Apple ONLY HAS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE FUCKING MARKET!
Really, so who holds the majority of the mobile phone application market? If you put all the other app stores together, they wouldn't sell anywhere near the amount Apple does on its own.
The technology existed long before Apple
Uhhh, so what? How is that relevant in any way? Oh right... I'm replying to a troll.
Seriously, the PC market seemed to do just fine for decades without an official "app store".
Actually, the PC market has been mostly shitty, unless you happen to be Microsoft or Adobe, or one of the big enterprise software writers. For the most part, users didn't buy many applications that didn't come with the computer. And the majority of people who did use third-party applications pirated them.
Compared to the iPhone app store, the third-party PC software market is a failure. If PC software sales were even close to the per-user sales on the iPhone, the market would be much larger than what it is.
One aspect that is very detrimental to your argument, is that you are arguing about the collapse of civilization through environmental regulations, but your example is California, which is one of the leading civilizations on the planet. Environmental regulations are common among the most "civilized" places, but lacking in the places that are the poorest and least developed.
Correlation is not causation, of course, but maybe you should think about that for a minute. As humans become more advanced and sophisticated, their own self-restrictions actually increase. For example: a professor's sense of ethics is much more restricting than a homeless drug addict's.
Specifically note the "an end to the familiar, open-front hearth in new homes and remodels." If that is not a 100% ban then what is it?
It only applies to homes, so it appears to be nowhere near 100%. It would not prevent your hypothetical starving African from cooking on an outdoor campfire.
Again, this is just an example of how deep the government control can go
Right - not very deep. Again, where is the oppression? If this were anywhere near infringing on fundamental human rights, it would be overturned or ignored completely.
What does any of this have to do with the story we are commenting on? It appears you have a personal ax to grind, and will use any excuse to grind it, even where it is utterly irrelevant.
Yeah, so how is any of this oppression, and what does it have to do with climate change debate? The laws were put in place to control particulate pollution, which has historically been a big problem in California. It's not like this is something that just affects the person doing the burning - the smoke has a negative effect on those around you. In a civilized society, people curb their activities that impact on others.
If your desire was to be informative, then why did you have to lie about the facts? You claimed that burning wood was "banned in California" but it turns out that burning wood is restricted (not banned) in a certain part of California, for a few days per year.
Conspiracy theory B merely requires you to believe a wing of the government is trying to behave as it's first principles dictate, with any actual conspiracy merely being vocal or in paper form. No need to actually do anything physical.
But it also requires you to believe that government is controlled by "lying progressives" - when in reality, progressives are almost non-existent in government. It also seems to require belief in some powerful group wanting to "enslave the citizens" and who hates freedom. This group isn't defined, but it is implied by proximity that this is liberals and the Obama administration.
In other words, a crackpot theory that is just as insane as the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
It's not a proposal, it's the law. Read about it here [sparetheair.org]. The only exception is made for houses that have no gas heaters at all; my house has it, so I'm out of luck, even though running the heater will send my bills through the roof.
So, your own link proves that you are a liar. Wood burning is only banned under certain conditions, on certain days, in a limited geographic area. And exemptions are provided if you don't have any alternatives.
Calling that "oppression" is an insult to people who actually experience oppression.
Well, I was mostly joking. My boss is actually very good with email, and email is the primary way we conduct business. But I think we all know people who use email inappropriately and forward all kinds of crazy stuff.
That said, I used to be against the over-reliance on face-to-face meetings, but they are actually very useful. Even if they might not be as brutally efficient as email communication, they help the social aspects of business. I've found meetings where nothing productive seems to happen are actually invaluable, because they can act as a pressure relief valve that can diffuse workplace tensions.
This is just an example of such restrictions, doesn't matter where in the world you are being oppressed.
But you originally claimed that poor people in Africa would be prohibited from burning wood. When it is mentioned that they aren't, you change your argument?
Frankly, context and where something happens does make a difference. Somebody in California is not being "oppressed" by not being allowed to have a wood stove. How is it oppression? Other forms of energy are abundant and cheap, so it really makes no difference to a Californian. To somebody who doesn't have other options, it's very different.
If instead of staying in San Francisco you get into a car and drive a few hundred miles in any direction (except West:-) you will find thousands of farms and ranches that depend on wood fireplaces and stoves to heat houses. LNG will cost you $1,500 per tank; wood may cost you $200 per cord but is often free if you own land. Cooking on wood stoves is just not very convenient, but heating with wood is.
And who is proposing that they stop heating their homes with wood? Artie McStrawman?
Since when was California in Africa? I must have missed all the starving Californians who relied on burning wood to cook their meals last time I was there.
Right, so you choose not to believe one insane conspiracy theory, but buy into a different insane conspiracy theory. That makes you no different than the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Being a delusional moron is not something to be proud of.
For someone who demands such a nuanced interpretation of liberal/democrat, you sure seem ignorant of what the tea party actually is. The tea party is a group of people, some crazy and some not, who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy.
Nonsense. They are a bunch of kooks stirred up by Fox News. The "tea party" has nothing to do with sound fiscal policy.
I'm really surprised that in a site full of supposedly technically savvy people that there are so many here who haven't really looked at the evidence,
It's not really surprising. Slashdot is full of people who think that knowing how to use a computer makes them humanity's elite. For several years now, slashdot has been overrun by arrogant assholes whose only education outside of computing is reading Ayn Rand.
... and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared.
How does that have anything to do with climatology?
My 1970s textbooks in grade school and high school went out of their way to define progress as a big march to the nanny state..
Given your demonstrated extreme biases, and ability to interpret almost anything as a leftist plot, no matter how benign; I'm going to conclude that this is a falsehood.
I'm well aware of that. But it didn't stop Rush Limbaugh or anybody else using the word. So, where is this law that the use of the word is prohibited? Media tempests in a teacup don't count.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple ONLY HAS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE FUCKING MARKET!
Really, so who holds the majority of the mobile phone application market? If you put all the other app stores together, they wouldn't sell anywhere near the amount Apple does on its own.
The technology existed long before Apple
Uhhh, so what? How is that relevant in any way? Oh right... I'm replying to a troll.
Seriously, the PC market seemed to do just fine for decades without an official "app store".
Actually, the PC market has been mostly shitty, unless you happen to be Microsoft or Adobe, or one of the big enterprise software writers. For the most part, users didn't buy many applications that didn't come with the computer. And the majority of people who did use third-party applications pirated them.
Compared to the iPhone app store, the third-party PC software market is a failure. If PC software sales were even close to the per-user sales on the iPhone, the market would be much larger than what it is.
You're way off base - they're hoping they'll make White Castle.
In that case they'd better not pick up a hitchhiking Neil Patrick Harris on the way.
What's an "exact" model? Accurate down to individual atoms?
P.S:
One aspect that is very detrimental to your argument, is that you are arguing about the collapse of civilization through environmental regulations, but your example is California, which is one of the leading civilizations on the planet. Environmental regulations are common among the most "civilized" places, but lacking in the places that are the poorest and least developed.
Correlation is not causation, of course, but maybe you should think about that for a minute. As humans become more advanced and sophisticated, their own self-restrictions actually increase. For example: a professor's sense of ethics is much more restricting than a homeless drug addict's.
Specifically note the "an end to the familiar, open-front hearth in new homes and remodels." If that is not a 100% ban then what is it?
It only applies to homes, so it appears to be nowhere near 100%. It would not prevent your hypothetical starving African from cooking on an outdoor campfire.
Again, this is just an example of how deep the government control can go
Right - not very deep. Again, where is the oppression? If this were anywhere near infringing on fundamental human rights, it would be overturned or ignored completely.
What does any of this have to do with the story we are commenting on? It appears you have a personal ax to grind, and will use any excuse to grind it, even where it is utterly irrelevant.
Yeah, so how is any of this oppression, and what does it have to do with climate change debate? The laws were put in place to control particulate pollution, which has historically been a big problem in California. It's not like this is something that just affects the person doing the burning - the smoke has a negative effect on those around you. In a civilized society, people curb their activities that impact on others.
If your desire was to be informative, then why did you have to lie about the facts? You claimed that burning wood was "banned in California" but it turns out that burning wood is restricted (not banned) in a certain part of California, for a few days per year.
Conspiracy theory B merely requires you to believe a wing of the government is trying to behave as it's first principles dictate, with any actual conspiracy merely being vocal or in paper form. No need to actually do anything physical.
But it also requires you to believe that government is controlled by "lying progressives" - when in reality, progressives are almost non-existent in government. It also seems to require belief in some powerful group wanting to "enslave the citizens" and who hates freedom. This group isn't defined, but it is implied by proximity that this is liberals and the Obama administration.
In other words, a crackpot theory that is just as insane as the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
It's not a proposal, it's the law. Read about it here [sparetheair.org]. The only exception is made for houses that have no gas heaters at all; my house has it, so I'm out of luck, even though running the heater will send my bills through the roof.
So, your own link proves that you are a liar. Wood burning is only banned under certain conditions, on certain days, in a limited geographic area. And exemptions are provided if you don't have any alternatives.
Calling that "oppression" is an insult to people who actually experience oppression.
Well, I was mostly joking. My boss is actually very good with email, and email is the primary way we conduct business. But I think we all know people who use email inappropriately and forward all kinds of crazy stuff.
That said, I used to be against the over-reliance on face-to-face meetings, but they are actually very useful. Even if they might not be as brutally efficient as email communication, they help the social aspects of business. I've found meetings where nothing productive seems to happen are actually invaluable, because they can act as a pressure relief valve that can diffuse workplace tensions.
This is just an example of such restrictions, doesn't matter where in the world you are being oppressed.
But you originally claimed that poor people in Africa would be prohibited from burning wood. When it is mentioned that they aren't, you change your argument?
Frankly, context and where something happens does make a difference. Somebody in California is not being "oppressed" by not being allowed to have a wood stove. How is it oppression? Other forms of energy are abundant and cheap, so it really makes no difference to a Californian. To somebody who doesn't have other options, it's very different.
If instead of staying in San Francisco you get into a car and drive a few hundred miles in any direction (except West :-) you will find thousands of farms and ranches that depend on wood fireplaces and stoves to heat houses. LNG will cost you $1,500 per tank; wood may cost you $200 per cord but is often free if you own land. Cooking on wood stoves is just not very convenient, but heating with wood is.
And who is proposing that they stop heating their homes with wood? Artie McStrawman?
Lucky you, not living in California.
Since when was California in Africa? I must have missed all the starving Californians who relied on burning wood to cook their meals last time I was there.
And those arrogant assholes are stupid. That's the point. Being a "computer professional" does not necessarily mean that one is intelligent.
Yes, I have spoken to people from tea parties, and they are delusional.
Right, so you choose not to believe one insane conspiracy theory, but buy into a different insane conspiracy theory. That makes you no different than the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Being a delusional moron is not something to be proud of.
Why are we even talking about what conservatives think? The GOP has amply demonstrated that it has no interest in governing the country in good faith.
The GOP has conservatives??? When did this happen?
For someone who demands such a nuanced interpretation of liberal/democrat, you sure seem ignorant of what the tea party actually is. The tea party is a group of people, some crazy and some not, who are united by a desire for a sound fiscal policy.
Nonsense. They are a bunch of kooks stirred up by Fox News. The "tea party" has nothing to do with sound fiscal policy.
I'm really surprised that in a site full of supposedly technically savvy people that there are so many here who haven't really looked at the evidence,
It's not really surprising. Slashdot is full of people who think that knowing how to use a computer makes them humanity's elite. For several years now, slashdot has been overrun by arrogant assholes whose only education outside of computing is reading Ayn Rand.
... and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared.
How does that have anything to do with climatology?
Instead of forwarding an email to me, he'll print it out and hand it to me.
You're obviously one of the lucky ones, who doesn't have to deal with their boss forwarding emails to them.
I think I'm going to have a drink everytime someone mentions something made before I was born on this thread...
You were born on this thread? I know people are starting to use computers at younger ages these days, but this is ridiculous.
My 1970s textbooks in grade school and high school went out of their way to define progress as a big march to the nanny state..
Given your demonstrated extreme biases, and ability to interpret almost anything as a leftist plot, no matter how benign; I'm going to conclude that this is a falsehood.
What a nice utopia that would be. :)
More mindless chit-chat is the exact opposite of utopia.
I'm well aware of that. But it didn't stop Rush Limbaugh or anybody else using the word. So, where is this law that the use of the word is prohibited? Media tempests in a teacup don't count.
'I updated 11 Windows XP updates today...
You updated your updates? You're doing it wrong.