I love this comment because it calls us names when we deserve to be called names, and somehow ends up feeling quite inspiring. I'm voting for Obama in November, and it would take a lot for me to shake my confidence in him. I not only see him as the correct choice in terms of policy, but I also see him as a man who can turn the tide in this country and take back "liberal" so it's not a dirty word anymore. And we've seen that the tide needs to be turned.
You are very arrogant, and you too are a hypocritical fear-mongerer. For someone who claims to be have an agenda of truth (unlike everyone else on the planet who pursue lies and death), you sure ignore a lot of stuff. You keep ignoring the FACT that we did not ban malaria in the entire world one day in 1972. There is no DDT ban in much of the 3rd world. And it seems you would like to ignore the FACT that DDT causes cancer, which is definitely something you want to avoid if you can also avoid malaria. It is good that we banned it because we (the united states) do not need it. But please, please carry on your crusade to save human lives by ranting about how evil environmentalists are on slashdot. Millions of lives depend on you!!!
The environmentalists that got DDT banned, distorted the facts and blew them out of proportion. I would be a hypocrite if I was doing the same thing. If you read on, you'll see that I blew the facts slightly UNDER proportion precisely to avoid being hypocritical.
So in other words, you think you're right so it's different when you do it. Believe it or not, environmentalists also think they are right.
Then someone else did the math and found that this person had just given evidence SUPPORTING my point because there were MORE malaria deaths then my intentionally non-fearmongering, conservative estimate of 30 million:
34 years of DDT ban in the U.S., times 1 to 3 million a year... would actually mean that his estimates probably weren't bad.
But you have no idea how many deaths there would be if situations were different, and the math this person used specifically refers to a ban on the use of DDT inside the US, which actually doesn't apply to anywhere else in the world. Most countries with actual malaria problems do not have such a ban.
Hey, I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. You're railing against environmentalist fear-mongering and simultaneously fear-mongering against being concerned with the health of the environment. You are using the same tools they are, and you blame them for it.
Other people pointed out that the DDT ban wasn't as you make it out to be, and I don't see how writing the same thing as someone else would add anything as far as you are concerned.
I recently turned ClearType off, and my eyes have been thanking me ever since. I think ClearType is for people who don't stare at monitors 8+ hours a day. Now that I've gotten used to ClearType being off, smoothed fonts look blurry and it feels like my eyes can't figure out how to focus on them.
Look at it this way: You're one of the fathers of humanity. You get to help set precedent for the tens of thousands, or maybe even millions, of years that follow.
Our abuses of less advanced civilizations on our planet has always been the result of the desire to control resources and land. In the universe, there are far more resources on uninhabited planets (as far as we know!) than on inhabited planets like ours. Except for fossil fuels, which seem to require life to exist. But I can't imagine a civilization advanced enough to get to our planet having much use for them. I can't imagine our planet actually having anything to offer.
SPIN ALERT. Weapons that are old and no longer effective don't really fit my definition of Weapon of Mass Destruction. Maybe what we found were WMDs at one time.
Is Linux out of touch with the average user? I'm not sure it is. Average users don't do much but write emails, surf the web, and do word processing. Linux has these people covered.
Is Slashdot out of touch with the average user? Yes.
Is Slashdot out of touch with Linux? YES.
Slow Linux adoption has nothing to do with your grandma installing mp3 codecs and DVD rippers. Your grandma has naught to do with it. I find it astounding how many +5 comments here GROSSLY misrepresent actual Linux desktop use. Do you guys actually use Linux? Oh wait, no, most of you are Windows power users, and directing this question at Slashdot is like asking a car to manage your stock portfolio.
Linux adoption is slow for exactly two reasons at this point.
Computer companies that sell Linux computers are few and far between, and few people know they even exist. Most people don't install an OS themselves, so if Linux is to appeal to the masses, it must actually come on the computer they buy. But what company will offer computers if no one is currently buying the ones that are out?
Because there are few users, there are also few SUPPORTED games and professional grade applications. Like Photoshop, and Cubase. Of course, how do we get the software without the users?
No, it's not compiling software (I do this on rare occasion and for kicks only), human interface guidelines (Gnome and KDE are both more consistent than Windows and, IMHO, OS X), or copy and paste (I haven't had issues with this in a long time). Even drag and drop work great for me under Linux. It's not the diversity of software. I find it mind boggling that half of you fault Linux for lacking software and half of you fault it for having TOO MUCH.
By the way, if Linux does actually take over the desktop, the masses (95% of users) will probably all use the same apps on the same distro, and the computing ecosystem will probably look just about exactly like it does now. Why can't you just sit back and see what happens? Who cares!
I've read about this so called wall, and it's a comedy of error. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they're basically talking about building a 700 mile long fence to protect a 1400 mile long border. That fence ain't gonna do shit, and people are still going to climb over it.
While I know there are a lot of assholes that use Linux, my one experiences with the Ubuntu Forums and irc channels are dramatically different from what you describe. Whenever I go there, people have always been very kind and knowledgeable. and they have always helped me with my problems. Whenever I am there, I try to return the favor if anyone has a problem I can help with.
Speaking as a so called atheist, I don't "believe" in a lack of a supreme being. I think that there's no reason TO believe in a supreme being. Because there is no evidence, and because if there is one, he doesn't seem to care what we do or think.
I think man's religions are silly, ultimately needlessly divisive, and built upon fear and anger.
Wow, you're a prophet of alternate realities. I wish I had the brilliance to determine what the entire world would be like, going back 6 years, if things were drastically different, but I don't so I'll listen to you.
Fuck those democrats, we speculate that they would have screwed everything up just as bad!
PS: It looks like you might have a liberal bias of your own!
Oh yeah, you've got it. That actor changed shows because the science is all wrong. Hollywood has always been on the forefront of science, so I don't see why we shouldn't trust of the intuition of that guy from Ghostbusters 2.
Christians believe that killing will condemn them to an eternity of hellfire.
Most Christians don't even believe that. They believe God will forgive them of any sin, no matter how big or small, so long as you repent. So if you kill someone, and you're sorry, Jesus will forgive you and you go to Heaven. Just as long as you believe.
You're awfully ignorant about what Atheists think and also of what Christians believe.
As someone who has lived in both rural areas and in towns for good portions of my life, I can generally guess that towns are waaaaay more environmentally friendly. Cities easily produce less pollution per person.
Air in towns is generally cleaner to breathe since people in rural areas like to burn everything from trash to trees to grass and love to keep livestock in a confined space under poor conditions (which produces some pretty awesome odors that can even trigger asthma). Farmers love to spray pesticides everywhere too. Also take into consideration that they drive their cars (often gas-guzzling trucks) 15 miles to town and back every day. Rural just produce disproportionately large amounts of pollution.
In cities, especially densely populated ones, people don't drive nearly as much because they don't need to travel nearly as far. Some use public transport. I used to bike whenever possible. Great effort is made to recycle glass, plastics, metals, and human waste. And you can't just randomly burn crap on your lawn like rural people seem to love doing as there are laws against it.
Much less pollution per person.
Maybe I'm redundant at this point, but the else-block is what is run if something in the try block throws an exception that is not of type Exception1 or Exception2. It's just the generic fallback error handling. I guess it would be like catching Exception in java, after attempting to catch some more specialized exception types.
"Hell, we had 333MHz G3 B&W Powermacs with 384MB of RAM that ran OS X 10.1.x just fine when we still had those machines."
I, on the other hand, had a 400MHz G3 iMac with 384MB of RAM that ran OS X 10.1.x and that sucker was slower than Paris Hilton on a Sunday morning. I kid you not, I switched to Windows 2000 over it. Looks nice, but when it takes more than 10 seconds to open the equivalent of WordPad, something's gotta give. Especially for what I payed to run that crap. I said "Maybe I'll come back when OS X is done" and got a PC. I haven't come back to Apple yet, but Vista threatens to push me back in the exact same way.
Slashdot Mirror
I love this comment because it calls us names when we deserve to be called names, and somehow ends up feeling quite inspiring. I'm voting for Obama in November, and it would take a lot for me to shake my confidence in him. I not only see him as the correct choice in terms of policy, but I also see him as a man who can turn the tide in this country and take back "liberal" so it's not a dirty word anymore. And we've seen that the tide needs to be turned.
You are very arrogant, and you too are a hypocritical fear-mongerer. For someone who claims to be have an agenda of truth (unlike everyone else on the planet who pursue lies and death), you sure ignore a lot of stuff. You keep ignoring the FACT that we did not ban malaria in the entire world one day in 1972. There is no DDT ban in much of the 3rd world. And it seems you would like to ignore the FACT that DDT causes cancer, which is definitely something you want to avoid if you can also avoid malaria. It is good that we banned it because we (the united states) do not need it. But please, please carry on your crusade to save human lives by ranting about how evil environmentalists are on slashdot. Millions of lives depend on you!!!
I'm pointing out facts, in context.
That's not fearmongering and not hypocrisy.
The environmentalists that got DDT banned, distorted the facts and blew them out of proportion. I would be a hypocrite if I was doing the same thing. If you read on, you'll see that I blew the facts slightly UNDER proportion precisely to avoid being hypocritical.
So in other words, you think you're right so it's different when you do it. Believe it or not, environmentalists also think they are right.
Then someone else did the math and found that this person had just given evidence SUPPORTING my point because there were MORE malaria deaths then my intentionally non-fearmongering, conservative estimate of 30 million:
34 years of DDT ban in the U.S., times 1 to 3 million a year... would actually mean that his estimates probably weren't bad.
But you have no idea how many deaths there would be if situations were different, and the math this person used specifically refers to a ban on the use of DDT inside the US, which actually doesn't apply to anywhere else in the world. Most countries with actual malaria problems do not have such a ban.
Hey, I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. You're railing against environmentalist fear-mongering and simultaneously fear-mongering against being concerned with the health of the environment. You are using the same tools they are, and you blame them for it.
Other people pointed out that the DDT ban wasn't as you make it out to be, and I don't see how writing the same thing as someone else would add anything as far as you are concerned.
Wow, speaking of fear-mongering... The unenvironmentalist fuck-the-planet crowd would never do that, would they?
I think you mean "Don't misunderestimate him."
I recently turned ClearType off, and my eyes have been thanking me ever since. I think ClearType is for people who don't stare at monitors 8+ hours a day. Now that I've gotten used to ClearType being off, smoothed fonts look blurry and it feels like my eyes can't figure out how to focus on them.
Look at it this way: You're one of the fathers of humanity. You get to help set precedent for the tens of thousands, or maybe even millions, of years that follow.
Our abuses of less advanced civilizations on our planet has always been the result of the desire to control resources and land. In the universe, there are far more resources on uninhabited planets (as far as we know!) than on inhabited planets like ours. Except for fossil fuels, which seem to require life to exist. But I can't imagine a civilization advanced enough to get to our planet having much use for them. I can't imagine our planet actually having anything to offer.
SPIN ALERT. Weapons that are old and no longer effective don't really fit my definition of Weapon of Mass Destruction. Maybe what we found were WMDs at one time.
Uh... OpenGL? That's a globally accepted library for games.
Is Slashdot out of touch with the average user? Yes.
Is Slashdot out of touch with Linux? YES.
Slow Linux adoption has nothing to do with your grandma installing mp3 codecs and DVD rippers. Your grandma has naught to do with it. I find it astounding how many +5 comments here GROSSLY misrepresent actual Linux desktop use. Do you guys actually use Linux? Oh wait, no, most of you are Windows power users, and directing this question at Slashdot is like asking a car to manage your stock portfolio.
Linux adoption is slow for exactly two reasons at this point.
- Computer companies that sell Linux computers are few and far between, and few people know they even exist. Most people don't install an OS themselves, so if Linux is to appeal to the masses, it must actually come on the computer they buy. But what company will offer computers if no one is currently buying the ones that are out?
- Because there are few users, there are also few SUPPORTED games and professional grade applications. Like Photoshop, and Cubase. Of course, how do we get the software without the users?
No, it's not compiling software (I do this on rare occasion and for kicks only), human interface guidelines (Gnome and KDE are both more consistent than Windows and, IMHO, OS X), or copy and paste (I haven't had issues with this in a long time). Even drag and drop work great for me under Linux. It's not the diversity of software. I find it mind boggling that half of you fault Linux for lacking software and half of you fault it for having TOO MUCH.By the way, if Linux does actually take over the desktop, the masses (95% of users) will probably all use the same apps on the same distro, and the computing ecosystem will probably look just about exactly like it does now. Why can't you just sit back and see what happens? Who cares!
I've read about this so called wall, and it's a comedy of error. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they're basically talking about building a 700 mile long fence to protect a 1400 mile long border. That fence ain't gonna do shit, and people are still going to climb over it.
I don't know where you learned LISP, but this doesn't parse at all.
Dude, those Thorazine pills your doctor gave you are very important.
While I know there are a lot of assholes that use Linux, my one experiences with the Ubuntu Forums and irc channels are dramatically different from what you describe. Whenever I go there, people have always been very kind and knowledgeable. and they have always helped me with my problems. Whenever I am there, I try to return the favor if anyone has a problem I can help with.
Speaking as a so called atheist, I don't "believe" in a lack of a supreme being. I think that there's no reason TO believe in a supreme being. Because there is no evidence, and because if there is one, he doesn't seem to care what we do or think. I think man's religions are silly, ultimately needlessly divisive, and built upon fear and anger.
Wow, you're a prophet of alternate realities. I wish I had the brilliance to determine what the entire world would be like, going back 6 years, if things were drastically different, but I don't so I'll listen to you.
Fuck those democrats, we speculate that they would have screwed everything up just as bad!
PS: It looks like you might have a liberal bias of your own!
Oh yeah, you've got it. That actor changed shows because the science is all wrong. Hollywood has always been on the forefront of science, so I don't see why we shouldn't trust of the intuition of that guy from Ghostbusters 2.
Sir, I wish I could mod you up to 11.
You're awfully ignorant about what Atheists think and also of what Christians believe.
As someone who has lived in both rural areas and in towns for good portions of my life, I can generally guess that towns are waaaaay more environmentally friendly. Cities easily produce less pollution per person. Air in towns is generally cleaner to breathe since people in rural areas like to burn everything from trash to trees to grass and love to keep livestock in a confined space under poor conditions (which produces some pretty awesome odors that can even trigger asthma). Farmers love to spray pesticides everywhere too. Also take into consideration that they drive their cars (often gas-guzzling trucks) 15 miles to town and back every day. Rural just produce disproportionately large amounts of pollution. In cities, especially densely populated ones, people don't drive nearly as much because they don't need to travel nearly as far. Some use public transport. I used to bike whenever possible. Great effort is made to recycle glass, plastics, metals, and human waste. And you can't just randomly burn crap on your lawn like rural people seem to love doing as there are laws against it. Much less pollution per person.
Boy, do I look dumb! Guess I misread the explanation earlier.
Also, I think that this syntax makes no sense now that I know how it actually works.
Sorry about the misinformation everyone. Oh well, it's Slashdot. When in Rome, right? har har har.
Maybe I'm redundant at this point, but the else-block is what is run if something in the try block throws an exception that is not of type Exception1 or Exception2. It's just the generic fallback error handling. I guess it would be like catching Exception in java, after attempting to catch some more specialized exception types.
Then the final-block is run no matter what.
"Hell, we had 333MHz G3 B&W Powermacs with 384MB of RAM that ran OS X 10.1.x just fine when we still had those machines."
I, on the other hand, had a 400MHz G3 iMac with 384MB of RAM that ran OS X 10.1.x and that sucker was slower than Paris Hilton on a Sunday morning. I kid you not, I switched to Windows 2000 over it. Looks nice, but when it takes more than 10 seconds to open the equivalent of WordPad, something's gotta give. Especially for what I payed to run that crap. I said "Maybe I'll come back when OS X is done" and got a PC. I haven't come back to Apple yet, but Vista threatens to push me back in the exact same way.