"Well, maybe it wouldn't have been offensive if it had been spelled correctly. or if it hadn't been in quotes. Or if there had been anything of substance in the OP other than 'China's pullution is AWFUL'"
"Less offensive if spelled correclty", I'll just leave alone, it stands as it's own argument.
Quotes where?
and since when did someones opinion have to include intelligent substance backing up an opinion when the subject even admits that the opinion is shared to such an extent as to warrant billions of dollars spent to correct it?
"EGG" Foo Young on their face... as in Egg on their face. As in Mr T pitties the FOO that doesn't get a bit of localization in a bad pun. There's nothing racist about that remark that you didn't put there yourself. It's a joke that does not demean them as a race, or even say that they exibit stereotypical behavior. Just that they live in a region that introduced a type of cuisine. he did not even include the more typical dog ingredient jokes for the eastern nations that are much more typical of the belittling by mainstream comedians.
I kinda take offence when people try to make general comments racist. If you stopped and thought about the whole racist issue you would find it disturbing that members of most races can use phrases and words that they do not allow other races to use without calling them racist. Isn't that the definition of racist? Treating a race differently because of their race? Allowing them to do something or forbiding them from something else based solely on their race? If we all kinda got the chip off our shoulders and let these comments go, the words would lose their power and that would be the end of at least a part of the problems we all face every day.
The actions, are a different story of course and I acknowledge that, but the reaction to general comments are sometimes showing of more racist thoughts than the comments themselves.
Just never caught it I guess. Or skipped over it since I don't see the point of a Mac for my usage. Open source or windows, not a combo with the bad parts of both. So cloning something I don't see the point of paying for to begin with seems like something I'd have skipped over.
What they say about the "Open Computer" / clone: Open Computer: The Smart Alternative to an Apple Why spend $1999 to get the least expensive Apple computer with a decent video card when you can pay less than a fourth of that for an equivalent sleek and small form-factor desktop with the same hardware. Sometimes reinventing the wheel is a good thing. The Open Computer can work for new Mac users and Mac geniuses, alike.
New to Mac: I Want a Mac You don't need to spend an arm and a leg to get the full OS X Leopard experience. Apple's Mac Mini is completely stripped and still expensive. Why would you want a stripped-down computer, anyway? You asked for a good and inexpensive computer that can run OS X and we answered with the Open Computer which is less expensive than even the cheapest Apple computer out now faster than most Apple computers out now running arguably the best operating system available ready to run out of the box when you purchase it with Leopard included. If you buy Leopard with your Open Computer we'll install it for free.
(notice the "If you buy leopard..." line)
Experts and Geniuses: I Want a Hackintosh This is a great opportunity for the experienced user. With the Open Computer you can run a Vanilla kernel for the genuine Leopard experience get under the hood and really see what makes OS X tick develop device drivers and applications specific to OSx86
According to the courts, people can swap their votes so there's a double standard here. If the vote is only supposed to be yours or if it is available as barter for whatever service you see fit, even anothers vote, it is saleable.
Seems as if it is your right to vote, or not, you should be able to do what you want with it without the courts interference, if it is your wish. OR it should be required that each vote actually matter and be so respected that complete accountability be mandatory for voting so that each and every vote has an absolute guarantee of being counted.
I don't see either being the case as long as paper trails and recounts are questioned.
So since I work in the office support industry I can attest to seeing way more CRTs than LCDs in use by the cubicle users. I has been getting much better but they're still out there and in use, and for sale at best buy and pc connection type stores. CDW sells them online and in catalog. They have a 15" viewsonic for 129.00 in stock even.
The point I was making was that the hardware out there has had toxic chemicals inside for quite a while and probably in greater quantities than we can expect from quantum manipulation tech in the future.
1. There already exists an issue with the amount of toxic chemicals in most computers today. http://maine.gov/dep/rwm/recycle/computerrecy.htm "A typical processor and monitor contain five to eight pounds of lead and heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury and arsenic."
2. When you are dealing with quantum levels a gram of any element has a lot of area to work in and they are suspending the toxic bit with a field of silicon. "Imagine a tiny arsenic atom embedded in a tiny strip of silicon atoms..."
"Mooney says, noting that the sudden upsurge in junk mail left the neighborhood postman somewhat aghast. "It grew exponentially, so I stopped giving out my home address," she says, adding, "I am concerned about the environment.""
It's all well and good that she had an alias and a free pc to be subject to this open invitation for harassment, but to actually really give out your home address to these spammers is a bit reckless. She will, at a minimum, be regretting this for years since the "current resident" will be getting spam even if she directs the post office not to deliver mail to her alias.
So a wiki referencing a case is now the set of reason for all others to use as standard?
Answer me this, why would the founding fathers craft a document and spend time developing the phrasing and include the "ex post facto law" part in there if they didn't think that it was important? What does it apply to if not after the fact changing the laws to make one guilty or innocent?
Just answer the question, why include it at all if the interpretation was supposed to be that it really didn't apply? If you commit a crime and then later the laws are changed, guess what, you still committed a crime when you acted. Same with retroactive innocence. If you committed no crime and the laws are changed you committed no crime when you acted. Seems pretty simple to me and probably did to them when they wrote it. Now we have judges and lawyers all with political mindsets, looking at individual cases and setting precidents for all, and the simple rules of law are getting further away from the obviously intended ideas. I can understand new technology and new moral issues having an effect but some of these interpretations are just idiotic.
"The deceptively liquid-like behavior of glass can be seen when you look at glass in the windows of an old building. The glass begins to sag and distort internally over the centuries, due to the effect of gravity."
This was because old glass making techniques used a spinning wheel to flatten and cool the glass so that one edge was slightly thicker when it was cut into the desired pieces. The whole sagging myth was made up. A common citation for rebuffing the myth is egyption glass that has held its form for much longer than the old english buildings.
So you address the part of the argument that you want to and ignore the rest?
I'll make it easier, same quote but less distractions for you this time:...their casualties and length of time have no bearing when comparing the two?
And to the last part: "The fact that these were not "our" people who died or became homeless refugees should be irrelevant from a moral standpoint." I never said that it mattered who it was that died or suffered. Just a simple question of wether it matters to you if it was 1 person or a thousand. If there is a person down the street that is suffering because they were hurt in a war years ago do you feel any less guilty for not helping them compared to another across the world that is suffereing the same from a current war? No matter what side or where they are, you cannot compare them without taking some metrics, that's what comparison is. You have to define what you will compare and what emotional value you place on those comparisons. And in that, wach person will value things differently because of the innate differences in culture, location, and personal history. Your morals are not mine nor any others. That's what makes you "you" and any higher than thou argument meaningless since I don't see you taking your time spent here posting and using it to actually help those that you would use to shame others.
To save a thousand people would you santion the murder of one? If not are you sanctioning the deaths of those thousand? Which choice is not ethically repugnant?
Blaming the question or going off on a tangent of deciding between only these two options is missing the point. If it came down to it, would you value the lives of more people over some? Would it change your decision if you found out that one group was guilty to your standards of crimes against humanity?
The basis for comparison between different acts of aggression in different times has to be made with some abjective viewpoint or they cannot be compaired without such a lengthy discussion as to become meaningless.
It boils down quickly when looked at by two opposing groups to the numbers and emotions game. How many numbers can I make you emotional with? Does an increase of 1000 people make any difference in the argument when talking about 82,000 or 83,000? or is it only in comparison to 500? Regular people have their emotions triggered all the time with horrible facts but if they have nothing personal to compare them with they cannt really relate the facts and will soon forget them.
"Take the Kosovo attack, which according to Human Rights Watch led to the internal displacement of 850,000 people and up to 15,000 deaths after the bombing started."
The article states: "In the twelve weeks that followed, Serbian and Yugoslav military, police, and paramilitaries expelled more than 850,000 ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, internally displacing several hundred thousand more."
What do you care about the "more than" part of that statement, how many exactly? Or is the number, just 850,000, enough to get the emotional rollercoaster started and it doesn't matter if it was 850,124 or 851,162? The casual dismissal of a single human life sacrificed is no longer as poingant is it would be if you had to decide to sacrifice that single life to save 850,000.
This is just human nature, proven and born out of your own example.
Public companies are now being run by the shareholders that take out payday loans, refinance their houses so much they owe money when they sell, cannot build traditional savings since all their income is treated as disposable. Basically the get rich generation with no long term goals other than their next big "fix".
Why does it surprise anybody that the driving force behind these companies is to sell out no matter what the cost to the business, the employees, or even the customers?
Slashdot Mirror
Is that you Moya?
And Such.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
(Note: this post is not redundant if you get it.)
And such.
Whoever modded this redundant needs their geek card checked.
Oooookayyyy,
"Well, maybe it wouldn't have been offensive if it had been spelled correctly. or if it hadn't been in quotes. Or if there had been anything of substance in the OP other than 'China's pullution is AWFUL'"
"Less offensive if spelled correclty", I'll just leave alone, it stands as it's own argument.
Quotes where?
and since when did someones opinion have to include intelligent substance backing up an opinion when the subject even admits that the opinion is shared to such an extent as to warrant billions of dollars spent to correct it?
Dude, racist?
"EGG" Foo Young on their face... as in Egg on their face. As in Mr T pitties the FOO that doesn't get a bit of localization in a bad pun. There's nothing racist about that remark that you didn't put there yourself. It's a joke that does not demean them as a race, or even say that they exibit stereotypical behavior. Just that they live in a region that introduced a type of cuisine. he did not even include the more typical dog ingredient jokes for the eastern nations that are much more typical of the belittling by mainstream comedians.
I kinda take offence when people try to make general comments racist. If you stopped and thought about the whole racist issue you would find it disturbing that members of most races can use phrases and words that they do not allow other races to use without calling them racist. Isn't that the definition of racist? Treating a race differently because of their race? Allowing them to do something or forbiding them from something else based solely on their race? If we all kinda got the chip off our shoulders and let these comments go, the words would lose their power and that would be the end of at least a part of the problems we all face every day.
The actions, are a different story of course and I acknowledge that, but the reaction to general comments are sometimes showing of more racist thoughts than the comments themselves.
I'm shocked that you're shocked. Or even expect me to be mildly surprised that this is happening.
The only difference is that this is supposed to be a larger company and therefore better than the millions of smaller opt out pipe dreams out there?
Just never caught it I guess. Or skipped over it since I don't see the point of a Mac for my usage. Open source or windows, not a combo with the bad parts of both. So cloning something I don't see the point of paying for to begin with seems like something I'd have skipped over.
Had to go look them up:
What they say about the "Open Computer" / clone:
Open Computer: The Smart Alternative to an Apple
Why spend $1999 to get the least expensive Apple computer with a decent video card when you can pay less than a fourth of that for an equivalent sleek and small form-factor desktop with the same hardware. Sometimes reinventing the wheel is a good thing. The Open Computer can work for new Mac users and Mac geniuses, alike.
New to Mac: I Want a Mac
You don't need to spend an arm and a leg to get the full OS X Leopard experience. Apple's Mac Mini is completely stripped and still expensive. Why would you want a stripped-down computer, anyway? You asked for a good and inexpensive computer that can run OS X and we answered with the Open Computer which is less expensive than even the cheapest Apple computer out now faster than most Apple computers out now running arguably the best operating system available ready to run out of the box when you purchase it with Leopard included. If you buy Leopard with your Open Computer we'll install it for free.
(notice the "If you buy leopard..." line)
Experts and Geniuses: I Want a Hackintosh
This is a great opportunity for the experienced user. With the Open Computer you can
run a Vanilla kernel for the genuine Leopard experience
get under the hood and really see what makes OS X tick
develop device drivers and applications specific to OSx86
According to the courts, people can swap their votes so there's a double standard here. If the vote is only supposed to be yours or if it is available as barter for whatever service you see fit, even anothers vote, it is saleable.
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/32427prs20070806.html
Seems as if it is your right to vote, or not, you should be able to do what you want with it without the courts interference, if it is your wish. OR it should be required that each vote actually matter and be so respected that complete accountability be mandatory for voting so that each and every vote has an absolute guarantee of being counted.
I don't see either being the case as long as paper trails and recounts are questioned.
So since I work in the office support industry I can attest to seeing way more CRTs than LCDs in use by the cubicle users. I has been getting much better but they're still out there and in use, and for sale at best buy and pc connection type stores. CDW sells them online and in catalog. They have a 15" viewsonic for 129.00 in stock even.
The point I was making was that the hardware out there has had toxic chemicals inside for quite a while and probably in greater quantities than we can expect from quantum manipulation tech in the future.
Uh, two points:
1. There already exists an issue with the amount of toxic chemicals in most computers today.
http://maine.gov/dep/rwm/recycle/computerrecy.htm
"A typical processor and monitor contain five to eight pounds of lead and heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury and arsenic."
2. When you are dealing with quantum levels a gram of any element has a lot of area to work in and they are suspending the toxic bit with a field of silicon.
"Imagine a tiny arsenic atom embedded in a tiny strip of silicon atoms..."
He meant to say interdeterminatable.
"Mooney says, noting that the sudden upsurge in junk mail left the neighborhood postman somewhat aghast. "It grew exponentially, so I stopped giving out my home address," she says, adding, "I am concerned about the environment.""
It's all well and good that she had an alias and a free pc to be subject to this open invitation for harassment, but to actually really give out your home address to these spammers is a bit reckless. She will, at a minimum, be regretting this for years since the "current resident" will be getting spam even if she directs the post office not to deliver mail to her alias.
So a wiki referencing a case is now the set of reason for all others to use as standard?
Answer me this, why would the founding fathers craft a document and spend time developing the phrasing and include the "ex post facto law" part in there if they didn't think that it was important? What does it apply to if not after the fact changing the laws to make one guilty or innocent?
Just answer the question, why include it at all if the interpretation was supposed to be that it really didn't apply?
If you commit a crime and then later the laws are changed, guess what, you still committed a crime when you acted. Same with retroactive innocence. If you committed no crime and the laws are changed you committed no crime when you acted. Seems pretty simple to me and probably did to them when they wrote it. Now we have judges and lawyers all with political mindsets, looking at individual cases and setting precidents for all, and the simple rules of law are getting further away from the obviously intended ideas. I can understand new technology and new moral issues having an effect but some of these interpretations are just idiotic.
Holly... Why didin't I hear about this like a thousand times during this debate on immunity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
First: Dirty rat bastards!
Second: Duh.
Third: Fix it Obama!
Do you smoke?
Do you drink?
Drug tests?
Any of this sound familiar in a survey from your insurance application or work orientation pack?
I thought this was an urban legend:
"The deceptively liquid-like behavior of glass can be seen when you look at glass in the windows of an old building. The glass begins to sag and distort internally over the centuries, due to the effect of gravity."
This was because old glass making techniques used a spinning wheel to flatten and cool the glass so that one edge was slightly thicker when it was cut into the desired pieces. The whole sagging myth was made up. A common citation for rebuffing the myth is egyption glass that has held its form for much longer than the old english buildings.
I love the fact that the poster was listed an "Anonymous Coward"
Just kinda seems to underline the irony (or joke as the case may be).
So you address the part of the argument that you want to and ignore the rest?
...their casualties and length of time have no bearing when comparing the two?
I'll make it easier, same quote but less distractions for you this time:
And to the last part: "The fact that these were not "our" people who died or became homeless refugees should be irrelevant from a moral standpoint."
I never said that it mattered who it was that died or suffered. Just a simple question of wether it matters to you if it was 1 person or a thousand. If there is a person down the street that is suffering because they were hurt in a war years ago do you feel any less guilty for not helping them compared to another across the world that is suffereing the same from a current war? No matter what side or where they are, you cannot compare them without taking some metrics, that's what comparison is. You have to define what you will compare and what emotional value you place on those comparisons. And in that, wach person will value things differently because of the innate differences in culture, location, and personal history. Your morals are not mine nor any others. That's what makes you "you" and any higher than thou argument meaningless since I don't see you taking your time spent here posting and using it to actually help those that you would use to shame others.
Here:
To save a thousand people would you santion the murder of one? If not are you sanctioning the deaths of those thousand? Which choice is not ethically repugnant?
Blaming the question or going off on a tangent of deciding between only these two options is missing the point. If it came down to it, would you value the lives of more people over some? Would it change your decision if you found out that one group was guilty to your standards of crimes against humanity?
The basis for comparison between different acts of aggression in different times has to be made with some abjective viewpoint or they cannot be compaired without such a lengthy discussion as to become meaningless.
It boils down quickly when looked at by two opposing groups to the numbers and emotions game. How many numbers can I make you emotional with? Does an increase of 1000 people make any difference in the argument when talking about 82,000 or 83,000? or is it only in comparison to 500? Regular people have their emotions triggered all the time with horrible facts but if they have nothing personal to compare them with they cannt really relate the facts and will soon forget them.
"Take the Kosovo attack, which according to Human Rights Watch led to the internal displacement of 850,000 people and up to 15,000 deaths after the bombing started."
The article states:
"In the twelve weeks that followed, Serbian and Yugoslav military, police, and paramilitaries expelled more than 850,000 ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, internally displacing several hundred thousand more."
What do you care about the "more than" part of that statement, how many exactly? Or is the number, just 850,000, enough to get the emotional rollercoaster started and it doesn't matter if it was 850,124 or 851,162? The casual dismissal of a single human life sacrificed is no longer as poingant is it would be if you had to decide to sacrifice that single life to save 850,000.
This is just human nature, proven and born out of your own example.
Ok, so our wounded/killed numbers, their casualties and length of time have no bearing when comparing the two?
Fair warning: Rant
Public companies are now being run by the shareholders that take out payday loans, refinance their houses so much they owe money when they sell, cannot build traditional savings since all their income is treated as disposable. Basically the get rich generation with no long term goals other than their next big "fix".
Why does it surprise anybody that the driving force behind these companies is to sell out no matter what the cost to the business, the employees, or even the customers?
And for those who can't:
Check here for summary.