law, believes it has no moral basis, he should still unquestionally obey it.
Pacifism only works when there are non-pacifists to protect the pacifists.
Pacifism only fails when there are non-pacifists to attack the pacifists.