AppliedVisual
Oct 13, 07:37 PM
came up with the coupon just in the nick of time to save me even more than I expected to save - like another $250. Total bill came to only $1468.32. Amazing luck for me.
Yeah, rxse7en -- you da man!
I had been considering getting another one of these 30" Dell monitors since I love the one I've got and as big as it is, when working on compositing images from two or three 1080p sources, doubling my desktop space would be a dream. I pulled the trigger on one the other day with the recent price drop plus Dell's 15% off. Then this coupon came along. I called up Dell and they refused to apply the coupon at first so I just threw at them, well how about I cancel my order, refuse shipment and order another monitor with the coupon. ;) The guy thought about it for a bit and then decided to adjust my order.
It should be here monday, but I still have to get a sales tax issue cleared up... They charged me too much tax to begin with and then also didn't adjust it when altering my invoice. So I live in an area where I'm supposed to pay a max of 4.6% yet I'm getting charged nearly 8% of the pre-adjusted amount. Ouch. :mad:
Yeah, rxse7en -- you da man!
I had been considering getting another one of these 30" Dell monitors since I love the one I've got and as big as it is, when working on compositing images from two or three 1080p sources, doubling my desktop space would be a dream. I pulled the trigger on one the other day with the recent price drop plus Dell's 15% off. Then this coupon came along. I called up Dell and they refused to apply the coupon at first so I just threw at them, well how about I cancel my order, refuse shipment and order another monitor with the coupon. ;) The guy thought about it for a bit and then decided to adjust my order.
It should be here monday, but I still have to get a sales tax issue cleared up... They charged me too much tax to begin with and then also didn't adjust it when altering my invoice. So I live in an area where I'm supposed to pay a max of 4.6% yet I'm getting charged nearly 8% of the pre-adjusted amount. Ouch. :mad:
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 03:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
Aduntu
Apr 15, 12:27 PM
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city."
Just to clarify: the latter passage says that if a woman is raped in a city, she must be stoned to death.
I realize this is off topic, but I felt compelled to reply.
You've taken that completely out of context. The point is that a person being raped, while conscious and aware of the situation, would do everything they could to stop it from happening. By not screaming, did she do all she could to keep it from happening? The verse right after that gives an example of a woman in the country, instead of in the city. She is raped, but makes an effort to scream in order to attract help from someone, but there is no one else around to hear her screams. If a person is being raped but doesn't try to resist or call for help, can she really be compared to the one that did call for help?
This is by no means intended to be all inclusive, but demonstrates that there were in fact protections in the law for those who were raped and not those having sex while not married and claiming to be raped.
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city."
Just to clarify: the latter passage says that if a woman is raped in a city, she must be stoned to death.
I realize this is off topic, but I felt compelled to reply.
You've taken that completely out of context. The point is that a person being raped, while conscious and aware of the situation, would do everything they could to stop it from happening. By not screaming, did she do all she could to keep it from happening? The verse right after that gives an example of a woman in the country, instead of in the city. She is raped, but makes an effort to scream in order to attract help from someone, but there is no one else around to hear her screams. If a person is being raped but doesn't try to resist or call for help, can she really be compared to the one that did call for help?
This is by no means intended to be all inclusive, but demonstrates that there were in fact protections in the law for those who were raped and not those having sex while not married and claiming to be raped.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 04:16 AM
Amazing. Not a word in response.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I want to be accepted as I am. But my heterosexuality is not who I am. It's not my identity. It's a property I have. If I became gay, the homosexuality wouldn't change me into someone else. I wouldn't become, say, Jussi Bjorling, my favorite singer. But if I did become gay, I would have a property I never had before. If I become someone else by gaining or losing a property I might or might not have, I'll become someone else when my hair turns gray.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I want to be accepted as I am. But my heterosexuality is not who I am. It's not my identity. It's a property I have. If I became gay, the homosexuality wouldn't change me into someone else. I wouldn't become, say, Jussi Bjorling, my favorite singer. But if I did become gay, I would have a property I never had before. If I become someone else by gaining or losing a property I might or might not have, I'll become someone else when my hair turns gray.
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 12:46 AM
Matthew can go F himself.
Ha. A friend and I were sitting in a predominantly gay bar (with amazing happy hour specials) one afternoon and came up with a catchphrase for those who came in and wrinkled their noses at the clientele: "F your Christ." The sheer in-your-face-ness was glorious. ;)
Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
Exactly. Things written in a book about being blessed and receiving a reward in heaven mean diddly to the proceedings of the nation. Closer to the OP topic, neither do Catholic views on sexual behavior.
I cited that verse for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
Hard to tell that, when you quote one of the critics in your post. :rolleyes:
Ha. A friend and I were sitting in a predominantly gay bar (with amazing happy hour specials) one afternoon and came up with a catchphrase for those who came in and wrinkled their noses at the clientele: "F your Christ." The sheer in-your-face-ness was glorious. ;)
Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
Exactly. Things written in a book about being blessed and receiving a reward in heaven mean diddly to the proceedings of the nation. Closer to the OP topic, neither do Catholic views on sexual behavior.
I cited that verse for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
Hard to tell that, when you quote one of the critics in your post. :rolleyes:
desdomg
Mar 20, 04:52 PM
Glad you are having fun. Many would argue that the it is the music industry that is doing the pillaging and it is the consumers pockets that are being raided. Legal and right are not always the same things. How come there is no competition in song pricing anyway?
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
fleggy
Mar 18, 01:58 PM
When are you all going to realize that this is marketing fluff?
Let me give you a possible scenario...(something to lighten the mood)
AT&T Infrastructure: Wow - these new smart phones use a lot of data. We need to restrict it.
AT&T Marketing: Yes, well, we can't tell customers the restrictions - it will lose us business. I want to tell them it is unlimited!
AT&T Infrastructure: No way...it will kill us - especially with tethering! I'd be happy with it restricted to the smart phone only.
AT&T Legal: We can insert a clause...restricting to this device only...no tethering.
AT&T Marketing: Yes, yes! I can just mention and promote unlimited, and the actual usage can be buried in the ToS. I like it.
AT&T release "unlimited data for the iPhone" knowing full well that even if your iPhone downloads 24x7 - their network can handle it (although this will never happen in reality).
Everyone flocks to buy it and SIGN UP.
Selecting which part of the service to market IS mis-leading, however...it is pretty clear - "this device only".
Everything in America is like this. Marketing is a black art form here!! You can't pick and choose which parts of the marketing and ToS you like!
Let me give you a possible scenario...(something to lighten the mood)
AT&T Infrastructure: Wow - these new smart phones use a lot of data. We need to restrict it.
AT&T Marketing: Yes, well, we can't tell customers the restrictions - it will lose us business. I want to tell them it is unlimited!
AT&T Infrastructure: No way...it will kill us - especially with tethering! I'd be happy with it restricted to the smart phone only.
AT&T Legal: We can insert a clause...restricting to this device only...no tethering.
AT&T Marketing: Yes, yes! I can just mention and promote unlimited, and the actual usage can be buried in the ToS. I like it.
AT&T release "unlimited data for the iPhone" knowing full well that even if your iPhone downloads 24x7 - their network can handle it (although this will never happen in reality).
Everyone flocks to buy it and SIGN UP.
Selecting which part of the service to market IS mis-leading, however...it is pretty clear - "this device only".
Everything in America is like this. Marketing is a black art form here!! You can't pick and choose which parts of the marketing and ToS you like!
javajedi
Oct 11, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
royal wedding dresses.
Royal Wedding Gowns
Royal Wedding Dresses:
royal wedding dresses. kate
Royal wedding dresses for
royal train white wedding
royal wedding dress code.
royal wedding dress. the royal
Wedding Dress
royal wedding dresses kate
Royal Wedding dress: Kate
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
Anonymous Freak
Sep 26, 11:17 AM
Therefore current Mac Pro users may be able to upgrade to 8-core machines upon availability of the new chips
Emphasis mine. Whaddaya mean 'may'? Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6) confirmed that they work.
Oh, and as for quad-core laptops? Not any time soon. Sorry. We'll see quad-core Xeons this year, maybe a quad core 'Core 2 Extreme' this year, followed by a few desktop 'Core 2 Quadro's next year.
The big problem is that the early quad-core chips are really just two dual-core chips in the same package. So not only are they big (you CAN'T fit four Conroes on a Socket 775 package, so we WON'T be seeing similar eight-core chips until a die shrink,) but they draw almost exactly twice as much power as the same GHz dual-core chip. That already will already push the Xeons and Core 2s to the thermal envelope that was hit by the NetBurst based models. So we'll have to wait for a die shrink before we see quad-core in any of the 'consumer' desktop Macs or laptops. (The die shrink is scheduled for late next year.)
Emphasis mine. Whaddaya mean 'may'? Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6) confirmed that they work.
Oh, and as for quad-core laptops? Not any time soon. Sorry. We'll see quad-core Xeons this year, maybe a quad core 'Core 2 Extreme' this year, followed by a few desktop 'Core 2 Quadro's next year.
The big problem is that the early quad-core chips are really just two dual-core chips in the same package. So not only are they big (you CAN'T fit four Conroes on a Socket 775 package, so we WON'T be seeing similar eight-core chips until a die shrink,) but they draw almost exactly twice as much power as the same GHz dual-core chip. That already will already push the Xeons and Core 2s to the thermal envelope that was hit by the NetBurst based models. So we'll have to wait for a die shrink before we see quad-core in any of the 'consumer' desktop Macs or laptops. (The die shrink is scheduled for late next year.)
Multimedia
Oct 26, 01:55 PM
I highly doubt this will be a simple swap.Simple swap has already been tested and confirmed to work in early September by Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6). The Clovertowns are quite expensive,Not really. The 2.66GHz Clovertown lists @ $1172 vs. $851 for both the 2.33GHz Clovertown and the 3GHz Woodie. Since Apple charges +$800 for a 3GHz Dual Woodie, this means they will likely charge only +$1100 for the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown - total $3599. Hardly expensive at all. I'd say they are going to be a bargain and LESS EXPENSIVE when you look at the per core price of $450 - or PLUS $275 for each of four more cores.not to mention slower in terms of raw clock speed, so expect it to be a high priced upgrade.2.66GHz is not significantly slower than 3GHz - especially when the workload can be shared among many more.
Clarification: If Apple asks for +$1400 or $3999 they will still sell like hotcakes and be a huge hit. So NO they are not going to be TOO Expensive because there is no such thing as too expensive in this market.
I feel like I am having to explain this market to home user drop-ins who have nothing to do with why we need these 8-core Mac Pros. So they are oblivious to why anyone would even want one much less pay so much for one.
Clarification: If Apple asks for +$1400 or $3999 they will still sell like hotcakes and be a huge hit. So NO they are not going to be TOO Expensive because there is no such thing as too expensive in this market.
I feel like I am having to explain this market to home user drop-ins who have nothing to do with why we need these 8-core Mac Pros. So they are oblivious to why anyone would even want one much less pay so much for one.
rhett7660
Feb 21, 04:31 PM
You really think so? I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
I don't agree with this at all. There phone when it came out was a lot more expensive then a good majority of the phones out at the time. They were not subsidized at all. They had something that was different and new to the game. The App store wasn't even around for the consumer at that time. There were web apps but not applications like we know it now. Very limited ones at that.
They were going against the likes of Nokia and Black Berry. Heck at that point the iPhone wasn't even considered a smart phone was it? It didn't have really any tools to compete against Black Berry. All it had was a new user interface.
Sure there were going to sell some units but I don't think any of this guaranteed a winner. Especially in a market that was saturated with phones that cost 50 or less and or free if you sign up.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
I don't agree with this at all. There phone when it came out was a lot more expensive then a good majority of the phones out at the time. They were not subsidized at all. They had something that was different and new to the game. The App store wasn't even around for the consumer at that time. There were web apps but not applications like we know it now. Very limited ones at that.
They were going against the likes of Nokia and Black Berry. Heck at that point the iPhone wasn't even considered a smart phone was it? It didn't have really any tools to compete against Black Berry. All it had was a new user interface.
Sure there were going to sell some units but I don't think any of this guaranteed a winner. Especially in a market that was saturated with phones that cost 50 or less and or free if you sign up.
Cyrax
Apr 6, 10:45 AM
I just switched. Like, a week ago.
1. Expose + Spaces are GREAT window managers. I took to both like ducks to water.
2. Spotlight is pretty awesome and intuitive. However, Win 7 has features like that integrated.
3. I never used the Explorer, always just navigated through folders one by one (bad habit, I guess). So Finder has been a bit of a learning curve especially since the opening folders behavior is not quite the same. Like when you double click on a new folder a new window opens up.
4. No registry is great. Installing/uninstalling apps is clean and efficient. Just the way it should be.
5. The Dock is a mess. Of course, this is nothing new. Many, many people have spent tons of time talking about it. However, it is fairly intuitive and simple to use. It's also very tweakable for those who want to do it. I guess that's why Apple has kept it around.
6. I like how Mac OS X keeps all the power user features out there and accessible. Automator for example. OS X looks nice and is easy to use but is actually extremely flexible and powerful. Windows, of course, you can do a lot to tweak it, but it just doesn't feel the same.
7. Quicktime-stuff and iTunes run MUCH better on the Mac. No surprise there.
1. Expose + Spaces are GREAT window managers. I took to both like ducks to water.
2. Spotlight is pretty awesome and intuitive. However, Win 7 has features like that integrated.
3. I never used the Explorer, always just navigated through folders one by one (bad habit, I guess). So Finder has been a bit of a learning curve especially since the opening folders behavior is not quite the same. Like when you double click on a new folder a new window opens up.
4. No registry is great. Installing/uninstalling apps is clean and efficient. Just the way it should be.
5. The Dock is a mess. Of course, this is nothing new. Many, many people have spent tons of time talking about it. However, it is fairly intuitive and simple to use. It's also very tweakable for those who want to do it. I guess that's why Apple has kept it around.
6. I like how Mac OS X keeps all the power user features out there and accessible. Automator for example. OS X looks nice and is easy to use but is actually extremely flexible and powerful. Windows, of course, you can do a lot to tweak it, but it just doesn't feel the same.
7. Quicktime-stuff and iTunes run MUCH better on the Mac. No surprise there.
brent0saurus
Apr 9, 01:21 PM
Velly Intelrsting. Did they start out making games from rocks?
Nope, paper. They started off making card games in the 1800s.
Nope, paper. They started off making card games in the 1800s.
portishead
Apr 13, 12:07 AM
The BBC just purchased 4,000 Premiere systems.
LOL. 4000 editors are gonna be pissed.
LOL. 4000 editors are gonna be pissed.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 10:27 PM
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
Reading the situation in America, I can see now why European atheists don't feel they have to back up their claims: they're rarely challenged on their positions.
It seems in America it's a touchy issue :\
Reading the situation in America, I can see now why European atheists don't feel they have to back up their claims: they're rarely challenged on their positions.
It seems in America it's a touchy issue :\
lilo777
Apr 20, 08:44 PM
Want an LTE phone that can make it through the day? Sorry.
Also try physical keyboards, NFC, OLED screens, WiMax etc. As far as making it through the day is concerned, I can show you how to drain iPhone's battery in 6 hours. What's your point? Use LTE when you need it.
Nope, doesn't work that way for many viruses. Even if you have show hidden files and folders and show hidden system files check to show they still don't necessarily show thats the problem, its either a bug in the OS or something legit that people are exploiting. You can't even get them in command prompt but you can see them when plugged into other OS's. They are usually in a folder along with a script that does something to keep them hidden, or something somewhere else keeps them hidden.
There is no bugs or any magic there. If the file exists in the file system Windows will show it. Virus removal has nothing to do with it. Malicious files may be hidden in the files saved for restoring older states. "Virus" may be running special processes that keep something in RAM and then restore malicious files if the user removes them. There are all kinds of scenarios but they are not unique to Windows. Before Vista, Windows access right system was messed up but that's the past. There are no viruses in newer versions of Windows anymore.
Also try physical keyboards, NFC, OLED screens, WiMax etc. As far as making it through the day is concerned, I can show you how to drain iPhone's battery in 6 hours. What's your point? Use LTE when you need it.
Nope, doesn't work that way for many viruses. Even if you have show hidden files and folders and show hidden system files check to show they still don't necessarily show thats the problem, its either a bug in the OS or something legit that people are exploiting. You can't even get them in command prompt but you can see them when plugged into other OS's. They are usually in a folder along with a script that does something to keep them hidden, or something somewhere else keeps them hidden.
There is no bugs or any magic there. If the file exists in the file system Windows will show it. Virus removal has nothing to do with it. Malicious files may be hidden in the files saved for restoring older states. "Virus" may be running special processes that keep something in RAM and then restore malicious files if the user removes them. There are all kinds of scenarios but they are not unique to Windows. Before Vista, Windows access right system was messed up but that's the past. There are no viruses in newer versions of Windows anymore.
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:38 AM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone. It's not the easiest nor most effective sort of malware you can make. Like you state yourself, even windows these days is mostly virus free. Currently, spyware is all the rage, trojans have always been a good vector and the occasional worm when a remote execution/privilege escalation bug pops up can create some havoc.
But good old viruses ? Almost no one plays with those black arts anymore...
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone. It's not the easiest nor most effective sort of malware you can make. Like you state yourself, even windows these days is mostly virus free. Currently, spyware is all the rage, trojans have always been a good vector and the occasional worm when a remote execution/privilege escalation bug pops up can create some havoc.
But good old viruses ? Almost no one plays with those black arts anymore...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 05:00 PM
I guess all this honour killing pretty much explains the original theory how freedom of women has been affected
thanks again edifyingG for presenting some very valid points
don't thank me, thank ct2k7 for saying just why islam is a threat to democracy.
Basically, follow the local law until the point where is will cause you to sin AND be in direct violation of the Sharia Law framework.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
so right there, we've gotten rid of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
Again, correlation does not mean causation. You should try to understand that. It's a very basic principle in analysis. You've only looked at one thing they have in common. Have you not noticed that the countries there are somewhat within a closer proximity region?
What you have said, in the latter, is entirely subjective, and your view is not shared by the 1.5 billion (?) follows of the religion.
Did you know that Tony Blair's sister in law, Lauren Booth converted to Islam not so long ago? She thought Islam oppressed women and that's why she converted to it... :rolleyes: Along with Yvonne Ridley... :eek:
I do understand that. However, Morocco is thousands of miles away from Pakistan yet both condone honour killing, do you understand the significance of that?
My view may not be shared by ~1.5 billion muslims but it is shared by the many millions of muslims (ten million in africa by some estimates) who leave islam despite the death penalty levelled against them for apostasy.
Lauren Booth isn't a very good advocate to endorse anything, except perhaps anti-psychotic medication.
Lots of intellectuals supported the Nazi party yet many would be hard pressed to not call the Nazi party evil. the Qur'an and Mein Kampf are very similar. Both are chauvinistic, misogynistic and supremacist. Who wouldn't want to join a group that told you you can do whatever you want to your wife/children and that you're "the best of people" and going to heaven for emulating a degenerate warlord from the 7th century, and that all other people who disagree with you are wrong wrong wrong?
thanks again edifyingG for presenting some very valid points
don't thank me, thank ct2k7 for saying just why islam is a threat to democracy.
Basically, follow the local law until the point where is will cause you to sin AND be in direct violation of the Sharia Law framework.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
so right there, we've gotten rid of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
Again, correlation does not mean causation. You should try to understand that. It's a very basic principle in analysis. You've only looked at one thing they have in common. Have you not noticed that the countries there are somewhat within a closer proximity region?
What you have said, in the latter, is entirely subjective, and your view is not shared by the 1.5 billion (?) follows of the religion.
Did you know that Tony Blair's sister in law, Lauren Booth converted to Islam not so long ago? She thought Islam oppressed women and that's why she converted to it... :rolleyes: Along with Yvonne Ridley... :eek:
I do understand that. However, Morocco is thousands of miles away from Pakistan yet both condone honour killing, do you understand the significance of that?
My view may not be shared by ~1.5 billion muslims but it is shared by the many millions of muslims (ten million in africa by some estimates) who leave islam despite the death penalty levelled against them for apostasy.
Lauren Booth isn't a very good advocate to endorse anything, except perhaps anti-psychotic medication.
Lots of intellectuals supported the Nazi party yet many would be hard pressed to not call the Nazi party evil. the Qur'an and Mein Kampf are very similar. Both are chauvinistic, misogynistic and supremacist. Who wouldn't want to join a group that told you you can do whatever you want to your wife/children and that you're "the best of people" and going to heaven for emulating a degenerate warlord from the 7th century, and that all other people who disagree with you are wrong wrong wrong?
CaoCao
Mar 26, 01:19 AM
WTF? Who said that anyone should be copulating in public? You have completely lost this argument at this point. Not to mention your mind...This has just gotten stupid.
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
You're joking right? That's a heck of a statement you make there. Is that based on any fact? Or just your ignorance?
I'm assuming that by stability you mean children?
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
The Constitution of the United States forbids tyranny of the majority by denying the government the power to deprive anyone of liberty without a compelling state interest in doing so. A powerful majority may not simply outlaw an unpopular minority.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
You're joking right? That's a heck of a statement you make there. Is that based on any fact? Or just your ignorance?
I'm assuming that by stability you mean children?
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
The Constitution of the United States forbids tyranny of the majority by denying the government the power to deprive anyone of liberty without a compelling state interest in doing so. A powerful majority may not simply outlaw an unpopular minority.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
EricNau
Mar 14, 11:50 PM
Another helpful article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42075628) (MSNBC):
Amid dire reports of melting fuel rods and sickened workers at Japan�s beleaguered Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactor, the public health risk from radiation exposure remains very low in that country � or abroad, experts say.
�In general, right now, the citizens of Japan have far more other things to worry about than nuclear power,� said Richard L. Morin, a professor of radiologic physics at the Mayo Clinic and chair of the safety committee of the American College of Radiology.
�There�s not a significant risk to anybody in the United States, including Hawaii,� he added.
Though talk of a nuclear �meltdown� raises specters of acute radiation sickness and long-term cancers, such as those seen after the 1986 Chernobyl accident in which the reactor blew up, the radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits, Japanese officials told reporters.
American experts monitoring the situation agreed, saying that reported radiation exposure remains far lower than normal exposure from background radiation in the environment, from medical procedures such as CT scans, or even from transatlantic air flights.
�I haven�t seen anything so far that seems to indicate that people are being exposed to levels of radiation that are acutely dangerous,� said G. Donald Frey, a professor of radiology at the Medical University of South Carolina.
[. . .] A one-time CT scan can expose a person to between 5 and 10 millisieverts. An X-ray of the spine might expose a patient to an estimated 1.5 millisieverts. A long, cross-country air flight might expose someone to about .03 millisieverts. A person who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day is exposed to 53 millisieverts each year, according to the National Institutes of Health.
So far, Japanese officials have reported possible top exposures at the plant of .5 millisieverts per hour, a level that has dropped to perhaps .04 millisieverts per hour, Frey said. While that level is concerning to plant workers, residents who heeded a 12-mile evacuation zone would not be affected, said Dr. James H. Thrall, chief radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
�That would only expose nuclear plant workers,� he said. �If you�re even 100 feet away, or 1,000 feet away, the exposure drops dramatically.�
Even if the workers at the nuclear plant in Japan were exposed continuously to .5 millisieverts per hour, it would take about 40 hours before them to reach the yearly limit for exposure. Now that the level has fallen, so has the risk, Thrall said. [. . .]
In the meantime, the U.S. experts cautioned observers, especially those in the U.S., to keep the situation in perspective.
�There�s very little likelihood of any concern,� said Thrall. �Instead, I would advise people to look both ways before crossing the street.�
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event. The release of dangerous levels of radiation is extremely improbable, even given a situation significantly worse than that currently faced by Japan. Link (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/14/6268351-clearing-up-nuclear-questions)
Amid dire reports of melting fuel rods and sickened workers at Japan�s beleaguered Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactor, the public health risk from radiation exposure remains very low in that country � or abroad, experts say.
�In general, right now, the citizens of Japan have far more other things to worry about than nuclear power,� said Richard L. Morin, a professor of radiologic physics at the Mayo Clinic and chair of the safety committee of the American College of Radiology.
�There�s not a significant risk to anybody in the United States, including Hawaii,� he added.
Though talk of a nuclear �meltdown� raises specters of acute radiation sickness and long-term cancers, such as those seen after the 1986 Chernobyl accident in which the reactor blew up, the radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits, Japanese officials told reporters.
American experts monitoring the situation agreed, saying that reported radiation exposure remains far lower than normal exposure from background radiation in the environment, from medical procedures such as CT scans, or even from transatlantic air flights.
�I haven�t seen anything so far that seems to indicate that people are being exposed to levels of radiation that are acutely dangerous,� said G. Donald Frey, a professor of radiology at the Medical University of South Carolina.
[. . .] A one-time CT scan can expose a person to between 5 and 10 millisieverts. An X-ray of the spine might expose a patient to an estimated 1.5 millisieverts. A long, cross-country air flight might expose someone to about .03 millisieverts. A person who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day is exposed to 53 millisieverts each year, according to the National Institutes of Health.
So far, Japanese officials have reported possible top exposures at the plant of .5 millisieverts per hour, a level that has dropped to perhaps .04 millisieverts per hour, Frey said. While that level is concerning to plant workers, residents who heeded a 12-mile evacuation zone would not be affected, said Dr. James H. Thrall, chief radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
�That would only expose nuclear plant workers,� he said. �If you�re even 100 feet away, or 1,000 feet away, the exposure drops dramatically.�
Even if the workers at the nuclear plant in Japan were exposed continuously to .5 millisieverts per hour, it would take about 40 hours before them to reach the yearly limit for exposure. Now that the level has fallen, so has the risk, Thrall said. [. . .]
In the meantime, the U.S. experts cautioned observers, especially those in the U.S., to keep the situation in perspective.
�There�s very little likelihood of any concern,� said Thrall. �Instead, I would advise people to look both ways before crossing the street.�
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event. The release of dangerous levels of radiation is extremely improbable, even given a situation significantly worse than that currently faced by Japan. Link (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/14/6268351-clearing-up-nuclear-questions)
JasperJanssen
Apr 30, 03:28 AM
You only NEED a computer one time for an iPad. After that you can never hook it up to another machine again. So if you don't have a computer at home, have Apple set up your new iPad at the Apple store and you have a true post-PC device.
OK, that's an extreme example since we all do have computers at home already, and it is nice to back up your iPad at least some time. But with cloud computing coming very quickly in the Apple world, soon you won't even need to plug in that iPad even once. It will be done over the air, and then all the naysayers will understand what we are talking about when we say we are living in the post-PC world.
Not everyone has a PC at home, or at least not one capable of running iTunes. Most famous iPad 1 user in .nl, at 86 years of age:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IdXcD4X7bQ
(also see his iPad 2 review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6yB8IYl3UE )
OK, that's an extreme example since we all do have computers at home already, and it is nice to back up your iPad at least some time. But with cloud computing coming very quickly in the Apple world, soon you won't even need to plug in that iPad even once. It will be done over the air, and then all the naysayers will understand what we are talking about when we say we are living in the post-PC world.
Not everyone has a PC at home, or at least not one capable of running iTunes. Most famous iPad 1 user in .nl, at 86 years of age:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IdXcD4X7bQ
(also see his iPad 2 review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6yB8IYl3UE )
pmz
Mar 18, 08:53 AM
I didn't say it was right, but you still signed that contract. Not at&t's fault.
Not AT&Ts fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Not AT&Ts fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:59 PM
The point is that Greenpeace opposes ALL R&D into GM foods, just as G.W. opposes ALL R&D into stem cell research, including research to use stem cells w/o harming the fetus.
First, R&D should never be banned. However, we should not implement everything we find out in our labs. It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.
Stem cells is an entirely different story. That is a political/religious question about when life begins and also OT.
First, R&D should never be banned. However, we should not implement everything we find out in our labs. It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.
Stem cells is an entirely different story. That is a political/religious question about when life begins and also OT.
bpaluzzi
Apr 29, 08:34 AM
There are thousands maybe millions of people out there that had there first computer experience on a Windows computer that now are sitting in the business world using Macs.
Who are they?
All those kids from all those schools that used to use Windows.
I am a teacher. I've personally taught lots of them. Schools are now using Mac machines. I'd been using Windows machines for 15 years. I got sick of using Windows bloated OS, waiting for Windows to get rid of the registry. I switched to Mac.
See, anecdotes are fun. But, uh, what's your point?
Who are they?
All those kids from all those schools that used to use Windows.
I am a teacher. I've personally taught lots of them. Schools are now using Mac machines. I'd been using Windows machines for 15 years. I got sick of using Windows bloated OS, waiting for Windows to get rid of the registry. I switched to Mac.
See, anecdotes are fun. But, uh, what's your point?
No comments:
Post a Comment