WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:38 AM
Putting homosexuality down to the choice of a "hip counterculture" is hateful, because it completely trivializes the issue.
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
dante@sisna.com
Oct 30, 02:24 AM
I have to agree there as well. My G5 Quad is one of the nicest computers I've ever owned. Definitely one of the top 3, possibly the best. And that's saying a lot considering the types of PCs and Unix systems I've owned over the years. I've never had one bit of trouble with it and it's still rather powerful compared to what's out there now. Although, I can see why people would want to sell... I've been watching the G5 systems selling on ebay, hoping I could get a deal on another one, but it's not happening. They're going for just as much as a new one did last January. I could probably sell mine (8GB RAM, FX4500, 2x500GB HD) for more than what I paid for it initially.. Very tempting and I may consider that in another month when the 8-core Mac Pros are released. Because while the G5 Quad is an awesome system, the reality is that as soon as all my software goes universal, it becomes obsolete. ...I have no use for Classic or anything that's still PowerPC native. The only software I use that hasn't made the universal/Intel transition is Adobe CS2. And it runs OK as is on my MBP, not great, but at least it's usable and still faster than it was on my older dual G4.
Ouch! You do make an Outstanding Case for that 8 Core MacPro. For Sure. Okay, so maybe I would be tempted to sell my Quad G5. Scary. . ..
Ouch! You do make an Outstanding Case for that 8 Core MacPro. For Sure. Okay, so maybe I would be tempted to sell my Quad G5. Scary. . ..
appleguy123
Apr 23, 12:49 AM
The ad at the top is calling us out.
>>I'm referring to an ad that says "Learn grammar punctuation."
>>I'm referring to an ad that says "Learn grammar punctuation."
puma1552
Mar 12, 04:45 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 06:11 PM
- Grid energy storage tech needs to advance so renewables can be integrated into base load and we can phase out fossil fuels and nuclear.
The problem with this is that I don't see any huge breakthroughs in battery technology on the horizon, and the most efficient 'battery" is still water behind a dam - or the energy contained in non-renewable sources.
We need to operate on the assumption that storage technology is not going to fundamentally improve.
The problem with this is that I don't see any huge breakthroughs in battery technology on the horizon, and the most efficient 'battery" is still water behind a dam - or the energy contained in non-renewable sources.
We need to operate on the assumption that storage technology is not going to fundamentally improve.
Mikael
Jul 12, 03:42 PM
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.
So, why get so worked up over this?
gopher
Oct 9, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Pants
oh, and did anyone mention that apples floating point performance was good? no - its awful! [/B]
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
oh, and did anyone mention that apples floating point performance was good? no - its awful! [/B]
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:30 AM
So there is no big
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Makes it sound like leprosy�
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Makes it sound like leprosy�
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
Blue Fox
Apr 22, 07:08 PM
There is a few things
I miss the start button. The dock is handy but I prefer the start button and quick access tool bar.
Put your Applications folder and user folder in the dock, then right click and change it to a list view. You now have full access to everything on your HD via the user folder in the dock, and the applications folder as well.
remove programs
Remove or uninstall? To remove from the dock, simply click and hold, then drag off, it goes away. To uninstall, drag application from the applications folder to the trash, then empty trash. Or if the specific application came with an uninstaller, you can use that too.
My network places
Network as in available WiFi networks or connected servers? Connected servers will show up in any Finder folder you open up in the sidebar. As far as Wifi, that's in the WiFi symbol on the top menu bar.
scratching my head on how to easily open a new tab on safari when only a single safari window is open
File > New Tab, OR Command + T, OR right click on the top of the safari window, click "customize toolbar" and add the "New tab" button to your existing buttons.
I seem to close a lot of safari windows instead of hitting the back button.
As mentioned above, when you customize your toolbar in Safari, you can always add some other buttons in front of the back/forward buttons to keep from closing it out inadvertently.
I miss the start button. The dock is handy but I prefer the start button and quick access tool bar.
Put your Applications folder and user folder in the dock, then right click and change it to a list view. You now have full access to everything on your HD via the user folder in the dock, and the applications folder as well.
remove programs
Remove or uninstall? To remove from the dock, simply click and hold, then drag off, it goes away. To uninstall, drag application from the applications folder to the trash, then empty trash. Or if the specific application came with an uninstaller, you can use that too.
My network places
Network as in available WiFi networks or connected servers? Connected servers will show up in any Finder folder you open up in the sidebar. As far as Wifi, that's in the WiFi symbol on the top menu bar.
scratching my head on how to easily open a new tab on safari when only a single safari window is open
File > New Tab, OR Command + T, OR right click on the top of the safari window, click "customize toolbar" and add the "New tab" button to your existing buttons.
I seem to close a lot of safari windows instead of hitting the back button.
As mentioned above, when you customize your toolbar in Safari, you can always add some other buttons in front of the back/forward buttons to keep from closing it out inadvertently.
reel2reel
Apr 15, 09:50 AM
That's awesome.
Humans can be some nasty creatures.
Yep, this hate is dying off. Demographics are destiny. Younger people, writ large, are not homophobic or anti-gay.
But they're still pretty good at hating and excluding for other reasons. Some things never change, unfortunately.
Humans can be some nasty creatures.
Yep, this hate is dying off. Demographics are destiny. Younger people, writ large, are not homophobic or anti-gay.
But they're still pretty good at hating and excluding for other reasons. Some things never change, unfortunately.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 03:51 AM
Say that about games like Final Fantasy III, Aralon, or even NOVA 2. Try finishing any of these games while on one sitting at the toilet. :eek:
SUZUKI SWIFT 1.6 VVT Sport 3dr
Suzuki Swift 1.6 VVT Sport 3dr
Suzuki+swift+white+3dr
Suzuki Swift Hatchback (1.6)
2000/X Suzuki Swift 1.0 gls
2002/02 Suzuki Swift GLS 3dr
Suzuki Swift 1.5 GLX 3dr,
LegendKillerUK
Apr 8, 10:37 PM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
I'd love for Pokemon to be on iOS devices.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
I'd love for Pokemon to be on iOS devices.
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 06:28 PM
SO-DIMM, yes. FB-DIMM, no.
I still have to disagree with that. They've priced their RAM on Macbook Pro systems in a way that it's not really worth it to buy a second 1GB stick elsewhere, better to get the matched pair when you buy. 2GB module pricing is about $150 higher than elsewhere. For the Macbook, it's still cheaper to buy a system with the lowest config and then buy elsewhere. Apple wants $500 to upgrade the blackbook from 2x256 to 2x1GB. That's nuts. I can buy 2x1GB for right at $200 from any decent vendor and that's good, name-brand memory modules. So how do you figure their prices on SO-DIMMs are competitive. :confused:
I still have to disagree with that. They've priced their RAM on Macbook Pro systems in a way that it's not really worth it to buy a second 1GB stick elsewhere, better to get the matched pair when you buy. 2GB module pricing is about $150 higher than elsewhere. For the Macbook, it's still cheaper to buy a system with the lowest config and then buy elsewhere. Apple wants $500 to upgrade the blackbook from 2x256 to 2x1GB. That's nuts. I can buy 2x1GB for right at $200 from any decent vendor and that's good, name-brand memory modules. So how do you figure their prices on SO-DIMMs are competitive. :confused:
robeddie
Apr 13, 08:48 AM
Not having seen FCPX first hand I will completely withhold judgement on the app until I do.
But I will make the observation that it seems for some, the price point is what makes this app "less" pro. The fact that more people can get it and call themselves video or film editors when they are no more an editor than someone who buys a tool set at Lowe's is a mechanic.
Having the tools doesn't mean you know how to use them - but with more people having the tools thinking they do - the value of those that REALLY do can be affected if it appears that "anyone" can do it.
You seem to be forgetting, that before there was the FINAL CUT STUDIO suite that cost $999 ... final cut pro was sold separately for years, at the low low upgrade price of ... $299 - $399!!!
But I will make the observation that it seems for some, the price point is what makes this app "less" pro. The fact that more people can get it and call themselves video or film editors when they are no more an editor than someone who buys a tool set at Lowe's is a mechanic.
Having the tools doesn't mean you know how to use them - but with more people having the tools thinking they do - the value of those that REALLY do can be affected if it appears that "anyone" can do it.
You seem to be forgetting, that before there was the FINAL CUT STUDIO suite that cost $999 ... final cut pro was sold separately for years, at the low low upgrade price of ... $299 - $399!!!
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 05:53 AM
Unfortunately, its already the case. When the DTP kicked in Apple was all pro and nothing else. Apple was for media creators and scientists. Now its the opposite.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
danielwsmithee
Sep 12, 03:56 PM
is this iTV thingee going to have wireless router function? then it replaces airport express. if not, then no.yes it will. Probably 802.11n. It will also have a USB port. They could do a lot of interesting things with the USB port. You could connect your or a friend's iPod and gain access to all the content on the iPod. You could connect a printer like the Airport Express, or what I hope most of all is NAS. Imagine being able to connect a USB drive and have a file server for your whole house, anything in the movies, music, or photos folders can be played by iTV.
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:48 AM
Miiiight want to check that out again. Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2008.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
I meant "installed base" more than shipments.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
I meant "installed base" more than shipments.
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 09:34 PM
I probably have met too few atheists. Each of my philosophy professors at the State University of New York was an atheist. But only one seemed hostile to theism. Other atheists, J.L. Mackie and Roger Scruton, say, were made some excellent points in their books. Mackie even discovered a way to go through the horns of the Euthypro dilemma, a philosophical dilemma that you can sum up with a question: Is murder morally wrong because God says so, or does he say so because it's morally wrong? Unfortunately, I forget Mackie's reply. But I'm sue that had someone proved that God existed, Mackie would have become a theist just as Antony Flew did. I've spent years studying theism and too little time to studying atheism.
If someone one is hostile to theism, then he is anti-theist (presumably also being atheist). Most atheists are not anti-theist from my experience. Pretty much live and let live.
If someone one is hostile to theism, then he is anti-theist (presumably also being atheist). Most atheists are not anti-theist from my experience. Pretty much live and let live.
joepunk
Mar 15, 12:52 AM
Someone has a Geiger Counter reading set up in Tokyo (I assume that is the location). If someone can explain this that would be wonderful.
LINK (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html)
http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg)
LINK (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html)
http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg)
macnulty
Mar 19, 07:32 AM
Um, you still have to buy the song, he hasn't cracked the DRM, and the user has to use a program other then iTunes to execute. It would seem to me the easiest thing for Apple is to use a more stringent iTunes identifier. After all, all us non-IE users should be familiar with this concept.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:41 PM
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
r.j.s
May 2, 11:30 AM
At best, it's a trojan. Still no viruses on MacOS X...
I wouldn't even call it that, it just asks for a credit card number, it doesn't seem to harm anything or steal your data.
More like an annoyance.
I wouldn't even call it that, it just asks for a credit card number, it doesn't seem to harm anything or steal your data.
More like an annoyance.
Cappy
Oct 9, 12:09 PM
Faster this, faster that. Software here, software there. Upgrade this, upgrade that. Blah! Blah! Blah!
I like computers just as much as the next geek but when you break it all down what can't you do with computers and OS's from even 5 years ago that you can today? In truth the only real benefits are that Windows and Mac systems are faster and more stable than they used to be. For Macs to make any inroads more innovation is the key. They cannot compete on price/performance and never will. Moving to x86 could help of course. Note that most people don't buy Macs because of price and not because of performance issues.
So with this in mind if you set aside the small contingent that truly needs faster Macs for their jobs in professional settings, the Mac really needs lower prices and more innovation. Do that and Apple will have a winner that they would need to open up the clone market again just to be able to make enough of them.
Frankly this whole benchmark argument is stupid for most of the people here. Benchmarks should be used as nothing more than a guide and you should have multiple sources if you want to base a purchasing decision from them alone. Too many people treat them as the end all be all.
I like computers just as much as the next geek but when you break it all down what can't you do with computers and OS's from even 5 years ago that you can today? In truth the only real benefits are that Windows and Mac systems are faster and more stable than they used to be. For Macs to make any inroads more innovation is the key. They cannot compete on price/performance and never will. Moving to x86 could help of course. Note that most people don't buy Macs because of price and not because of performance issues.
So with this in mind if you set aside the small contingent that truly needs faster Macs for their jobs in professional settings, the Mac really needs lower prices and more innovation. Do that and Apple will have a winner that they would need to open up the clone market again just to be able to make enough of them.
Frankly this whole benchmark argument is stupid for most of the people here. Benchmarks should be used as nothing more than a guide and you should have multiple sources if you want to base a purchasing decision from them alone. Too many people treat them as the end all be all.
No comments:
Post a Comment