God dammit, isn't there any forum that you 9/11 Denier lunatics won't pollute with your idiotic spam? Yes, the September 11th attacks were coordinated at a cost of millions of dollars, causing billions in direct damage, killing thousands of people, and probably causing trillions in indirect long-term damage by harming the economy and the national psyche, all so that a few people could make a few million dollars on the stock market. Meanwhile, the CIA demolished a $700,000,000 building so that they could destroy records. Apparently they never heard of a paper-shredder. Or a "delete" key.
What I want to know is who the fuck put Dr. Evil in charge of this operation?
Also, what idiots modded you up? I mean, I suppose that your comment is "interesting" in the same way that a wheelchair hurdle race would be "interesting", but c'mon, that's hardly what that mod category is meant for.
*sigh* I can perfectly understand ignorant people believing such silly assertions. What I can't understand is someone like you stating it, and then linking to an article which all but disproves your statement. You're effectively saying:
"Afghanistam was all about the oil! So here's a link which talks about a natural gas pipeline which hasn't been built, but may some day (maybe) be built in order to serve countries which didn't even fight in Afghanistan."
Talk about a nonsequitor. Have someone check your temperature - you're probably running a fever.
Just say "Hey, we need to get rid of Sadam because we need his oil and he wouldn't let us have it". I'm sure we'll understand and see the reason in that.
If we really wanted the oil, there'd be much more efficient ways to get it. Such as:
1) Subverting the oil-for-food program like everyone else was doing.
2) Threatening Sadam with invasion.
3) Just going in, securing the oil, and ignoring the rest of the country. Which could have been done with a quarter of the manpower, and a tenth of the casualties.
I also find it fascinating that, even after years of trying to help these nations rebuild at a cost of billions of dollars, while taking none of their natural resources, people like you still seem to think it's perfectly logical to claim that all we want is the oil. I don't quite understand how you can believe in such an absurdity. Luckily your numbers seem to be dwindling, otherwise I'd be really concerned.
Well said John:) If I had the points I'd deffinitely mod you up. All these idiots who are currently demonizing the Bush admin seem to have been born in 2001. Either that, or their memory is so faulty that they've forgotten all the scandals of past administrations.
Usually when people speak of charity they mean giving to those of us who are less well off. I don't really think giving weapons to the military of a rich, industrialized country can be called charity.
Helping people defend themselves against bigger opponents is generally considered charitable. Even ignoring that, giving is charitable regardless of how rich the recipient may be. If you give money to a museum, you're being charitable despite the fact that the Museum's exhibits are worth more than you'll ever make.
Ah. So the cold war was all about oil now, was it? And it was fought through the UN, was it?
how about the fact Isreal has defied more UNSC resolutions that anyone else due to the US veto powers
Right! Because the Palestinian territories hold MASSIVE stores of oil! And the US support of Israel operates through the UN! Wow, you're so smart.
yet ALL of the permenent members let it slide for years because they were ALL guilty
Well, except for the US. But yes, almost everyone was profiting off the oil-for-food fiasco, and not just the "permanent members". Really, you're proving MY point, which is that the UN is corrupt and useless.
Why the hell would Clinton donate $2B worth of attack choppers to Burma in the 90's if he didn't see Burma as a pawn.
I don't know, ask Clinton. All I know is that this example, like all your other examples, had absolutely nothing to do with your original stated premise, which was that "If there is a systemic problem with the UN it is that the permenent members of the UNSC use it as a method of fight proxy wars where real people (ie: smaller oil rich nations) get caught in the middle"
So far you have failed to prove your premise in a spectacular fashion.
If you want half a chance at understanding why international politics succedes and fails in a particular senarios then stop blindly parroting the innane spin of certain US senators who are mearly offering a convienient scapegoat to distract attention from their from their own failings.
Um, fuck you very much. Unlike you, I've actually WORKED with the UN, and my opinions, while they are similar to those of most of my coworkers, are entirely my own. That you would dare suggest that I'm simply "parroting" someone elses opinions tells me all I need to know about your character. Also, please, work on your spelling; your little run-on sentence there has 5 misspelled words in it, which doesn't do much to instill confidence in your intellectual abilities.
... I could quote what ambulance drivers and moticians talk about during lunch break...
Sorry, but I just couldn't let that go. Are you suggesting that cases of violence amongst the general population of a country are equivalent to systematic corruption within an organization?
If there is a systemic problem with the UN it is that the permenent members of the UNSC use it as a method of fight proxy wars where real people (ie: smaller oil rich nations) get caught in the middle
The US government gives money to Israel which is used to buy weapons from the US. How charitable...
Yuhuh. What's wrong with that? If I give a homeless guy coupons which he can only use to buy food from me, am I not being charitable? I've heard your line of reasoning before, but I've never understood it. Are you saying that the only way to be charitable is to give dollars? So when I give old clothes to goodwill, or donate blood at the blood bank, I'm actually being a stingy bastard?
The UN is great for long term assistance and opening the political doors that enable the US Navy to do it's stuff. In other words the US & UN work best together not in competition.
Um, no. Have you ever worked with the UN? Talk to any veteran who's been on UN "peacekeeping" ops, and you'll quickly lose your delusions about what they do.
I mean, if by "long term support" you mean "personnel who sit around and look pretty while the locals get butchered", then yeah, you got it right. Hell, just recently in Lebanon UN forces confronted a handful of terrorists who were smuggling weapons. When the terrorists threatened them with said weapons, the UN promptly ran away. Turns out their new motto is "don't ask, don't tell". And don't get me started on the Rwanda massacres, where the UN started withdrawing even before the violence started.
And if by "opening the political doors that enable the US Navy to do it's stuff" you mean "criticize and demonize the US at every possible opportunity, while propping up tinpot dictators", then yeah, once again, you're bang on! I mean.... giving Ahmadenijad the floor so he can call the US "The Great Satan" and encourage others to fight against America.... yeah, that opens all kinds of doors! Not to mention the various resolutions and statements made over the years by numerous UN officials.
The UN has become less effective and more corrupt than the League of Nations which it replaced. It's about time the US pulled out. See how long the UN lasts without them.
Yeah, but most of that `giving` is to Israel. I'm talking about charity, to countries which need it.
You're joking, right? Are you totally ignorant of Israels situation, or are you just trolling?
Anyway, charity is charity, regardless of your uninformed opinion. Maybe someone somewhere thinks that drug users don't deserve to be given money, but that doesn't mean you're not being charitable when you give to a program to help drug users.
Finally, the US gives far less than the suggested minimum of its GDP.
So there's a suggested minimum for being charitable now?:) Right. Didn't anyone tell you that communism is dead?
I can confirm this. unless you have very expensive gps gear that has been calibrated off a known survey point, your best accuracy is 20m.
Wow. My GPS must be something real special then. Funny, it only cost me $100. You'd figure such an unusually accurate device would cost a hell of a lot more.
Come to think of it, my friends Car GPS seems to be just as accurate....tracked us right to his exact address....
but honestly, does anyone believe the claim no one will be buried within 5m? when they start running out of room the temptation to make that 5m to 2m will be too great.
They're talking about using wildlife preserves as burial sites. Do you have any idea how much land is available?
Whenever I encounter these drivers, I do a quick Lo-Hi-Lo switch with my headlights to say, "Hey bud; turn down your headlights." Most get the message and drop their lights from Hi to Lo. Some are idiots and continue blinding everybody.
That's a separate issue entirely. HID conversions are generally done on low-beam lamps, so flashing your high-beams at them is pointless since they've already got their low-beams turned on. About all they can do at that point to avoid blinding you is to shut off their lights entirely.
The higher-end cars all use those HID lights that are brighter the anything on the road, blind you whenever the slightest dip in the road is hit by them coming at you, and these light configurations are stock on vehicles. It is illegal however for me to put those same lights on a car I already own that didn't come with it.
No. The "higher end cars" have HID done right - with projector lamps which focus the beam in order to increase effectiveness and decrease the likelihood of blinding oncoming traffic. The idiots who blind you are the ones who buy a $300 "conversion kit" for their 1983 Honda Civic, and then stick the HID lamps in regular reflector housings.
The funny (ok, not funny at all) thing is that while these ass-clowns will swear that their new HID lights are the coolest thing ever, the extra glare reflecting off everything around them actually decreases their own ability to see at night time. So not only are they blinding you, they're also endangering themselves.
I for one wish the cops WOULD start enforcing those laws. If you're going to put in HID, get projectors, otherwise you deserve to be arrested.
This plan won't work. 50 gateways is too few the performance will suck profoundly. 4000 to 50 just doesn't work.
Imagine if bittorrent decided to say "screw the distributed client model", we'll just host 50 giant sites with all the files stored on them. Yeah, that just wouldn't work....
Nonsense. Have you ever seen a google data center? All Google functions are provided by a grand total of 36 (known) data centers - only 19 of which are in the US. And I can pretty much guarantee that Google processes more page requests on a daily basis than does the US Military.
So far you've only offered your personal incredulity in order to ridicule the idea - how about providing some technical data as to why "the performance will suck profoundly"?
The fact that they survived the experience is amazing. Say what you want about Soviet technology, this was a very, very neat trick.
Despite the pointless profanity which makes his comment appear to be a mindless rant, JockTroll actually made a good point in his response to you.
He's right, there's nothing amazing about the Soyuz surviving a ballistic re-entry, since that's what it was designed to do. This isn't the shuttle we're talking about - you can't compare the two. It's like saying that it's amazing that a 747 can continue flying with one broken engine, while a Cesna can't. You'd be comparing two completely different things.
The current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is an apt comparison because the forces that we are trying to defeat there have persisted despite the best effort of the greatest military power on Earth.
Sure, and criminals persist despite the fact that you spend billions on fighting crime. So what? How does that mean that you're losing?
That's another advantage, they actually don't have to defeat us to be victorious, they just have to hang on long enough until we no longer have the political will to carry on the fight--that IS a victory for them.
You got it half right. You're right that they don't have to defeat us to be victorious - IF you define victory for them as us leaving. What you fail to understand is that the people fighting "us" are in fact members of numerous factions, all engaged not only in fighting us but also in fighting each other, and fighting the legitimate local governments and militias. Victory for them isn't as simple as making us leave - victory for them is making us leave AND defeating the other competing factions, AND overthrowing the current government, AND establishing control over the nation.
As such, all we need to do in order to deny them victory is to establish a political entity with a military force capable of controlling Iraq. Then we can leave without having lost, while the insurgents lose without being defeated by us.
This is exactly why no small insurgency could survive in the US - any intelligent president would treat it as a law-enforcement matter, and would have the individual states take care of the problem, while providing federal resources on request. ANG units would supplement local police forces where necessary, while the FBI provided inter-state intelligence. For an insurgency to have any chance of success in the US it would have to enjoy MASSIVE support from the people, and would have to politically "take over" a number of states before it became a serious threat to the nation. Even then the US military could be used to crush the resistance, so this theoretical insurgency would also need support at various levels within the military itself. All in all, such an event is so improbable as to not be worth seriously considering.
So how is a gun going to protect you when the goverment can bomb you from miles away or 30,000 feet?
Ah, yes, all those WW2 foot-soldiers were totally redundant, we should have just fought with bombers. And why the hell are there men on the ground in Iraq? Should have just bombed them into the stone-age, right?
Seriously, I can see that you obviously have no military experience, but that comment is pretty ignorant even for a run-of-the-mill civilian. Give your head a shake. The airforce may be able to destroy shit in a spectacular fashion, but only men with guns can actually hold ground. You can't occupy a piece of land from 30,000 feet, no matter how many bombs you have.
History is full of examples of small, vastly out gunned forces defeating a large conventional army using asymmetric warfare. Look what happened to the US in Vietnam, or the Soviets in Afghanistan or now the US in Afghanistan/Iraq.
So...when were you planning on giving us an example of a "small, vastly out gunned forces defeating a large conventional army using asymmetric warfare"?
Not to be pedantic, but none of your examples were military defeats. They were all political decisions. And while Vietnam and the Soviet defeat are borderline when it comes to illustrating your point (mainly due to the large human loses incurred by the major powers), using the current Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns as an example is just ludicrous.
And how many of those people have the proverbial (and literal) keys to hundreds of "nukular" bombs?.... of ALL the people in the world, HE, MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE should know the difference.
How does that follow?
I've got this weird little quirk where, whenever I try to say the words "Seat Heater", it comes out as "Heat Seater". I have to really concentrate on it in order to say it properly. So, by your logic, I should never be allowed to own a car with seat heaters?
Seriously, if you want to pick on the guy for some of his policy decisions, fine, but picking on him for the way he pronounces a word is just silly. Grow up.
My guess would be that it would cost less than the Iraq war. Sounds like a good deal, no?
I can buy a big-screen TV for less than a good security system. It only sounds like a good deal, however, until my TV gets stolen.
Now hopefully some moderators who AREN'T crippled by dementia will come along, and mod your comment "flamebait". What in the the flying fuck does the Iraq war have to do with solar power?
Nah. All you'd have to do is bribe someone...
How's that for Occam? Hmm?
Horrible. There's still no motive, not to mention that said someone would just turn around and sell you out at the earliest opportunity. You seem to have applied a generous portion of Occam's Shaving Cream, to avoid all those nasty cuts and scrapes.
Okay, but that doesn't say anything about requiring God to be more complex than the creation and thus breaking some known or unknown rule.
*sigh*
I can't believe I'm explaining the creationist argument to a religious person:p I get the feeling I'd be better off just agreeing with you: "Yep, you're right, 'God' is real simple. He wears a safety helmet and rides the short-bus to school".
But anyway, based on what you already stated I'll respond with this: the human brain is very complex but speaking in terms of mathematical computations we can build less complex (compared to the brain) digital computers which can calculate much faster using more complex data. In that case, more computational power in the creation does not require even more computational power (i.e. complexity) in the creator.
So this is your argument:
1) Computers are less complex than humans, so they're evidence that more complex beings can create things which are less complex.
2) But computers are actually MORE complex than humans because they can compute things faster.
3) Therefore God could be less complex than humans.
Neat argument. Except points 1 and 2 are a wee bit contradictory, eh? So which is it? Are computers more complex or less complex?
Regaurdless, you're missing the point entirely. When creationists make the argument about the "blind watchmaker", their entire reason for invoking God is because they cannot fathom that a process as simple as natural selection could be responsible for the creation of complex lifeforms. Also, they claim that God is all powerful and all knowing, which certainly suggests a much more complex lifeform, eh?
Do not try to prove false what you do not understand or do not believe in. Simple bias will prevent you from thinking it is true or possible.
Do not try to prove true what you do not understand or do believe in. Simple bias will prevent you from thinking it is untrue or impossible.
Your sig says, "I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards." Yet you just responded to one.
Funny - every time I respond to an AC, someone feels the need to point this out.
My sig is just a warning: if you WANT a response from me, don't post anonymously. It's not a promise, a moto, or a written contract, it's a simple suggestion. On the other hand, if I feel that a certain AC post deserves a response I will respond to it, but such cases are so rare that I can still count them on the fingers of one hand.
You seem to assume all ACs are up to no good.
I assume nothing of the sort, I simply don't usualy have any desire to converse with people who hide their identities.
I once posted something... told I was a total moron... decided to grief me about it for weeks... received death threats against myself and my family.
I find all of that rather difficult to believe. I know that I can be a rather abrasive individual at times, and I've certainly never gone out of my way to hold back my opinions, or placate other commenters, yet I've never had anyone (on slashdot) "grief me", or make any sort of threats. I've certainly been insulted before by people who were painfully gormless, but so what? Such individuals are easily ignored.
The people here, while being a very diverse bunch, generally behave themselves in a civilized manner. For the odd exceptions...well, that's why the moderation process is there, and that's why you can file complaints with the mods about real abuse. Deciding to regularly hide your identity, instead of using the process to help improve slashdot, is just plain cowardice.
You don't like ACs. I understand why, but we're not all evil.
I don't hold any animosity toward any of you, I just find you to be largely irrelevant.
I would argue that the subjectiveness of our evaluation is indicative of the complexity of the human mind.
There is certainly some truth to that. The ability of our mind to adapt to different environments is certainly one of it's more important aspects. However, our ability to make subjective judgements isn't exactly unique - you could easily "teach" a computer to subjectively critique art. The only caveat is that the computer's sense of "fine art" would be completely different from our own, and would change from program to program depending on how exactly the filter was written. However, that's not so different from our own minds - we use the filter of societal norms and past experiences in order to make subjective judgements on all kinds of issues, from art to religion to morality. Really, the only difference is that our programming is "natural", and is constantly modified by new experiences, while the computer's programming is artificial and largely static.
But like you said, I think we agree in principle.
Yes, we do, but it's nice to iron out the details sometimes:) Makes for interesting conversation anyway.
If you think people don't care about over-the-air programming anymore, you're probably only talking to well-off people. I know people who can't afford extra money every month for cable. But they could afford a one-time outlay for a small TV.
I never said these people don't exist. In fact, I specifically made an allowance for just such individuals by saying "considering how few people actually care about over-the-air programming". In other words, while there are still people out there who do care about OTA TV, I very much doubt that they make up a large enough demographic to make a $6,000,000 fine "part of doing business". Especially when the retailers could make almost as much profit by putting up a warning sign on the analog TV's while also selling digital alternatives for those who really care.
Also, how's that cable gonna work on a boat, or camping?
All the people I know who bothers having a TV on their boat also have small satellite dishes for them. If you can afford a large boat, you can certainly afford a dish for it. They also usually have VCR's, DVD players, X-BOX 360's, etc, so I very much doubt that they'll miss the ability to receive mediocre programming over the airwaves.
As for camping, I can't say I've ever brought a TV along on a camping trip. I did however carry one around in the field when I was working with the military, so ok, I guess a few army guys might be occasionally inconvenienced by not having a digital receiver in their TV's.
But what if that $6 million fine was the result of an extra $60 million profit from selling cheap TVs for people to put in their bathroom/camper/boat/etc?
For your scenario to make sense, they would not only have to sell enough TV's to create that much profit, but they'd have to sell them to people who would not have bought one if those signs had actually been placed on the TV's. Considering how few people actually care about over-the-air programming, I find that rather unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
God dammit, isn't there any forum that you 9/11 Denier lunatics won't pollute with your idiotic spam? Yes, the September 11th attacks were coordinated at a cost of millions of dollars, causing billions in direct damage, killing thousands of people, and probably causing trillions in indirect long-term damage by harming the economy and the national psyche, all so that a few people could make a few million dollars on the stock market. Meanwhile, the CIA demolished a $700,000,000 building so that they could destroy records. Apparently they never heard of a paper-shredder. Or a "delete" key.
What I want to know is who the fuck put Dr. Evil in charge of this operation?
Also, what idiots modded you up? I mean, I suppose that your comment is "interesting" in the same way that a wheelchair hurdle race would be "interesting", but c'mon, that's hardly what that mod category is meant for.
"Afghanistam was all about the oil! So here's a link which talks about a natural gas pipeline which hasn't been built, but may some day (maybe) be built in order to serve countries which didn't even fight in Afghanistan."
Talk about a nonsequitor. Have someone check your temperature - you're probably running a fever.
If we really wanted the oil, there'd be much more efficient ways to get it. Such as:
1) Subverting the oil-for-food program like everyone else was doing.
2) Threatening Sadam with invasion.
3) Just going in, securing the oil, and ignoring the rest of the country. Which could have been done with a quarter of the manpower, and a tenth of the casualties.
I also find it fascinating that, even after years of trying to help these nations rebuild at a cost of billions of dollars, while taking none of their natural resources, people like you still seem to think it's perfectly logical to claim that all we want is the oil. I don't quite understand how you can believe in such an absurdity. Luckily your numbers seem to be dwindling, otherwise I'd be really concerned.
Well said John :) If I had the points I'd deffinitely mod you up. All these idiots who are currently demonizing the Bush admin seem to have been born in 2001. Either that, or their memory is so faulty that they've forgotten all the scandals of past administrations.
Right! Because the Palestinian territories hold MASSIVE stores of oil! And the US support of Israel operates through the UN! Wow, you're so smart.
Well, except for the US. But yes, almost everyone was profiting off the oil-for-food fiasco, and not just the "permanent members". Really, you're proving MY point, which is that the UN is corrupt and useless.
I don't know, ask Clinton. All I know is that this example, like all your other examples, had absolutely nothing to do with your original stated premise, which was that "If there is a systemic problem with the UN it is that the permenent members of the UNSC use it as a method of fight proxy wars where real people (ie: smaller oil rich nations) get caught in the middle"
So far you have failed to prove your premise in a spectacular fashion. Um, fuck you very much. Unlike you, I've actually WORKED with the UN, and my opinions, while they are similar to those of most of my coworkers, are entirely my own. That you would dare suggest that I'm simply "parroting" someone elses opinions tells me all I need to know about your character. Also, please, work on your spelling; your little run-on sentence there has 5 misspelled words in it, which doesn't do much to instill confidence in your intellectual abilities.
Oh really. Care to cite an example?
I mean, if by "long term support" you mean "personnel who sit around and look pretty while the locals get butchered", then yeah, you got it right. Hell, just recently in Lebanon UN forces confronted a handful of terrorists who were smuggling weapons. When the terrorists threatened them with said weapons, the UN promptly ran away. Turns out their new motto is "don't ask, don't tell". And don't get me started on the Rwanda massacres, where the UN started withdrawing even before the violence started.
And if by "opening the political doors that enable the US Navy to do it's stuff" you mean "criticize and demonize the US at every possible opportunity, while propping up tinpot dictators", then yeah, once again, you're bang on! I mean
The UN has become less effective and more corrupt than the League of Nations which it replaced. It's about time the US pulled out. See how long the UN lasts without them.
Anyway, charity is charity, regardless of your uninformed opinion. Maybe someone somewhere thinks that drug users don't deserve to be given money, but that doesn't mean you're not being charitable when you give to a program to help drug users.
So there's a suggested minimum for being charitable now?
Come to think of it, my friends Car GPS seems to be just as accurate....tracked us right to his exact address....
They're talking about using wildlife preserves as burial sites. Do you have any idea how much land is available?
The funny (ok, not funny at all) thing is that while these ass-clowns will swear that their new HID lights are the coolest thing ever, the extra glare reflecting off everything around them actually decreases their own ability to see at night time. So not only are they blinding you, they're also endangering themselves.
I for one wish the cops WOULD start enforcing those laws. If you're going to put in HID, get projectors, otherwise you deserve to be arrested.
So far you've only offered your personal incredulity in order to ridicule the idea - how about providing some technical data as to why "the performance will suck profoundly"?
He's right, there's nothing amazing about the Soyuz surviving a ballistic re-entry, since that's what it was designed to do. This isn't the shuttle we're talking about - you can't compare the two. It's like saying that it's amazing that a 747 can continue flying with one broken engine, while a Cesna can't. You'd be comparing two completely different things.
You got it half right. You're right that they don't have to defeat us to be victorious - IF you define victory for them as us leaving. What you fail to understand is that the people fighting "us" are in fact members of numerous factions, all engaged not only in fighting us but also in fighting each other, and fighting the legitimate local governments and militias. Victory for them isn't as simple as making us leave - victory for them is making us leave AND defeating the other competing factions, AND overthrowing the current government, AND establishing control over the nation.
As such, all we need to do in order to deny them victory is to establish a political entity with a military force capable of controlling Iraq. Then we can leave without having lost, while the insurgents lose without being defeated by us.
This is exactly why no small insurgency could survive in the US - any intelligent president would treat it as a law-enforcement matter, and would have the individual states take care of the problem, while providing federal resources on request. ANG units would supplement local police forces where necessary, while the FBI provided inter-state intelligence. For an insurgency to have any chance of success in the US it would have to enjoy MASSIVE support from the people, and would have to politically "take over" a number of states before it became a serious threat to the nation. Even then the US military could be used to crush the resistance, so this theoretical insurgency would also need support at various levels within the military itself. All in all, such an event is so improbable as to not be worth seriously considering.
Seriously, I can see that you obviously have no military experience, but that comment is pretty ignorant even for a run-of-the-mill civilian. Give your head a shake. The airforce may be able to destroy shit in a spectacular fashion, but only men with guns can actually hold ground. You can't occupy a piece of land from 30,000 feet, no matter how many bombs you have.
Not to be pedantic, but none of your examples were military defeats. They were all political decisions. And while Vietnam and the Soviet defeat are borderline when it comes to illustrating your point (mainly due to the large human loses incurred by the major powers), using the current Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns as an example is just ludicrous.
I've got this weird little quirk where, whenever I try to say the words "Seat Heater", it comes out as "Heat Seater". I have to really concentrate on it in order to say it properly. So, by your logic, I should never be allowed to own a car with seat heaters?
Seriously, if you want to pick on the guy for some of his policy decisions, fine, but picking on him for the way he pronounces a word is just silly. Grow up.
Now hopefully some moderators who AREN'T crippled by dementia will come along, and mod your comment "flamebait". What in the the flying fuck does the Iraq war have to do with solar power?
I can't believe I'm explaining the creationist argument to a religious person
So this is your argument:
1) Computers are less complex than humans, so they're evidence that more complex beings can create things which are less complex.
2) But computers are actually MORE complex than humans because they can compute things faster.
3) Therefore God could be less complex than humans.
Neat argument. Except points 1 and 2 are a wee bit contradictory, eh? So which is it? Are computers more complex or less complex?
Regaurdless, you're missing the point entirely. When creationists make the argument about the "blind watchmaker", their entire reason for invoking God is because they cannot fathom that a process as simple as natural selection could be responsible for the creation of complex lifeforms. Also, they claim that God is all powerful and all knowing, which certainly suggests a much more complex lifeform, eh?
Do not try to prove true what you do not understand or do believe in. Simple bias will prevent you from thinking it is untrue or impossible.
My sig is just a warning: if you WANT a response from me, don't post anonymously. It's not a promise, a moto, or a written contract, it's a simple suggestion. On the other hand, if I feel that a certain AC post deserves a response I will respond to it, but such cases are so rare that I can still count them on the fingers of one hand.
I assume nothing of the sort, I simply don't usualy have any desire to converse with people who hide their identities.
I find all of that rather difficult to believe. I know that I can be a rather abrasive individual at times, and I've certainly never gone out of my way to hold back my opinions, or placate other commenters, yet I've never had anyone (on slashdot) "grief me", or make any sort of threats. I've certainly been insulted before by people who were painfully gormless, but so what? Such individuals are easily ignored.
The people here, while being a very diverse bunch, generally behave themselves in a civilized manner. For the odd exceptions...well, that's why the moderation process is there, and that's why you can file complaints with the mods about real abuse. Deciding to regularly hide your identity, instead of using the process to help improve slashdot, is just plain cowardice.
I don't hold any animosity toward any of you, I just find you to be largely irrelevant.
Yes, we do, but it's nice to iron out the details sometimes
All the people I know who bothers having a TV on their boat also have small satellite dishes for them. If you can afford a large boat, you can certainly afford a dish for it. They also usually have VCR's, DVD players, X-BOX 360's, etc, so I very much doubt that they'll miss the ability to receive mediocre programming over the airwaves.
As for camping, I can't say I've ever brought a TV along on a camping trip. I did however carry one around in the field when I was working with the military, so ok, I guess a few army guys might be occasionally inconvenienced by not having a digital receiver in their TV's.