I'd consider (well, not really, but in this context I would) it acceptable to be prejudiced against christians
Yup. I've got a Christian friend who was bitching about gays bitching about Christians bitching about gays. I had to point out the fact that if you take Christians out of the equation, all this stem-cell research and gay marraige banning would go exactly nowhere.
However, it is also true that there's a large contingent of liberals in the U.S. who will shamelessly bash fundamentalists, yet wouldn't dream of making fun of blacks, gays, or jews. Why is that?
Because the latter three categories are race, dumbass, which you can't change. Fundamentalist religions is entirely a personal choice, and blacks, gays and jews are all perfectly capable of being fundamentalists of one religion or another, and thus open to dismissal of their beliefs.
You shouldn't necessarily have to see a movie before you protest it.
Yup. Reminds me of the time politicians like Bob Dole were lambasting the movie Natural Born Killers, when the movie actually agreed with everythign they were saying about media glorification of violence.
I mention this because I would like readers to be aware that the pro-science side has its own lunatic fringe
If by "lunatic fringe" you mean "people with an iota of common sense and at least five functioning neurons", then yes.
that likes to pretend that hard science and religion are incompatible.
Because they are. The root of all science is a process of making observations and making educated guesses based on those observations. The root of all religion is pulling myths out of your ass to explain things you don't understand, and have never observed.
It's such a joke when people constantly try to say that we went to Iraq for the oil.... Are we getting oil from Iraq?
Are you really that obtuse? The Administration didn't think that Iraq would turn into a quagmire - Rumsfield thought we could capture and hold Iraq with a light force, and now we've lost more troops during the occupation than we did during the invasion. To blow off the Administrations possible ambitions for Iraqi oil (Cheney's task force had maps of Iraqi oil fields before the invasion) by using the results of their piss poor planning as an excuse is crazy. Hey, you'd be perfect for the White House staff! Send them your resume!!
Neither, however, do you find right-minded imams willing to decry the statements/actions of the unreasonable ones and publicly declare them to be heretical.
If you want to play that game, where are all the Republicans denouncing Ann Coulter for saying this about the Middle East: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
Please don't lump every person with fundamentalist
Um, they're fundamentalists. That's what they do: take the bible literally. And the parent isn't pulling that story out of his ass; I have a very non-fundamentalist Christian friend who quoted me a passage on the Bible that says to the effect that 'God is not the instrument of confusion'.
You shouldn't have to be. It should be obvious to anyone who went through a half-ways decent elementary school that evolution kicks the crap out of creation myths. You can observe evolution yourself with sime simple experiments with bacteria and a petri dish. Or how insects adapt to pesticides. Anyone who goes through school thinking that the Eearth is less than 6,000 years old and God created it in seven days deserves as much respect as those people on the Tonight Show who think there are 52 states in the Union and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson played for the Knicks.
heard the guy trying to get the pledge of Alliegence lives near here.
If you're referring to Nedow, it wasn't the pledge, it was the words inserted into the pledge in 1953, IIRC. And if the Supreme Court had some balls, it would have been an open and shut case in favor of Nedow.
There are other things that I can look up, but my mind is fried.
They do and they are, and always have. If they didn't, we wouldn't have Seven Dirty Words, and Winfrey would be getting fined as much as Stern for talking about the exact same topic. Now, how about a nice, warm cup of STFU.
So there is no need for firewire when you have USB.
Um, no. Firewire is host independant, USB is not. You can count on bandwidth with Firewire, you can't with USB. You can get 800 Mbs/sec with Firewire, you can't with USB. You can use multiple high-bandwidth devices simultaniously, reliably with Firewire. You can't with USB. You can boot off of a Firewire hard drive, you can't with USB (with the exception of a few motherboards). You can use Firewire for networking with either Mac OS X or Windows XP, you can't with USB.
The problems with the 3% chestnut is that it includes *all* "desktop" computers sold. Take away government and business purchases, factor in that such figures ususally don't include sales from Apple's online store and a Mac's longer lifespan compared to a PC, and Apple has a much larger chunk of the personal computer market.
Yup. I have a Voodoo 2 card in my (now dead, power supply?) rev A iMac's slot. There probably would have been more such cards avaiable, if it was in a more convienient spot (it was underneath the motherboard) and if Apple hadn't removed the slot in one of the early revisions.
Except you are wrong. USB was developed entirely by Intel with significant resistance from the PC community.
Except that is completely irrelevant.
Apple contributed nothing to USB.
You're confusing invention with adoption. Yes, most PC manufacuters had included USB ports with their computers for a couple of years prior to the release of the iMac. However, it was the iMac that spurred peripheral manufacturers to produce USB devices and consumers to buy them.
Apple is due no credit for the development of USB.
That's not the issue, don't be obtuse. Nobody has ever said that Apple invented USB. However, they deserve enourmous credit for it's adoption by consumers and peripheral manufactuers.
I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. No one has ever said that Apple invented USB. What they did do was get the ball rolling by selling millions of computers that only had USB. Prior to that, the vast majority of PC peripherals used the parallel port interface, because manufacturers could count on consumers having one, but not necessarily USB. After the release of the iMac they could make a device that used USB, and work on both Macs and PC's released within the last couple of years. Score!
Firewire has (sadly) failed to attain critical mass - the market for it is driven by DV cameras though, not apple.
The hell are talking about here; most peripherals (mice, keyboards, pritners) don't need Firewire's speed, and there are plenty of Firewire DVD burners and hard drives at your local Best Buy.
because for the vast majority of the public, terrorism has not affected their lives in any way
Some media outlet (I forget who) pointed out that, adjusted for population, Iraq has a 9/11 every week. Helps to put things in perspective.
The potential for abuse by government officials is simply too great
That and it would be nice if they would increase real security, like securing hazardous chemical factories and searching more cargo containers, instead of mainly hassleing guys named Mohammed at airports while allowing a WASP kid to smuggle in bomb parts repeatedly onto airplanes to prove how weak secuity is.
And the relevant details make you a dumbass. Ellsberg was a whistleblower, and there are in fact laws to protect whistleblowers. Tell me how the Mac Mini was part of a government coverup or how the NDA-breaking Apple employee deserves whistleblower protection, and we'll talk.
It's timely. It's of interest to a wide variety of people. How is this not news?
Breaking into the house of Britney Spears, taking photographs of her in the shower and putting those photos in Juggs magazine would sell a lot of copies. Does that make it journalism? Does that make it right? No and no.
Guys like Think Secret are the paparazzi of the tech world, and deserve no protections whatsoever.
Britney Spears changes clothes, sometimes several times during a concert. This is a fact. No doubt she gets naked in the process, so we can safely reguard it as fact that Ms. Spears gets naked from time to time. Does that mean that Juggs magazine can get away with getting photos of this state of nakedness from some unnamed source and printing the pictures, in the name of facts? And refusing to name the source under pretenses of journalistic integrity? I don't think so.
Think Secret is doing the technical equivilant of publishing nude photos of celebrities. Was the public served in any way shape or form by Think Secret? Not in the slightest. Merely "publishing" facts does not make you a journalist.
Slashdot Mirror
In many nations, women are repressed.
So are a lot of people. Too bad it's only a big deal if the person being repressed is a woman.
I'd consider (well, not really, but in this context I would) it acceptable to be prejudiced against christians
Yup. I've got a Christian friend who was bitching about gays bitching about Christians bitching about gays. I had to point out the fact that if you take Christians out of the equation, all this stem-cell research and gay marraige banning would go exactly nowhere.
However, it is also true that there's a large contingent of liberals in the U.S. who will shamelessly bash fundamentalists, yet wouldn't dream of making fun of blacks, gays, or jews. Why is that?
Because the latter three categories are race, dumbass, which you can't change. Fundamentalist religions is entirely a personal choice, and blacks, gays and jews are all perfectly capable of being fundamentalists of one religion or another, and thus open to dismissal of their beliefs.
You shouldn't necessarily have to see a movie before you protest it.
Yup. Reminds me of the time politicians like Bob Dole were lambasting the movie Natural Born Killers, when the movie actually agreed with everythign they were saying about media glorification of violence.
I mention this because I would like readers to be aware that the pro-science side has its own lunatic fringe
If by "lunatic fringe" you mean "people with an iota of common sense and at least five functioning neurons", then yes.
that likes to pretend that hard science and religion are incompatible.
Because they are. The root of all science is a process of making observations and making educated guesses based on those observations. The root of all religion is pulling myths out of your ass to explain things you don't understand, and have never observed.
A "factual" analysis from a website called gospelcom? How stupid do you think we are?
It's such a joke when people constantly try to say that we went to Iraq for the oil.... Are we getting oil from Iraq?
Are you really that obtuse? The Administration didn't think that Iraq would turn into a quagmire - Rumsfield thought we could capture and hold Iraq with a light force, and now we've lost more troops during the occupation than we did during the invasion. To blow off the Administrations possible ambitions for Iraqi oil (Cheney's task force had maps of Iraqi oil fields before the invasion) by using the results of their piss poor planning as an excuse is crazy. Hey, you'd be perfect for the White House staff! Send them your resume!!
Neither, however, do you find right-minded imams willing to decry the statements/actions of the unreasonable ones and publicly declare them to be heretical.
If you want to play that game, where are all the Republicans denouncing Ann Coulter for saying this about the Middle East: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
Please don't lump every person with fundamentalist
Um, they're fundamentalists. That's what they do: take the bible literally. And the parent isn't pulling that story out of his ass; I have a very non-fundamentalist Christian friend who quoted me a passage on the Bible that says to the effect that 'God is not the instrument of confusion'.
I'm not in the biological sciences,
You shouldn't have to be. It should be obvious to anyone who went through a half-ways decent elementary school that evolution kicks the crap out of creation myths. You can observe evolution yourself with sime simple experiments with bacteria and a petri dish. Or how insects adapt to pesticides. Anyone who goes through school thinking that the Eearth is less than 6,000 years old and God created it in seven days deserves as much respect as those people on the Tonight Show who think there are 52 states in the Union and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson played for the Knicks.
We've got the guy that sues every walmart
Good.
heard the guy trying to get the pledge of Alliegence lives near here.
If you're referring to Nedow, it wasn't the pledge, it was the words inserted into the pledge in 1953, IIRC. And if the Supreme Court had some balls, it would have been an open and shut case in favor of Nedow.
There are other things that I can look up, but my mind is fried.
There's an understatment.
Nono...they just try and destroy the standing military
Name some.
kill millions of tissue samples each year
They're samples...of tissues. You need to stock up on prunes and prozak so you can lighten up and get a grip on reality.
So the Flu is going to suddenly evolve into a bird??
Over the course of A BILLION YEARS, maybe. Do you have any sense of proportion? Do you know what the passage of time is?
The Evidence of Creation is right infront of YOUR face. You just don't want to see it.
Oh, what evidence is that, exactly? Oh right, there is none whatsoever. Please don't breed, ever.
They don't. They're not.
They do and they are, and always have. If they didn't, we wouldn't have Seven Dirty Words, and Winfrey would be getting fined as much as Stern for talking about the exact same topic. Now, how about a nice, warm cup of STFU.
So there is no need for firewire when you have USB.
Um, no. Firewire is host independant, USB is not. You can count on bandwidth with Firewire, you can't with USB. You can get 800 Mbs/sec with Firewire, you can't with USB. You can use multiple high-bandwidth devices simultaniously, reliably with Firewire. You can't with USB. You can boot off of a Firewire hard drive, you can't with USB (with the exception of a few motherboards). You can use Firewire for networking with either Mac OS X or Windows XP, you can't with USB.
What's Apple's market share again?
The problems with the 3% chestnut is that it includes *all* "desktop" computers sold. Take away government and business purchases, factor in that such figures ususally don't include sales from Apple's online store and a Mac's longer lifespan compared to a PC, and Apple has a much larger chunk of the personal computer market.
Yup. I have a Voodoo 2 card in my (now dead, power supply?) rev A iMac's slot. There probably would have been more such cards avaiable, if it was in a more convienient spot (it was underneath the motherboard) and if Apple hadn't removed the slot in one of the early revisions.
Except you are wrong. USB was developed entirely by Intel with significant resistance from the PC community.
Except that is completely irrelevant.
Apple contributed nothing to USB.
You're confusing invention with adoption. Yes, most PC manufacuters had included USB ports with their computers for a couple of years prior to the release of the iMac. However, it was the iMac that spurred peripheral manufacturers to produce USB devices and consumers to buy them.
Apple is due no credit for the development of USB.
That's not the issue, don't be obtuse. Nobody has ever said that Apple invented USB. However, they deserve enourmous credit for it's adoption by consumers and peripheral manufactuers.
Against the MS behemoth supporting HDDVD? Why exactly?
Because Microsoft doesn't make PC's? Duh!? Duh?!
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.
I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. No one has ever said that Apple invented USB. What they did do was get the ball rolling by selling millions of computers that only had USB. Prior to that, the vast majority of PC peripherals used the parallel port interface, because manufacturers could count on consumers having one, but not necessarily USB. After the release of the iMac they could make a device that used USB, and work on both Macs and PC's released within the last couple of years. Score!
Firewire has (sadly) failed to attain critical mass - the market for it is driven by DV cameras though, not apple.
The hell are talking about here; most peripherals (mice, keyboards, pritners) don't need Firewire's speed, and there are plenty of Firewire DVD burners and hard drives at your local Best Buy.
because for the vast majority of the public, terrorism has not affected their lives in any way
Some media outlet (I forget who) pointed out that, adjusted for population, Iraq has a 9/11 every week. Helps to put things in perspective.
The potential for abuse by government officials is simply too great
That and it would be nice if they would increase real security, like securing hazardous chemical factories and searching more cargo containers, instead of mainly hassleing guys named Mohammed at airports while allowing a WASP kid to smuggle in bomb parts repeatedly onto airplanes to prove how weak secuity is.
History contradicts you.
And the relevant details make you a dumbass. Ellsberg was a whistleblower, and there are in fact laws to protect whistleblowers. Tell me how the Mac Mini was part of a government coverup or how the NDA-breaking Apple employee deserves whistleblower protection, and we'll talk.
It's timely. It's of interest to a wide variety of people. How is this not news?
Breaking into the house of Britney Spears, taking photographs of her in the shower and putting those photos in Juggs magazine would sell a lot of copies. Does that make it journalism? Does that make it right? No and no.
Guys like Think Secret are the paparazzi of the tech world, and deserve no protections whatsoever.
Britney Spears changes clothes, sometimes several times during a concert. This is a fact. No doubt she gets naked in the process, so we can safely reguard it as fact that Ms. Spears gets naked from time to time. Does that mean that Juggs magazine can get away with getting photos of this state of nakedness from some unnamed source and printing the pictures, in the name of facts? And refusing to name the source under pretenses of journalistic integrity? I don't think so.
Think Secret is doing the technical equivilant of publishing nude photos of celebrities. Was the public served in any way shape or form by Think Secret? Not in the slightest. Merely "publishing" facts does not make you a journalist.