Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Slaves of Dubai (Score 1) 192

by lgw (#47422499) Attached to: Dubai's Climate-Controlled Dome City Is a Dystopia Waiting To Happen

Slaves? WTF? Are you so blind to the conditions in much of the world that you think offering a job to someone is bad? Are you insane? These are the best jobs most of the poor in Dubai are likely to have offered in their lives.

It's not right for the first world, so better the jobs don't exist at all? Seriously, I can't imagine how you think this is bad. These jobs are vastly better than early industrial revolution American jobs, let alone no job at all in a place with no real social safety net.

Sheltered suburban enclave American middle class are something else. No sense of perspective at all.

Comment: Re:Slaves of Dubai (Score 1) 192

by lgw (#47422479) Attached to: Dubai's Climate-Controlled Dome City Is a Dystopia Waiting To Happen

Do you have any idea of the rich-poor gap in Dubai? Sure, there's a difference between driving a Porsche for someone else and actually owning it. But there's a vastly greater difference between a Porsche for someone else and starving. WTF? How can you think this is bad for all the newly employed?

Comment: Re:Maybe because normal humans can't code (Score 1) 497

by lgw (#47421883) Attached to: Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software

He's claiming women are poor at spatial relationships as measured by some (pretty arbitrary) objective standard. You're claiming they're just find in fields where success is a matter of fashion. Was that really the argument you wanted to make?

I don't think basketball has much to do with spatial relationships myself - I'd think athletic ability and hand-eye coordination would be the dominant factors (well, and height can't hurt). But then, what do I know about it?

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 325

Are you denying that you're accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies

Show us all where I have accused people of outright lying, where I don't have good reason to believe that it is, in fact, a lie.

I have certainly disagreed with some things. But where have I accused anyone of specific lies that aren't actually lies?

I would be interested to know. It isn't wrong to accuse someone of lies, if in fact I have good reason to believe they are lying. That's called "telling the truth".

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 325

Again, my motivation is wanting you to stop baselessly and libelously accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies while pathologically lying about facts as simple as your own gender.

Not only is this statement false, if you know anything at all about tort law you should reasonably know it to be false. This would be hilarious if it were not such an alarming public accusation. Even when I was wrong (which was not as often as you imply), my comments were far from "baseless", and I have not libeled you or any of your "colleagues".

Do you even know what libel IS? Evidence strongly suggests not. You think you are mimicking my own behavior but I assure you, there are some very large differences.

I see no reason to further reply to your ranting. I tire of having had to constantly defend myself against your emotional and irrational tirades.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 325

My behavior is that of someone who's tired of debunking baseless and libelous accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies from Lonny Eachus, who is dishonestly posing as a woman named Jane Q. Public. This shouldn't be hard for Lonny to understand:

So... you are saying your rather blatant, repeated attempts at character assassination are due to your sense of insult to scientific objectivity? Why do you not see the obvious hypocrisy in this?

You posted your comment as a reply to something that had absolutely nothing to do with any of that, which suggests yet again that reason is a lie. You have been stalking my comments for the singular purpose of insulting me and trying to damage my character. The evidence is overwhelming that you are harassing me for personal reasons, nothing more and nothing less.

You have been doing this to the extent that it is damaging my ability to participate here on Slashdot. And you are doing it for reasons you have already admitted were personal (and rather strongly implied it yet again just above). In fact your claims to discredit me have repeatedly stepped far beyond the bounds of any pretense at scientific objectivity or integrity, so scientific integrity logically cannot be the true reason. Not that I think you have been very logical anyway.

The evidence says either the excuse you give above is untrue, or you simply don't understand the motivations of your own actions.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 325

I thought you were saying it was false that Jane is Lonny Eachus. Will you say that now? Just state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus. Otherwise...

Why would you think that? I didn't give you any reason to think that was what I was saying. But then, we already know you have a tendency to claim people said things they didn't actually say. I've demonstrated it many times.

Will you say that now? Just state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus. Otherwise...

Why would I do that? Because you are pestering me about my identity (nobody else is)? Is that justification? I don't think so.

I use the name I use for reasons of my own. Those reasons are none of your damned business. I don't owe you anything.

Further, the use of pseudonyms are a time-honored tradition, and you have been quite deliberately stepping on my ability to try to function normally in this SOCIAL forum, for entirely personal reasons of your own. That is not reasonable behavior.

"Don't misunderstand. I'm no homophobe. But I can't stand flamers. If he wants to be that way, he can have surgery." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-16]

And I already explained it to you more than once now that you assigned a meaning of your own to those words that didn't actually exist when I wrote them. That's your problem (and it DOES seem to be a problem), but your failure to understand is not my problem, except to the extent you have been making it my problem. YOUR claim about those words in fact turned out to be a "sexist stereotype"... exactly the thing you accused me of.

You just don't seem to get it, and I am pretty goddamned tired of you trying to make that my problem.

And again you make it clear that your issue with me is personal, and apparently based on some kind of slight that you have wholly imagined, or perhaps invented. Yet again, that is not my problem, except to the extent that you have been making it a problem. And I repeat: it is a genuine cause of concern for me that you don't see that. In my opinion, your behavior has been that of a dangerously obsessed person.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 683

by Jane Q. Public (#47419359) Attached to: When Beliefs and Facts Collide

You have mentioned this to me. I don't "know" it because I haven't seen any evidence. But it could be true. I'd have to see the evidence before I made up my mind. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

I already did: "John Oâ(TM)Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but âoeforgotâ to show the fluxes for the rest of the year."

The fact that you stated it before, buried somewhere in one of your ridiculous rambling posts, does not mean that I saw what was in the links. Really... do you expect me to take the time of day to follow all the links to links that you post?

The fact remains that I hadn't seen the full figure before. So that was a true statement.

Can we agree that our carbon emissions are ~200% as large as the rise in atmospheric CO2?

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to assert. But that is very different from what you wrote before.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 325

Since you've just claimed that statement is false, you're putting all your credibility (and Lonny's) on your claim that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus.

The statement is false because I explained here on Slashdot not just once but several times that I am not a "birther", and don't pretend to know where Obama was born. My arguments have been about a document from the White House that is publicly available.

You know these statements of yours are simply not true. So why are you posting them? What could be your real reason?

Comment: Re:Oh great terminal, on-the-line! (Score 1) 497

by lgw (#47419135) Attached to: Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software

It sure would be nice to have some standards there!

Because there were some firm standards for terminals, vendors could make clever ones, PCs had emulators, and you could make simplifying assumptions. And I guess if you stick to some basic HTML (which you would for non-AJAX anyhow), maybe we're already there with HTML5 (or XHTML, if you go that way).

Hmm, a modern server-side framework that sticks to the basic, non-AJAX world - does it exist? It would sure make all the geeks who use noscript religiously happy!

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 325

In other words, you're a birther who denies being a birther, just like you're a climate contrarian who denies being a climate contrarian. Maybe you see liars everywhere because you're actually a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet.

Maybe this blatant psychological projection also explains why Jane/Lonny has been baselessly and libelously accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies.

Further, I will state that this appears to be a blatant attempt to "besmirch my character", as the saying goes, by making such statements about me online. Why would you do such a thing?

Could it be because your accusations appear publicly on Google and other search engines?

I will ask you again where comments like yours come from. Try as you might, you have not managed to show that I even lied. Where are these statements you accuse me of?

Comment: Re:Not surprising. (Score 1) 683

by Jane Q. Public (#47418943) Attached to: When Beliefs and Facts Collide

Just in case this is an exercise in pedantry, I should correct my statement to say that our carbon emissions are ~200% as large as the rise in atmospheric CO2.

You can call it "pedantry" if you want, but I call it "taking your words at face value, and refusing to assume you meant something else when you wrote them". That is a pretty obvious difference between you and me.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 325

In other words, you're a birther who denies being a birther, just like you're a climate contrarian who denies being a climate contrarian. Maybe you see liars everywhere because you're actually a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet.

There you go. If this doesn't meet the definition of libel, I don't know what does.

You know that statement to be false, or at the very least have very good reason to believe it to be false. And my own words here on Slashdot, several times and in several places, show it to be. Yet you present it to the public as truth anyway.

What does that make YOU?

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.

Working...