Anyone that would accuse "white" people of making black people "sit in the back", or call Asians "yellow" in 2009 is either completely stupid or racist or both. I'm sure you don't like it when someone goes against your ideology, but as they say, tough shit. This guy is a racist.
As far as the King thing, I'm pretty confident that knowing what King said, and what he stood for, that he would find Jackson, et al to be charlatans at best.
You like to generalize, that's apparent. I call one guy our for exhibiting overt racism, and somehow that translates to "Civil rights activists of the 60's are now "racist assholes" " No. MLK was not an asshole. Lowery is. Get it? MLK != Lowery. I, unlike yourself, have the ability to apply reason and judgment on a more granular level, and frankly I am offended by your assertion that somehow I am a racist because I called this prick out. Grow up.
well, I agree with you. The "leaders" of the black "community" (jackson, sharpton, et al) do not serve "their" community well. I think King would denounce all these racist opportunists.
You do realize that the inauguration parties are funded by donations, right? Still insanely over the top, but at least it's paid for by tax dollars. Having said that Obama could have scored some points early on by asking that donations be redirected to more important issues, but that would decrease the intensity of the spotlight on Big O, and we can't have that, can we?
Off to a bad start if Lowery's speech is any indication. I haven't heard such racism at a Presidential function... ever.
White embrace what's right? Mellow Yellow? Black sit in back? When the fuck was the last time a black person was asked to sit in back in the US? We just elected a black president, and it's now time for white to do what's right?
I am offended. Joseph Lowery needs to realize that this isn't 1960. This guy is a racist asshole of the first degree, and if Obama can't show better judgment in who he picks to speak the next 4 years are going to be really long.
Well, they have been testing these lights in my home town of Scottsdale, and they have three different types installed along one stretch of road way. They are super bright, and there is no flicker whatsoever.
The fact that they are directional is an advantage in this case since they are meant to throw light in a cone shape. The ones I've seen have no secondary lens. If there is any covering at all it is completely transparent glass.
Personally I like them because the light is white, not the orange of sodium vapor. Reminds me of when I was a kid before the move from mercury vapor to sodium vapor...
Yeah, I understand all that, and honestly I did not see the other posts or I wouldn't have posted. I guess I do not get the point of discussing the weight of something that massive. Weight is the measurement of the force of gravity or acceleration (relativity speaking) on a given mass, therefore the weight is variable depending on the strength of the that force, and in the context of a planet, star or black hole is really quite meaningless.
A lack of viruses does not necessarily indicate the existence of failed attempts.
This is true, but so is the inverse. A lack of viruses does not necessarily indicate that no one has tried.
No hard evidence, but I'd have to say that with millions of Macs out there the odds are good that it must been tried multiple times. On the other hand maybe possession of any kind of Apple device renders the user unable to create a virus.
As a Mac user why do I care if Windows viruses come flying by / through my system? Why should I take a performance hit to protect a clueless Windows user?
Maybe, maybe not. There are enough rabid anti-Mac coders out there that I think if the BSD underpinnings of OS X were that vulnerable there would be viruses out there already. Mac has a small share relative to Windows, but you know that there are Microsofties out there that want to take OS X down. So far they have failed.
The problem is the lack of disclosure. That may be, but the truth is that 99.99% of users in general wouldn't have a clue what to do with that information.
So, if, say, North Korea develops and uses a biological weapon and kills a significant percentage of the population of Japan (unlikely, but you get the point), then what?
IMO there are times when the use of nukes are appropriate.
Here is my solution. Let Iran build a nuke, and get the security council to agree that if Iran uses it, overtly _or_ covertly, we get to turn Iran into a parking lot as an object lesson for North Korea, Pakistan, et al.
And you are wrong about this
There's no reason we should be more apeshit about a nuclear Iran than we are about any other nuclear state.
The reason is that these countries are, ostensibly, sane, although I am beginning to wonder about Russia. Iran is ruled by a bunch of fanatics that believe in fairy tales and are attempting to bring about the return of the 12th Imam.
The countries on your list have not used nukes, excepting the US pre-understaing-much-about-the-long-term-impact. We haven't since.
How can a person stand against government electronic surveillance while at the same time say the behavior of this individual is acceptable?
That's easy. It's OK if the person being violated is not on your team. That's the way America works; It's OK to break the rules if you are doing it "for the children."
Not necessarily free, but how about something reasonable. $350 for Vista ultimate is not reasonable for the functionality provided, given alternatives in the market.
And while they're at it, how about 2 versions, not 9? (or 7 or 10 or whatever) Home/Professional was fine.
I'd be perfectly willing to pay $100 for a decent operation system, but on the other hand I already have 5 legitimate copies of XP, so I don't need to buy any more from Mircosoft for the foreseeable future.
"The California energy crisis was caused not by a lack of generation around the country but due to bottlenecks that prevented transferring the power into California"
No. The CA energy crisis was caused by power market manipulation. See: Enron.
CA has done little to its infrastructure since then, yet they haven't had those problems on the same scale since...
I suggest that you look up the definition of Monopoly. I've heard this argument many times before. Apple is not a monopoly, unless you consider the fact that only Apple makes iPods and Macs to be monopolistic. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There are plenty of other OS choices (Windows, for example, Linux for another), and at less than 10% market share (OSX) arguing a monopoly is going to be difficult.
Now, one could argue that once you buy OSX you should be able to do as you please, and this I agree with to a certain extent, but that is not a monopolistic behavior, this is simply a licensing issue. Contrary to popular belief, EULAs have been tested in court, and they have been upheld. If the EULA specifically prohibits installation of OSX on non-OSX software (which I'm sure it does) then Apple stands a good chance of prevailing.
You do not have a right to use OSX, or any other commercial software. You may purchase a license to use it according to the license agreement, and that's all.
So while I agree with you in spirit, in reality developers absolutely have the right to tell you what you can and can't do with their software, because you agree to it when you check off on the EULA and install the software.
What you have is the absolute right to buy something else.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone that would accuse "white" people of making black people "sit in the back", or call Asians "yellow" in 2009 is either completely stupid or racist or both. I'm sure you don't like it when someone goes against your ideology, but as they say, tough shit. This guy is a racist.
As far as the King thing, I'm pretty confident that knowing what King said, and what he stood for, that he would find Jackson, et al to be charlatans at best.
You like to generalize, that's apparent. I call one guy our for exhibiting overt racism, and somehow that translates to "Civil rights activists of the 60's are now "racist assholes" " No. MLK was not an asshole. Lowery is. Get it? MLK != Lowery. I, unlike yourself, have the ability to apply reason and judgment on a more granular level, and frankly I am offended by your assertion that somehow I am a racist because I called this prick out. Grow up.
Learn basic reading comprehension and get back to me.
sorry, at least it's *not* paid for by tax dollars.
well, I agree with you. The "leaders" of the black "community" (jackson, sharpton, et al) do not serve "their" community well. I think King would denounce all these racist opportunists.
You do realize that the inauguration parties are funded by donations, right? Still insanely over the top, but at least it's paid for by tax dollars. Having said that Obama could have scored some points early on by asking that donations be redirected to more important issues, but that would decrease the intensity of the spotlight on Big O, and we can't have that, can we?
Off to a bad start if Lowery's speech is any indication. I haven't heard such racism at a Presidential function... ever.
White embrace what's right? Mellow Yellow? Black sit in back? When the fuck was the last time a black person was asked to sit in back in the US? We just elected a black president, and it's now time for white to do what's right?
I am offended. Joseph Lowery needs to realize that this isn't 1960. This guy is a racist asshole of the first degree, and if Obama can't show better judgment in who he picks to speak the next 4 years are going to be really long.
Well, they have been testing these lights in my home town of Scottsdale, and they have three different types installed along one stretch of road way. They are super bright, and there is no flicker whatsoever.
The fact that they are directional is an advantage in this case since they are meant to throw light in a cone shape. The ones I've seen have no secondary lens. If there is any covering at all it is completely transparent glass.
Personally I like them because the light is white, not the orange of sodium vapor. Reminds me of when I was a kid before the move from mercury vapor to sodium vapor...
Yeah, I understand all that, and honestly I did not see the other posts or I wouldn't have posted. I guess I do not get the point of discussing the weight of something that massive. Weight is the measurement of the force of gravity or acceleration (relativity speaking) on a given mass, therefore the weight is variable depending on the strength of the that force, and in the context of a planet, star or black hole is really quite meaningless.
four million times as massive, you mean?
I'd prefer a ladder to heaven.
A lack of viruses does not necessarily indicate the existence of failed attempts.
This is true, but so is the inverse. A lack of viruses does not necessarily indicate that no one has tried.
No hard evidence, but I'd have to say that with millions of Macs out there the odds are good that it must been tried multiple times. On the other hand maybe possession of any kind of Apple device renders the user unable to create a virus.
As a Mac user why do I care if Windows viruses come flying by / through my system? Why should I take a performance hit to protect a clueless Windows user?
Maybe, maybe not. There are enough rabid anti-Mac coders out there that I think if the BSD underpinnings of OS X were that vulnerable there would be viruses out there already. Mac has a small share relative to Windows, but you know that there are Microsofties out there that want to take OS X down. So far they have failed.
Yes, but a lot of people used to refer to this configuration as RAID 10, I guess because 5+5=10. I knew what the OP meant...
The problem is the lack of disclosure. That may be, but the truth is that 99.99% of users in general wouldn't have a clue what to do with that information.
So, if, say, North Korea develops and uses a biological weapon and kills a significant percentage of the population of Japan (unlikely, but you get the point), then what?
IMO there are times when the use of nukes are appropriate.
Here is my solution. Let Iran build a nuke, and get the security council to agree that if Iran uses it, overtly _or_ covertly, we get to turn Iran into a parking lot as an object lesson for North Korea, Pakistan, et al.
And you are wrong about this
There's no reason we should be more apeshit about a nuclear Iran than we are about any other nuclear state.
The reason is that these countries are, ostensibly, sane, although I am beginning to wonder about Russia. Iran is ruled by a bunch of fanatics that believe in fairy tales and are attempting to bring about the return of the 12th Imam.
The countries on your list have not used nukes, excepting the US pre-understaing-much-about-the-long-term-impact. We haven't since.
Or the more expensive MBP that has it.
How can a person stand against government electronic surveillance while at the same time say the behavior of this individual is acceptable?
That's easy. It's OK if the person being violated is not on your team. That's the way America works; It's OK to break the rules if you are doing it "for the children."
It would be more fruitful to try not to generate as much heat in the first place...
Not necessarily free, but how about something reasonable. $350 for Vista ultimate is not reasonable for the functionality provided, given alternatives in the market.
And while they're at it, how about 2 versions, not 9? (or 7 or 10 or whatever) Home/Professional was fine.
I'd be perfectly willing to pay $100 for a decent operation system, but on the other hand I already have 5 legitimate copies of XP, so I don't need to buy any more from Mircosoft for the foreseeable future.
is too! is too!
"credit freeze is free for victims of identity theft"
I think maybe it's better to close the barn doors _before_ all the horses are stolen.
"The California energy crisis was caused not by a lack of generation around the country but due to bottlenecks that prevented transferring the power into California" No. The CA energy crisis was caused by power market manipulation. See: Enron. CA has done little to its infrastructure since then, yet they haven't had those problems on the same scale since...
I suggest that you look up the definition of Monopoly. I've heard this argument many times before. Apple is not a monopoly, unless you consider the fact that only Apple makes iPods and Macs to be monopolistic. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There are plenty of other OS choices (Windows, for example, Linux for another), and at less than 10% market share (OSX) arguing a monopoly is going to be difficult. Now, one could argue that once you buy OSX you should be able to do as you please, and this I agree with to a certain extent, but that is not a monopolistic behavior, this is simply a licensing issue. Contrary to popular belief, EULAs have been tested in court, and they have been upheld. If the EULA specifically prohibits installation of OSX on non-OSX software (which I'm sure it does) then Apple stands a good chance of prevailing. You do not have a right to use OSX, or any other commercial software. You may purchase a license to use it according to the license agreement, and that's all. So while I agree with you in spirit, in reality developers absolutely have the right to tell you what you can and can't do with their software, because you agree to it when you check off on the EULA and install the software. What you have is the absolute right to buy something else.