"California" doesn't. A very small collection of whacko towns in California do.
There is also no way that I need to decide which doctor I want to see... beside me liking having a choice.
In case you are under the impression that you can only see your 'assigned' doctor in the UK, this is not the case. You can ask to see another doctor when you book an appointment (either a specific doctor, or any male/female doctor). You don't need to give a reason.
Since we are talking about kids that don't have the same kind of responsibility and rights as adults do, their guardians should be the ones to set the rules. Not the state.
A agree entirely, and I'm amazed that California of all places has a curfew for teenagers. The nearest we have to that in the UK is an ASBO (anti-social behaviour order), which forbids individual petty criminals from certain acts -- for instance, banning them from a public place they vandalised, or imposing a curfew. You need to be arrested, taken to court and found guilty to get one though. It's meant to be better than sending people to prison etc.
EA doesn't make many games at all, and certainly they don't make their own "great" games. They're a distributor. And yes, they give a shit, whether they say it or not. Once you're old enough to have a job and interact with the MBAs, you'll notice that they give quite a big shit when they start getting PR like they've seen in the last few months based on their DRM.
Also, if your only message is "minority opinions shouldn't be expressed" I think you'd better hope McCain wins next Tuesday.
EA makes great games, most of which I have played through and through.
I'll always buy their games, if it interests me, as most of their titles have.
Most of you are silver spoon fed arrogant bastards who think EA owes you something.
They don't. They owe you NOTHING.
They make a game, it gets bought and it gets played regardless of your worthless self righteous point of view of the corporate dealings.
Theres a reason why the EA hate isn't mainstream. You people are a minority and no one gives a shit about your opinions. Theres a reason why DRM protected games aren't criticized on a mainstream level. No one gives a shit. The amount of people who were unable to play the game and had LEGALLY purchased it is so small, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT. The majority of outrage at DRM protected games comes from people who intended to download it illegally anyways.
It's hilarious seeing shit like "I'm done with them, their shoddy products, their DRM, and their bad attitude". No one gives a shit. Let me stress it again, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT.
EA games are typically best sellers BECAUSE THEY ARE GOOD GAMES. There is also a good reason why every single one of the opinions here aren't shared in the mainstream, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOU.
EA sells games. People buy them or they don't. They raise to the best sellers list due to DEMAND for such good games. All the while, your complaints of their DRM protected products go unheard because, again, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOU OR YOUR STUPID MINORITY OPINIONS.
It's really the BIGGER PICTURE that every one of you pseudo-intellectuals seem to ignore. Buy a game, play it, post on their forums constructively, criticize the quality of their product (GAMEPLAY), and move on. None of which will get you banned. What will get you banned is being a retard. Which most of you are very well seasoned at.
Windows doesn't work without support. So, all they have to do is refuse to help you, and it's not significantly different from being banned from using Windows!
Oh snap...
Yeah, good one...Windows sure requires a lot of support.
Fo'shure I'm looking forward to shelling out my hard-earned money (especially in this wonderful economy) for EA titles in the future after seeing this.
I am betting that they can live without you.
The Sims 3 is #36 on the Amazon PC seller list and it won't be released until February.
Red Alert 3 is #3 - and the geek's negative reviews of the EA product and DRM are being ignored across the board.
2,500 1-star reviews for Spore, currently #6 on the charts.
Their games sell fairly well, but that doesn't mean they're not being affected. If back in May you had told me Spore would be anything but #1 on the PC charts (or perhaps #2 now that FO3 is here) this soon after release, I'd have said you're crazy.
This guy is a master of symbolic design. He's the modern heir of the artistic geniuses who did all the dense symbolic religious iconography in early christian churches and for secret societies. It's perfectly fitting, since architecture, particularly classical architecture, is loaded with design secrets and hidden meanings, and the coin is about architecture. This coin being loaded with dense symbolism and being about architecture, I hope there's something masonic hidden on it somewhere. I assume the masons were active in The Netherlands?
My question is - did he just use open-source on principle, or did it confer an advantage on doing this project over the commercial alternatives? Or was it harder to do it with the open source software? Clearly it involved a lot of custom scripting. Did he go as far as to look at the source code to accomplish this, or dig into the software in other ways that couldn't be done with closed source? Anybody know?
I was thinking the same thing about his mastery of visual symbolism. However, in what sense are ancient greek and roman buildings dense with symbolism? Are you talking about the sculpture on them?
No, you can set the paper directly onto the table.
And use a transparency, allowing you to see the bottom image as well. Not that this seems incredibly useful to me in the described application, but it could become an interesting capability.
Just as has been the case for more than a decade, the Apple UI is less confusing to first-time users, but advanced users who learn the tricks of the UI are able to function more efficiently in Windows. Your alt-tab behavior difference is a great example of this, and the dock vs taskbar behavior is another.
I'm not an astrophysicist either, but as far as I can tell nothing about this hypothesis contradicts the idea that once matter crosses the event horizon it doesn't come out again, except as radiation. They aren't saying that the black hole begins "ejecting" gas, just that at that mass it gives off enough radiation to prevent any more gas from falling in.
I'm not sure I buy that as setting an upper limit on the size of a black hole. It just means the rate of growth would slow, and potentially reach equilibrium with regards to the surrounding gas. If something denser, like a star were to fall in, I doubt that the radiation pressure would push it away.
What about Cold Fusion? What about the fabricated nanotechnology data of Schon? What about the memory of water?
The issue is the same with physics, chemistry, and all the others. A large part of the problem is that the top journals *want* papers that can make the news on Thursday; and will select papers that may have not been fully vetted, and also have a bias towards "big shots" (who have much easier time publishing any kind of trash than do young researchers).
Exceptionally rare outliers that were discovered very quickly, and these examples don't jive with the type of problem described in the article, which the GP nails when he points out how it is very concentrated in medical science.
Also, top journals don't "want" papers in the sense that they get the ones they want. Peer reviewers decide what's worth publishing, and I have yet to meet one who feels that an article should be published because it will make the evening news. Big shots do get a big advantage, but in most cases it's because they have a history of good research. Things DO slip through the cracks, but in Chemistry and Physics, those things are within error bars.
This, the Yahoo change yesterday (which just seems like a silly thing to hate), and a million other things like nerfs in MMOs all go to show that there is an inherent disadvantage when one moves from local, "single player" experiences to "clouds." In doing so, the user gives up control. There are advantages to using an internet-hosted service, obviously, but those who want to take advantages of the portability this affords should get used to the threat of serious changes coming down without warning.
That's actually one of the more annoying things they did.
After using real two-button mice for years, I have a habit of having a finger on each button. With the Mighty Mouse, ok, it's cool that it's a touch sensor, but it means I have to lift my left finger to make it a right button.
I'm confused about this. I've never spent any real time with a Mighty Mouse, just occasional use on computers that aren't mine and where I'm not trying to do anything complicated.
Are you saying that you can't push the left and right mouse buttons at the same time or in rapid succession? Do you really have to take your left finger off the mouse to right click?
Is this why my old Mac-using teammate in the WoW arena couldn't seem to move well while keeping his camera on opponents? Should I tell him to get a third party mouse?
Okay, I'm sure this can't be the case as I understand it, because then it would be impossible to, say, use an alt-fire button for zooming and then click to fire in an fps. Can someone explain what the GP meant?
That's actually one of the more annoying things they did.
After using real two-button mice for years, I have a habit of having a finger on each button. With the Mighty Mouse, ok, it's cool that it's a touch sensor, but it means I have to lift my left finger to make it a right button.
I'm confused about this. I've never spent any real time with a Mighty Mouse, just occasional use on computers that aren't mine and where I'm not trying to do anything complicated.
Are you saying that you can't push the left and right mouse buttons at the same time or in rapid succession? Do you really have to take your left finger off the mouse to right click?
Is this why my old Mac-using teammate in the WoW arena couldn't seem to move well while keeping his camera on opponents? Should I tell him to get a third party mouse?
These lines are taken out of context. You can of course do the same thing with the Bible, and it's not any harder.
Take a line from, say, the bit on Sodom and remove the subject and you'll go from something like "In Sodom, everyone will perish horribly," to "Everyone will perish horribly."
I'm curious to see how this performs on a real mobile device compared to Minimo. Wikipedia seems to indicate it's being pushed by the same developer, Doug Turner. I was never able to get even runnable performance out of Minimo, but there's definitely a market for a better mobile browser. I just updated my Q9m to WM 6.1 and Pocket IE is still garbage. The other alternatives like Skyfire & Iris show potential, but they are not there yet.
I would say this is another potential blow to young-Earth creationists, but I think most of them aren't going to give this particular experiment much credit. It's unfortunate that we can't just look at the results of scientific experiments at face value without requiring a religious interpretation tacked on to the end. We'd all get along much better that way. Theists could do generally accepted scientific study without getting discredited for their beliefs. On the other hand, enough science already goes on with predetermined goals in mind, so maybe it's a moot point.
Disclaimer: I am a creationist, although not a young-Earth creationist, and I don't disagree with most of the tenets of evolution. I won't engage in debate over the merits of evolutionist vs. creationist perspectives, because there's little to no meaningful debate to be had. At this point, both sides of the debate are taking whatever evidence comes up and claiming it supports their perspective.
In other words, don't expect me to argue over the existence of God in this thread. Interesting findings, though!
"One could very well ask FOSS the same question. Any takers?"
You can ask but I guarantee you that FOSS has more original ideas then Microsoft.
"Like Apple?"
Apple at least embraces the open source community and plays an active role in it.
Apple embraces the open source community with the most locked down systems and electronics made by any vendor not working on a defense contract. That must be a tight embrace.
Having seen a lot of actors at non-events, I can say that they don't tend to look good for their ages. Too many drugs and cigarettes along with too many tans take a heavy toll.
Still, my point was that people on the same giant screens (actually movie screens tended to be bigger back in the day before the multiplex killed the giant monotheaters) showed up looking like real people a couple decades ago and before. Sure, they wore makeup, but it left them looking not just their age, but realistic. Actors today are moving toward looking about as real as something rendered at ILM for George Lucas, and most of the time we don't even notice! Makeup and digital touchups are giving people absolutely unattainable physical ideals.
The problem is that they put him (and the 90210 people) in a lot of makeup so that they don't look like 28 year olds. They don't look like real people at all. Why is it that in movies made after the 1980s people main characters can't look real? Even when the main character is supposed to be some sort of grungy curmudgeon, say Jack Black playing a pseudo-bum, he's caked in makeup so that he's a bum with the skin of an adolescent.
One of McCain's close friends is G Gordon Liddy (documented a bit on Wikipedia), who McCain claims to admire.
Which, the parts marked "[citation needed]" or the part marked "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims."?
Ayers not only doesn't feel any remorse about bombing federal buildings, he published memoirs about it! And Obama didn't just go on his radio show, Obama actively worked with him in politics!
Libby didn't try and kill people. Ayers did. Trying to equate the two is beyond ridiculous.
Well, AC, if you look at the Wikipedia article under "Relationship with Senator John McCain" there are two citations, one of which is a quotation from McCain himself. Neither "citation needed" nor "unverified claims" appears there. Maybe you were thinking of someone else named "Libby," but I was discussing Liddy.
Obama condemned Ayers' actions, and his "active work" with him in politics was working in a charity organization partially funded by McCain's some of McCain's political allies (notice that McCain doesn't attack the charity, since he and Obama both support it). Let's just let the well cited Wiki article speak for me here:
"The two met "at a luncheon meeting about school reform."[41] Obama was named to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project Board of Directors to oversee the distribution of grants in Chicago. Later in 1995, Ayers hosted "a coffee" for "Mr. Obama's first run for office."[42] The two served on the board of a community anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 2000 and 2002, during which time the board met twelve times.[42] In April 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate.[41] Since 2002, there has been little linking Obama and Ayers.[42]"
Obama was involved in various good causes in his neighborhood and Ayers was involved in one of them. Obama didn't ever give Ayers anything, didn't put him on the board of this organization, and never said anything about his terrorist past other than condemning it.
Liddy did specifically try to murder people, though indirectly. He wanted other people to do it for him. Just because his personal physical presence was limited (as far as we know) to breaking and entering in order to win a presidential election and extend a war in Vietnam doesn't mean that his detailed plans for murder and drawn up for Nixon and given to the public at large after the Waco nonsense in the 90s didn't have a bigger negative effect on people's lives than Ayers' non-lethal (but absolutely evil, and they easily could have been lethal) insane attacks.
Ayers is a grass roots whacko, while Liddy was (and still is) backed by corrupt politicians. They both did terrible things, and Obama has condemned Ayers while McCain said he's proud of Liddy. Note the citation in that Wiki article. I agree with the Obama campaign, however, in that I don't believe McCain's "association" with Liddy is relevant to the election. I only bring it up to show that the pot is calling the kettle black.
No joke but I'm planning to write in Ron Paul. I don't like either of the major party candidates.
I like Obama's stance on Net Neutrality and the War. But I am pro-gun and anti-taxes and the Democrats historically as a party don't agree with my positions.
On the other hand, I've never cared for McCain (even in 2000). I don't like the statement he made during the primary campaign about leaving troops in Iraq for 100 years. He would be more likely to support my gun and tax positions but I think it would pretty much end there. He's not a true fiscal conservative nor does he seem to be a defender of individual liberties and I believe we'd get another 4 years of intrusive huge government.
I've been considering voting for Bob Barr but I think the Ron Paul write-in sends a better message.
So many people on/. like RP that I decided to check him out. First I looked to my local RP campaign office (this was back in the primary). It was run by the local head of the KKK, which was incredibly shocking to me. I followed the info trail further up the campaign to regional instead of local supporters, and found that in Michigan RP's campaign was being largely organized by KKK members. Who even knew that the KKK were in Michigan?
I investigated further and found, thankfully, that RP isn't anything close to being a KKK member himself, but he's got anti-immigration views which probably help to attract them (my guess). Maybe more of the reason for his solid KKK support comes from a few racist statements he's made over the years which get passed around the K^3-friendly forums with much enthusiasm.
In summary, RP's supporters scare me more than Palin supporters, more than Nixon supporters, and more than just about anyone I can think of. I doubt his politics would lead to particularly racist policies, but it's hard to get over his core supporters, at least in my neck of the country.
One of McCain's close friends is G Gordon Liddy (documented a bit on Wikipedia), who McCain claims to admire. This is after Liddy masterminded Watergate, planned assassinations of anti-Republican politicians for Nixon, the firebombing of political enemies, and advocated the murder of federal agents. The association between McCain and Liddy is much closer than the one between Obama and Ayers, includes Liddy fund raising for McCain, and Liddy is much worse of a terrorist than Ayers ever was.
I was wondering... Obama's energy policy (and yes, I read it) seems to be "maintain the status quo and hope some technological breakthrough saves us before it's too late, oh yeah, and invest in biofuel".
Obama's energy policy is to out massive money into new nuclear plants (like McCain), do offshore drilling (but less of it and less enthusiastically than McCain), and fund tens of billions of dollars of renewable (solar, etc) research. Solar is already making massive strides, but this ridiculously unprecedented level of funding will vastly accelerate the already very effective progress being made.
Slashdot Mirror
"California" doesn't. A very small collection of whacko towns in California do.
There is also no way that I need to decide which doctor I want to see... beside me liking having a choice.
In case you are under the impression that you can only see your 'assigned' doctor in the UK, this is not the case. You can ask to see another doctor when you book an appointment (either a specific doctor, or any male/female doctor). You don't need to give a reason.
Since we are talking about kids that don't have the same kind of responsibility and rights as adults do, their guardians should be the ones to set the rules. Not the state.
A agree entirely, and I'm amazed that California of all places has a curfew for teenagers. The nearest we have to that in the UK is an ASBO (anti-social behaviour order), which forbids individual petty criminals from certain acts -- for instance, banning them from a public place they vandalised, or imposing a curfew. You need to be arrested, taken to court and found guilty to get one though. It's meant to be better than sending people to prison etc.
EA doesn't make many games at all, and certainly they don't make their own "great" games. They're a distributor. And yes, they give a shit, whether they say it or not. Once you're old enough to have a job and interact with the MBAs, you'll notice that they give quite a big shit when they start getting PR like they've seen in the last few months based on their DRM.
Also, if your only message is "minority opinions shouldn't be expressed" I think you'd better hope McCain wins next Tuesday.
EA makes great games, most of which I have played through and through.
I'll always buy their games, if it interests me, as most of their titles have.
Most of you are silver spoon fed arrogant bastards who think EA owes you something.
They don't. They owe you NOTHING.
They make a game, it gets bought and it gets played regardless of your worthless self righteous point of view of the corporate dealings.
Theres a reason why the EA hate isn't mainstream. You people are a minority and no one gives a shit about your opinions. Theres a reason why DRM protected games aren't criticized on a mainstream level. No one gives a shit. The amount of people who were unable to play the game and had LEGALLY purchased it is so small, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT. The majority of outrage at DRM protected games comes from people who intended to download it illegally anyways.
It's hilarious seeing shit like "I'm done with them, their shoddy products, their DRM, and their bad attitude". No one gives a shit. Let me stress it again, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT.
EA games are typically best sellers BECAUSE THEY ARE GOOD GAMES. There is also a good reason why every single one of the opinions here aren't shared in the mainstream, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOU.
EA sells games. People buy them or they don't. They raise to the best sellers list due to DEMAND for such good games. All the while, your complaints of their DRM protected products go unheard because, again, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOU OR YOUR STUPID MINORITY OPINIONS.
It's really the BIGGER PICTURE that every one of you pseudo-intellectuals seem to ignore. Buy a game, play it, post on their forums constructively, criticize the quality of their product (GAMEPLAY), and move on. None of which will get you banned. What will get you banned is being a retard. Which most of you are very well seasoned at.
There's no need...
Windows doesn't work without support. So, all they have to do is refuse to help you, and it's not significantly different from being banned from using Windows!
Oh snap...
Yeah, good one...Windows sure requires a lot of support.
Fo'shure I'm looking forward to shelling out my hard-earned money (especially in this wonderful economy) for EA titles in the future after seeing this.
I am betting that they can live without you.
The Sims 3 is #36 on the Amazon PC seller list and it won't be released until February.
Red Alert 3 is #3 - and the geek's negative reviews of the EA product and DRM are being ignored across the board.
2,500 1-star reviews for Spore, currently #6 on the charts.
Their games sell fairly well, but that doesn't mean they're not being affected. If back in May you had told me Spore would be anything but #1 on the PC charts (or perhaps #2 now that FO3 is here) this soon after release, I'd have said you're crazy.
This guy is a master of symbolic design. He's the modern heir of the artistic geniuses who did all the dense symbolic religious iconography in early christian churches and for secret societies. It's perfectly fitting, since architecture, particularly classical architecture, is loaded with design secrets and hidden meanings, and the coin is about architecture. This coin being loaded with dense symbolism and being about architecture, I hope there's something masonic hidden on it somewhere. I assume the masons were active in The Netherlands?
My question is - did he just use open-source on principle, or did it confer an advantage on doing this project over the commercial alternatives? Or was it harder to do it with the open source software? Clearly it involved a lot of custom scripting. Did he go as far as to look at the source code to accomplish this, or dig into the software in other ways that couldn't be done with closed source? Anybody know?
I was thinking the same thing about his mastery of visual symbolism. However, in what sense are ancient greek and roman buildings dense with symbolism? Are you talking about the sculpture on them?
No, you can set the paper directly onto the table.
And use a transparency, allowing you to see the bottom image as well. Not that this seems incredibly useful to me in the described application, but it could become an interesting capability.
If cop shows like CSI are even slightly accurate
Stop there. They're not.
Just as has been the case for more than a decade, the Apple UI is less confusing to first-time users, but advanced users who learn the tricks of the UI are able to function more efficiently in Windows. Your alt-tab behavior difference is a great example of this, and the dock vs taskbar behavior is another.
I'm not an astrophysicist either, but as far as I can tell nothing about this hypothesis contradicts the idea that once matter crosses the event horizon it doesn't come out again, except as radiation. They aren't saying that the black hole begins "ejecting" gas, just that at that mass it gives off enough radiation to prevent any more gas from falling in.
I'm not sure I buy that as setting an upper limit on the size of a black hole. It just means the rate of growth would slow, and potentially reach equilibrium with regards to the surrounding gas. If something denser, like a star were to fall in, I doubt that the radiation pressure would push it away.
But who knows. I don't.
You are completely correct. Good work.
Agreed. Using ginormous at all is a sure sign of a retard, but misspelling it is next level.
oh yeah?
What about Cold Fusion? What about the fabricated nanotechnology data of Schon? What about the memory of water?
The issue is the same with physics, chemistry, and all the others. A large part of the problem is that the top journals *want* papers that can make the news on Thursday; and will select papers that may have not been fully vetted, and also have a bias towards "big shots" (who have much easier time publishing any kind of trash than do young researchers).
Exceptionally rare outliers that were discovered very quickly, and these examples don't jive with the type of problem described in the article, which the GP nails when he points out how it is very concentrated in medical science.
Also, top journals don't "want" papers in the sense that they get the ones they want. Peer reviewers decide what's worth publishing, and I have yet to meet one who feels that an article should be published because it will make the evening news. Big shots do get a big advantage, but in most cases it's because they have a history of good research. Things DO slip through the cracks, but in Chemistry and Physics, those things are within error bars.
The GP's post is so damn good.
This, the Yahoo change yesterday (which just seems like a silly thing to hate), and a million other things like nerfs in MMOs all go to show that there is an inherent disadvantage when one moves from local, "single player" experiences to "clouds." In doing so, the user gives up control. There are advantages to using an internet-hosted service, obviously, but those who want to take advantages of the portability this affords should get used to the threat of serious changes coming down without warning.
That's actually one of the more annoying things they did.
After using real two-button mice for years, I have a habit of having a finger on each button. With the Mighty Mouse, ok, it's cool that it's a touch sensor, but it means I have to lift my left finger to make it a right button.
I'm confused about this. I've never spent any real time with a Mighty Mouse, just occasional use on computers that aren't mine and where I'm not trying to do anything complicated.
Are you saying that you can't push the left and right mouse buttons at the same time or in rapid succession? Do you really have to take your left finger off the mouse to right click?
Is this why my old Mac-using teammate in the WoW arena couldn't seem to move well while keeping his camera on opponents? Should I tell him to get a third party mouse?
Okay, I'm sure this can't be the case as I understand it, because then it would be impossible to, say, use an alt-fire button for zooming and then click to fire in an fps. Can someone explain what the GP meant?
That's actually one of the more annoying things they did.
After using real two-button mice for years, I have a habit of having a finger on each button. With the Mighty Mouse, ok, it's cool that it's a touch sensor, but it means I have to lift my left finger to make it a right button.
I'm confused about this. I've never spent any real time with a Mighty Mouse, just occasional use on computers that aren't mine and where I'm not trying to do anything complicated.
Are you saying that you can't push the left and right mouse buttons at the same time or in rapid succession? Do you really have to take your left finger off the mouse to right click?
Is this why my old Mac-using teammate in the WoW arena couldn't seem to move well while keeping his camera on opponents? Should I tell him to get a third party mouse?
These lines are taken out of context. You can of course do the same thing with the Bible, and it's not any harder.
Take a line from, say, the bit on Sodom and remove the subject and you'll go from something like "In Sodom, everyone will perish horribly," to "Everyone will perish horribly."
I'm curious to see how this performs on a real mobile device compared to Minimo. Wikipedia seems to indicate it's being pushed by the same developer, Doug Turner. I was never able to get even runnable performance out of Minimo, but there's definitely a market for a better mobile browser. I just updated my Q9m to WM 6.1 and Pocket IE is still garbage. The other alternatives like Skyfire & Iris show potential, but they are not there yet.
Opera Mobile's not a bad browser at all.
Also, the Macbook screen sucks: http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/10/IMG_4649.jpg
Are there any laptops that don't suffer from terrible vertical viewing angles? I think that the problem isn't specific to the Macbook.
I would say this is another potential blow to young-Earth creationists, but I think most of them aren't going to give this particular experiment much credit. It's unfortunate that we can't just look at the results of scientific experiments at face value without requiring a religious interpretation tacked on to the end. We'd all get along much better that way. Theists could do generally accepted scientific study without getting discredited for their beliefs. On the other hand, enough science already goes on with predetermined goals in mind, so maybe it's a moot point.
Disclaimer: I am a creationist, although not a young-Earth creationist, and I don't disagree with most of the tenets of evolution. I won't engage in debate over the merits of evolutionist vs. creationist perspectives, because there's little to no meaningful debate to be had. At this point, both sides of the debate are taking whatever evidence comes up and claiming it supports their perspective.
In other words, don't expect me to argue over the existence of God in this thread. Interesting findings, though!
Your comment proves my point! I win! You lose!
"One could very well ask FOSS the same question. Any takers?"
You can ask but I guarantee you that FOSS has more original ideas then Microsoft.
"Like Apple?"
Apple at least embraces the open source community and plays an active role in it.
Apple embraces the open source community with the most locked down systems and electronics made by any vendor not working on a defense contract. That must be a tight embrace.
Having seen a lot of actors at non-events, I can say that they don't tend to look good for their ages. Too many drugs and cigarettes along with too many tans take a heavy toll.
Still, my point was that people on the same giant screens (actually movie screens tended to be bigger back in the day before the multiplex killed the giant monotheaters) showed up looking like real people a couple decades ago and before. Sure, they wore makeup, but it left them looking not just their age, but realistic. Actors today are moving toward looking about as real as something rendered at ILM for George Lucas, and most of the time we don't even notice! Makeup and digital touchups are giving people absolutely unattainable physical ideals.
The problem is that they put him (and the 90210 people) in a lot of makeup so that they don't look like 28 year olds. They don't look like real people at all. Why is it that in movies made after the 1980s people main characters can't look real? Even when the main character is supposed to be some sort of grungy curmudgeon, say Jack Black playing a pseudo-bum, he's caked in makeup so that he's a bum with the skin of an adolescent.
One of McCain's close friends is G Gordon Liddy (documented a bit on Wikipedia), who McCain claims to admire.
Which, the parts marked "[citation needed]" or the part marked "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims."?
Ayers not only doesn't feel any remorse about bombing federal buildings, he published memoirs about it! And Obama didn't just go on his radio show, Obama actively worked with him in politics!
Libby didn't try and kill people. Ayers did. Trying to equate the two is beyond ridiculous.
Well, AC, if you look at the Wikipedia article under "Relationship with Senator John McCain" there are two citations, one of which is a quotation from McCain himself. Neither "citation needed" nor "unverified claims" appears there. Maybe you were thinking of someone else named "Libby," but I was discussing Liddy.
Obama condemned Ayers' actions, and his "active work" with him in politics was working in a charity organization partially funded by McCain's some of McCain's political allies (notice that McCain doesn't attack the charity, since he and Obama both support it). Let's just let the well cited Wiki article speak for me here:
"The two met "at a luncheon meeting about school reform."[41] Obama was named to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project Board of Directors to oversee the distribution of grants in Chicago. Later in 1995, Ayers hosted "a coffee" for "Mr. Obama's first run for office."[42] The two served on the board of a community anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 2000 and 2002, during which time the board met twelve times.[42] In April 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate.[41] Since 2002, there has been little linking Obama and Ayers.[42]"
Obama was involved in various good causes in his neighborhood and Ayers was involved in one of them. Obama didn't ever give Ayers anything, didn't put him on the board of this organization, and never said anything about his terrorist past other than condemning it.
Liddy did specifically try to murder people, though indirectly. He wanted other people to do it for him. Just because his personal physical presence was limited (as far as we know) to breaking and entering in order to win a presidential election and extend a war in Vietnam doesn't mean that his detailed plans for murder and drawn up for Nixon and given to the public at large after the Waco nonsense in the 90s didn't have a bigger negative effect on people's lives than Ayers' non-lethal (but absolutely evil, and they easily could have been lethal) insane attacks.
Ayers is a grass roots whacko, while Liddy was (and still is) backed by corrupt politicians. They both did terrible things, and Obama has condemned Ayers while McCain said he's proud of Liddy. Note the citation in that Wiki article. I agree with the Obama campaign, however, in that I don't believe McCain's "association" with Liddy is relevant to the election. I only bring it up to show that the pot is calling the kettle black.
No joke but I'm planning to write in Ron Paul. I don't like either of the major party candidates.
I like Obama's stance on Net Neutrality and the War. But I am pro-gun and anti-taxes and the Democrats historically as a party don't agree with my positions.
On the other hand, I've never cared for McCain (even in 2000). I don't like the statement he made during the primary campaign about leaving troops in Iraq for 100 years. He would be more likely to support my gun and tax positions but I think it would pretty much end there. He's not a true fiscal conservative nor does he seem to be a defender of individual liberties and I believe we'd get another 4 years of intrusive huge government.
I've been considering voting for Bob Barr but I think the Ron Paul write-in sends a better message.
So many people on /. like RP that I decided to check him out. First I looked to my local RP campaign office (this was back in the primary). It was run by the local head of the KKK, which was incredibly shocking to me. I followed the info trail further up the campaign to regional instead of local supporters, and found that in Michigan RP's campaign was being largely organized by KKK members. Who even knew that the KKK were in Michigan?
I investigated further and found, thankfully, that RP isn't anything close to being a KKK member himself, but he's got anti-immigration views which probably help to attract them (my guess). Maybe more of the reason for his solid KKK support comes from a few racist statements he's made over the years which get passed around the K^3-friendly forums with much enthusiasm.
In summary, RP's supporters scare me more than Palin supporters, more than Nixon supporters, and more than just about anyone I can think of. I doubt his politics would lead to particularly racist policies, but it's hard to get over his core supporters, at least in my neck of the country.
One of McCain's close friends is G Gordon Liddy (documented a bit on Wikipedia), who McCain claims to admire. This is after Liddy masterminded Watergate, planned assassinations of anti-Republican politicians for Nixon, the firebombing of political enemies, and advocated the murder of federal agents. The association between McCain and Liddy is much closer than the one between Obama and Ayers, includes Liddy fund raising for McCain, and Liddy is much worse of a terrorist than Ayers ever was.
I was wondering... Obama's energy policy (and yes, I read it) seems to be "maintain the status quo and hope some technological breakthrough saves us before it's too late, oh yeah, and invest in biofuel".
Obama's energy policy is to out massive money into new nuclear plants (like McCain), do offshore drilling (but less of it and less enthusiastically than McCain), and fund tens of billions of dollars of renewable (solar, etc) research. Solar is already making massive strides, but this ridiculously unprecedented level of funding will vastly accelerate the already very effective progress being made.