Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Technical Merit really overrated (Score 1) 558

by drinkypoo (#47549911) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

No... ISA was a pretty shitty bus even in it's day. Compare to Zorro in the Amiga, which was fully plug and play from the outset.

Yeah, hindsight is fun. Since Zorro is four years (and change) newer than the ISA bus, there was plenty of it to go around when it was created.

Comment: Re:maybe (Score 1) 410

But nooo, let's not let it go, hurrah, time to rub this in a whole nation's face! said the Jewish Association.

Wah wah wah. Oh no, let's not have this rubbed in our faces. As long as a nation is still producing holocaust deniers, it badly needs some face-rubbing. Nobody really cares if you will feel defensive.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 287

You did nothing of the sort. You made the (quite incorrect) claim that Latour wasn't accounting for the fact that the subject at hand is net heat transfer. But that claim is simply incorrect. I repeat that Latour has written about this extensively, which you would know if you bothered to actually read more of what he has written than one blog post.

You took a badly-worded sentence or two and jumped on them as though Latour made a mistake. But his only mistake was wording a couple of sentences badly. He does in fact NOT suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation, and he has written as much many times. (Which apparently you did not know. Why?) So you were tilting at windmills again... or should I say straw-men?

You have refuted NOTHING but a couple of unfortunately-worded sentences, which Latour himself publicly corrected shortly after that post appeared.

You failed. If you could actually prove his actual argument wrong, as opposed to the argument you mistakenly thought he made, you'd do it to his face or publish your results or both. Because, after all, it would be important to this cause you so avidly defend. But you haven't. Is that because you knew you were making straw-man arguments, or because you simply didn't bother to research the subject you were attempting to refute? Either one represents failure.

You have not been able to actually refute Latour. The only place a genuine "refutation" occurred is in your own mind.

Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell.

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 301

Since I have neither, I wouldn't know.

I would also like to point out here the absolutely amazing fact that "Layzej" stopped replying the moment you popped up. What a "coincidence".

Well, this has been an interesting evening. Not only did I catch you in an outright lie, you accomplished exactly nothing but spreading more ad-hominem and attempted "character besmirching" based on that lie.

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 301

No, you publicly claimed you were paranoid. One of the only true things you've ever said.

NO, I did not. That is NOT what I wrote in the comment. That isn't even a distortion, it's just a plain old lie.

What I wrote was that I thought for a time I was being paranoid, but that the situation turned out to not be paranoia at all; it was real.

Stop lying about me. Period. Take your distortions and you lies and go crawl in a hole somewhere.

Comment: Re:All software is full of bugs (Score 5, Funny) 110

But we don't do that. We never do that. As developers, we hide our head in the sand until we absolutely can no longer ignore then problem, and then we say "Whoops! My bad!" As consumers we assume that professionally published software should be reasonably free of bugs or exploitable code. And people start being held accountable by law for their shitty software, the status quo will never change.

I was demonstrating to a shitty software developer the other day how all his input sanitizing routines were in the javascript front end to his web application and anyone bypassing the javascript could essentially have their way with the back-end database, and he told me "Oh you're making a back-end API call, no one will ever do that!" No one except the guy who's hacking your fucking system, jackass. People like that make me want to sign on as Linus' personal dick-puncher. Whenever someone writes some shitty software that pisses Linus off, I will find that person and I will PUNCH THEM IN THE DICK. Because I swear to god, that's what it's going to take. Congress is going to have to WRITE A LAW allowing me to HUNT PEOPLE DOWN and PUNCH THEM IN THE DICK over the SHITTY SOFTWARE they write. And when that day comes, with God as my witness, I will PITCH A TENT outside MICROSOFT HEADQUARTERS, and that will be the LAST TENT EVER PITCHED at MICROSOFT HEADQUARTERS!

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 301

So, just in case the meaning of my comment above was not clear to you:

If there is any vestige of "paranoia" in my personality, then I think it's pretty fair to say that it was probably caused by you. Because nobody else has been doing these strange and outside-normal things.

Did the word "stalker" never come to mind when you were researching my life?

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 301

It's worthy of note in your paranoia diagnosis...

Are you claiming I am paranoid? Just trying to clarify.

It's amazing how you seem to have this entire collection of Slashdot comments I made years ago right at hand. I've mentioned this before. What is the basis of your (apparently unhealthy, and definitely creepy) obsession with me?

Researching (and apparently indexing) years of other peoples' Slashdot comments is not something your average normal person does.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 0) 287

Do you see how crackpot websites which make "ridiculous" claims that you might have made when you "knew next to nothing about the subject" might not be the best source of science education?

Since I've received exactly no education from there, how would I know? Do you really need me to repeat that again before you get it through your head?

Venus vs. Mercury has everything to do with the Slayer nonsense you're spreading. You're just regurgitating even more misinformation that I have to debunk. That's the exact opposite of a favor! It's the same absurd behavior I've repeatedly asked you to stop.

Let's be specific. Explain to us what Venus vs. Mercury have to do with Pierre Latour's thermodynamic argument in regard to greenhouse warming? Stop prevaricating, and say what you mean. Do you have an actual argument to make?

Again, thanks for finally being honest. Youâ(TM)re not interested in valid science, just something you can use to argue, even if it doesnâ(TM)t hold up under scrutiny. Youâ(TM)ve used this "principle of superficiality" to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation which seems plausible at first glance to non-scientists, but doesnâ(TM)t hold up under scrutiny. In fact, I said as much last year:

And yet, you have failed for 2 years to refute Latour. Gee, that's interesting. What isn't holding water again? Are you sure you have that straight?

Yet again, trying to inflate your ego at the expense of others. It won't wash. You know you can't refute Latour, so you are piling straw-man on top of straw-man to try to make yourself look good. Again, I say: if you have a specific argument to make, then make it. Other than, that is, just rehashing the failed arguments you made 2 years ago. Quoting yourself complimenting yourself doesn't prove anything.

I am going to ask you again: why have you made it a habit of taking certain peoples' comments out of context, and then arguing with those comments when those other people aren't present, about things they did NOT say?

Stop dancing and beating around the bush. You're being utterly and disgustingly transparent. You've made not a single valid argument, but only implications. You've also thrown quotes of yourself about, plus more of the same old ad-hominem, out-of-context, straw-man arguments you've been making all along. But there isn't any meat anywhere.

And I think it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 287

You cited a non-peer-reviewed crackpot website which claims:

As you very well know, the part I was referencing was the part about Venus. If you have any problems with anything else on the page -- for that matter, if you have any problems with ANYTHING on the page, I suggest you take it up with the author as I originally told you.

I already told you: that isn't my argument. It is someone else. I just did you a favor and looked up something you asked for on Google. His arguments are not my own and I did not even read them carefully. I merely looked them up for you because you seemed to wanted to argue about yet another straw-man that had next to nothing to do with anything I had said.

I have no desire (or any motivation, for that matter) to engage you in some ridiculous argument about whether Venus is proof of "greenhouse warming", as compared to Mercury or the Earth.

There are many reasons why even if it were true, it is hardly relevant: Mercury has an extremely long day, almost no atmosphere, and a very eccentric orbit. Venus has a surface atmospheric pressure 92 times (give or take) Earth's, it's atmosphere is MOSTLY CO2 (around 96% or so), versus Earth's 0.04% or less, again give or take a bit. Not to mention the vast clouds of sulfuric acid.

You seem to want to ignore all these other variables and argue about just CO2, when the degree to which CO2 in particular affects Venus' surface temperature is speculative, to say the least. I'm not going to get into an argument that pointless. There are papers on both sides of that argument, and I am happy to let their authors fight it out in the journals. It is none of my affair.

I tried to tell you that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration.

Why did you "try to tell me" this? I haven't intentionally disputed this. Not for many years, anyway. I suppose I might have, 4-5 years ago, when I knew next to nothing about the subject. So who are you arguing with? I went to that page, and you have this to say:

Charming, as usual. Itâ(TM)s strange that you ask for real science to support the âoealarmistâ fact that humans caused the rise in CO2 because weâ(TM)re burning carbon to release CO2 faster than the warming oceans can outgas their dissolved CO2. Is anyone we know of disputing that? Is it even part of the âoedebateâ?

Once again, not only arguing with yourself (since I was not present), but also (again as usual) arguing about something I didn't even say. I wasn't arguing with you about those things. So why did you try to make it appear I did? Why were you trying to give the impression I said something I did not in fact say? I will ask anyone who reads this to ask themselves that question. You must have a motivation, so what is it?

You are simply continuing your ridiculous straw-man and out-of-context arguments with yourself. I've said it before: from where I sit, it just makes you look like a fool.

And as for "charming": you seem to forget that you have given me MANY reasons to not be polite to you at all. To say that some of your actions have been uncivil is an understatement. I owe you no charm, nor civility of my own.

...this is an awesome sight. The entire rebel resistance buried under six million hardbound copies of "The Naked Lunch." - The Firesign Theater