If you want to accuse me of generalizing and being a little hyperbolic, sure I'll cop to that, fine. Guilty.
On the other hand, my comments aren't so far off. Some generalizations are accurate. Heck, things escalated the point where a congressman announced he was going to bring Mann up on charges for falsifying data, for goodness sake. And he had plenty of support from a pretty rabid group of people, on the heals of "climategate". Talking heads in the conservative media routinely call AGW a liberal hoax to consolidate power and confiscate money. And they have lots of fans. Every one of the other inquiries has been immediately met by the conservative media with claims of "whitewashing" and characterized them as the academic elites circling the wagons to protect their own.
Let's not pretend people are not accusing Mann, Jones et al. of being criminals and being part of an elite academic cabal that want to run over traditional american values and conservatism - they are - lots of them. Its routine. If you don't happen to be one of those people, good, then nothing I said applies to you. But it does apply to.. well... most people on the right who actually talk about global warming.
Generally, it helps to know the definitions of terms like "straw-man" before one starts waving them around, hoping to sound poignant and impressive - because if one gets it wrong, it has the opposite of the intended effect.
A straw-man is a deliberate or accidental restatement of an argument, but in a weaker form that is easier to refute. Its a decoy like.. you know.. a straw-man - hence the name. And it requires at least two things:
(a) An original argument
(b) A fallacious, weaker restatement of the original argument
Usually, straw-men have one more component - an attempted refutation of the decoy argument, making it appear as if the original argument was refuted.
Since I simply offered my own opinion as an informal argument, your post is as irrelevant and nonsensical as can be. Not only did my post not include a refutation of a decoy argument, it didn't even include a decoy argument to begin with. Big fail.
Words do actually mean things.. it helps to know what, before using them.
By the time any of this hits the "skeptic" crowd, if at all, it will be sanitized and spun like all the other inquiries.
In other words, it will never be seen as evidence that Michael Mann isnt the perpetrator of the most sinister hoax/conspiracy in history to destroy conservatism and the US economy, it will be seen as evidence that the NSF is obviously corrupt - and any other issues they henceforth weigh in on will be seen as tainted.
One can't help but have a little terrifying respect for just how well the FUD machine can work.
Uhh, Mega TF was better gameplay than vanilla TF?!?! Seriously?!? And you're accusing others of being crack heads? Mega TF was the most disjointed, imbalanced, ridiculous, absurd, arbitrary gimmicky filled piece of nonsense TF mod, period... You're nuts.
WTF
Last time I checked, google doesn't check your id when you sign up for gmail, google plus, or any other of their free services. You can use any names you want.
Gnome tweak tool is a must. I've been surprised to find all sorts of gnome-shell extensions popping up all over the place too. Search google and github for gnome-shell exertions, and you can find all sorts of stuff to play with.
I do agree that Adwaita is bad. That was the first thing to go on my desktop. But luckily, libraries of gtk3 and gnome-shell themes are amassing. Checkout gnome-look.org and gnome-shell.deviantart.com
Well, I for one, think gnome 3 is actually pretty cool. I made a commitment to use it for real work for a few weeks, just to make sure I gave it an honest shot. And actually, I went from being dismayed about it, to well.... kind of loving it. After making an honest effort to use gnome-shell, the gnome-shell way, I gotta say it - it feels pretty good.
Its got some cool technology underneath too. The desktop and windowing environment is tremendously moddable with javascript and CSS. There is at least as much potential for customization in gnome 3, as there was in gnome 2, if not more. Its going to be really interesting to see some of the customizations that people create - seriously, its an exciting time to be a gnome user.
And heck, if you just hate the interface that much, well - there are extensions which can tweak it to look and act more like gnome 2. Throw gnome-do on top of that, and you'll never have to even visit the overlay, ever. Gnome 3 is still definitely rough around some edges still and in some ways incomplete - but time should iron things out. And really... what linux desktop isn't rough around some edges?
Apparently I seem to be the only nerd though who is actually enjoying the new adventurous moves in the desktop user interface space, all around. Gnome 3, OSX... even Windows.
I don't know about other distributions, but fedora already packages and releases a theming extension for gnome 3.
yum install gnome-shell-user-theme gnome-shell-extensions-theme-selector
That's it. Not too hard, eh? Looks like the theming community is building up steam too, as there seem to be new themes coming out regularly, for the shell and gtk3.
While Apple does put out great products.. please dont think you are giving your money to the good guys. They are every bit as altruistic as Microsoft.
Their OS's are designed with one purpose in mind: To install a direct sucking machine that goes straight from your wallet, directly to their bank account.
In fact, their OS releases *ARE* incremental upgrades, at best. And no I'm not confused because of the version numbers. The differences between OSX 10.3 and 10.4 in no way, whatsoever, compare to the sweeping changes between XP and Vista. Not in any universe could you consider the differences between the two comparable.
The past few releases of OSX, their "new", supposedly revolutionary changes have been little more than usurping some small ISV's shareware app, stealing its functionality while pretending it was Apple's idea all along (Dashboard anyone?). Leapard is no exception. At least when Microsoft does this, they usually do the courtesy of actually buying out the ISV first, before they steal their software. Then they usually tinker enough with the underlying API's so that 3rd party software designed for "insert latest release" here, wont work on the previous versions of OSX, forcing you to upgrade.
I've been buying Apple computers for at least 3 or 4 years now, and am pretty tired of it. I would have switched back to PC's (linux primary os, windows for games) but I was sucked back in to the mac platform after they switched to intel chips, but I probably wont be buying anymore in the future, because of the reasons I mentioned above. Just feel like to much of a sucker.
Anyways, back on topic: Bootcamp is not needed, when you have programs like this: http://refit.sourceforge.net/. Bootcamp is ONLY necassary for the drivers disk (if you run windows, I'm currently dual booting with Linux, without the use of bootcamp at all).
Well, it would be well deserved if they won. Transmeta, was just shy of being destroyed by Intel, using tactics that could easily be considered monopolistic practices. The bitch of it is, transmeta had a better product. The technology was really amazing. Everytime transmeta was about to land a big deal, Intel swoops in with massive kickbacks.
But luckily for Intel, theyve spoonfed AMD over the years to be their one competitor, so if any antitrust litigation is thrown their way, they can point to AMD as an example of competition.
Any new start-ups in the CPU market, like transmeta are doomed from the beginning.
Nevermind, I was wrong, it was actually released much later, so it could be another project potentialy affected by this mess.
I could have sworn perl has had some ORM modules out for a lot longer than this one, though I cant quite remember, havnt touched perl in a while.
Perl's DBIx::Class comes to mind.. im pretty sure its been around since before 2000, though Id have to verify that.. and I'm pretty sure ORM wasnt the authors of this module's idea.. IANAL but this seems like it would be an easy case for Red Hat to win, on the surface.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to accuse me of generalizing and being a little hyperbolic, sure I'll cop to that, fine. Guilty.
On the other hand, my comments aren't so far off. Some generalizations are accurate. Heck, things escalated the point where a congressman announced he was going to bring Mann up on charges for falsifying data, for goodness sake. And he had plenty of support from a pretty rabid group of people, on the heals of "climategate". Talking heads in the conservative media routinely call AGW a liberal hoax to consolidate power and confiscate money. And they have lots of fans. Every one of the other inquiries has been immediately met by the conservative media with claims of "whitewashing" and characterized them as the academic elites circling the wagons to protect their own.
Let's not pretend people are not accusing Mann, Jones et al. of being criminals and being part of an elite academic cabal that want to run over traditional american values and conservatism - they are - lots of them. Its routine. If you don't happen to be one of those people, good, then nothing I said applies to you. But it does apply to.. well... most people on the right who actually talk about global warming.
Generally, it helps to know the definitions of terms like "straw-man" before one starts waving them around, hoping to sound poignant and impressive - because if one gets it wrong, it has the opposite of the intended effect.
A straw-man is a deliberate or accidental restatement of an argument, but in a weaker form that is easier to refute. Its a decoy like.. you know.. a straw-man - hence the name. And it requires at least two things:
(a) An original argument
(b) A fallacious, weaker restatement of the original argument
Usually, straw-men have one more component - an attempted refutation of the decoy argument, making it appear as if the original argument was refuted.
Since I simply offered my own opinion as an informal argument, your post is as irrelevant and nonsensical as can be. Not only did my post not include a refutation of a decoy argument, it didn't even include a decoy argument to begin with. Big fail.
Words do actually mean things.. it helps to know what, before using them.
By the time any of this hits the "skeptic" crowd, if at all, it will be sanitized and spun like all the other inquiries.
In other words, it will never be seen as evidence that Michael Mann isnt the perpetrator of the most sinister hoax/conspiracy in history to destroy conservatism and the US economy, it will be seen as evidence that the NSF is obviously corrupt - and any other issues they henceforth weigh in on will be seen as tainted.
One can't help but have a little terrifying respect for just how well the FUD machine can work.
Embryonic stem cells do actually work - in fact, they are known to produce full blown human beings, under the right conditions.
But you are comfortable with Facebook's data mining? The frying pan is better than the fire?
Uhh, Mega TF was better gameplay than vanilla TF?!?! Seriously?!? And you're accusing others of being crack heads? Mega TF was the most disjointed, imbalanced, ridiculous, absurd, arbitrary gimmicky filled piece of nonsense TF mod, period... You're nuts. WTF
Google plus is evil?! Ok.....
Last time I checked, google doesn't check your id when you sign up for gmail, google plus, or any other of their free services. You can use any names you want.
FUD
Gnome tweak tool is a must. I've been surprised to find all sorts of gnome-shell extensions popping up all over the place too. Search google and github for gnome-shell exertions, and you can find all sorts of stuff to play with.
I do agree that Adwaita is bad. That was the first thing to go on my desktop. But luckily, libraries of gtk3 and gnome-shell themes are amassing. Checkout gnome-look.org and gnome-shell.deviantart.com
Well, I for one, think gnome 3 is actually pretty cool. I made a commitment to use it for real work for a few weeks, just to make sure I gave it an honest shot. And actually, I went from being dismayed about it, to well.... kind of loving it. After making an honest effort to use gnome-shell, the gnome-shell way, I gotta say it - it feels pretty good.
Its got some cool technology underneath too. The desktop and windowing environment is tremendously moddable with javascript and CSS. There is at least as much potential for customization in gnome 3, as there was in gnome 2, if not more. Its going to be really interesting to see some of the customizations that people create - seriously, its an exciting time to be a gnome user.
And heck, if you just hate the interface that much, well - there are extensions which can tweak it to look and act more like gnome 2. Throw gnome-do on top of that, and you'll never have to even visit the overlay, ever. Gnome 3 is still definitely rough around some edges still and in some ways incomplete - but time should iron things out. And really... what linux desktop isn't rough around some edges?
Apparently I seem to be the only nerd though who is actually enjoying the new adventurous moves in the desktop user interface space, all around. Gnome 3, OSX... even Windows.
I don't know about other distributions, but fedora already packages and releases a theming extension for gnome 3. yum install gnome-shell-user-theme gnome-shell-extensions-theme-selector That's it. Not too hard, eh? Looks like the theming community is building up steam too, as there seem to be new themes coming out regularly, for the shell and gtk3.
While Apple does put out great products.. please dont think you are giving your money to the good guys. They are every bit as altruistic as Microsoft.
Their OS's are designed with one purpose in mind: To install a direct sucking machine that goes straight from your wallet, directly to their bank account.
In fact, their OS releases *ARE* incremental upgrades, at best. And no I'm not confused because of the version numbers. The differences between OSX 10.3 and 10.4 in no way, whatsoever, compare to the sweeping changes between XP and Vista. Not in any universe could you consider the differences between the two comparable.
The past few releases of OSX, their "new", supposedly revolutionary changes have been little more than usurping some small ISV's shareware app, stealing its functionality while pretending it was Apple's idea all along (Dashboard anyone?). Leapard is no exception. At least when Microsoft does this, they usually do the courtesy of actually buying out the ISV first, before they steal their software. Then they usually tinker enough with the underlying API's so that 3rd party software designed for "insert latest release" here, wont work on the previous versions of OSX, forcing you to upgrade.
I've been buying Apple computers for at least 3 or 4 years now, and am pretty tired of it. I would have switched back to PC's (linux primary os, windows for games) but I was sucked back in to the mac platform after they switched to intel chips, but I probably wont be buying anymore in the future, because of the reasons I mentioned above. Just feel like to much of a sucker.
Anyways, back on topic: Bootcamp is not needed, when you have programs like this: http://refit.sourceforge.net/. Bootcamp is ONLY necassary for the drivers disk (if you run windows, I'm currently dual booting with Linux, without the use of bootcamp at all).
Well, it would be well deserved if they won. Transmeta, was just shy of being destroyed by Intel, using tactics that could easily be considered monopolistic practices. The bitch of it is, transmeta had a better product. The technology was really amazing. Everytime transmeta was about to land a big deal, Intel swoops in with massive kickbacks.
But luckily for Intel, theyve spoonfed AMD over the years to be their one competitor, so if any antitrust litigation is thrown their way, they can point to AMD as an example of competition.
Any new start-ups in the CPU market, like transmeta are doomed from the beginning.
Nevermind, I was wrong, it was actually released much later, so it could be another project potentialy affected by this mess. I could have sworn perl has had some ORM modules out for a lot longer than this one, though I cant quite remember, havnt touched perl in a while.
Perl's DBIx::Class comes to mind.. im pretty sure its been around since before 2000, though Id have to verify that.. and I'm pretty sure ORM wasnt the authors of this module's idea.. IANAL but this seems like it would be an easy case for Red Hat to win, on the surface.
0 03/lib/DBIx/Class.pm
http://search.cpan.org/~jrobinson/DBIx-Class-0.06