You might want to read up on this topic a bit. You obviously have a lot to learn. There are dozens of studies, just a sample of which are below, that indicate your goal of low serum levels of cholesterol will induce severe depression. One stupid study doesn't mean a thing. You have to ask yourself: For what does your body use cholesterol? Why is it called a lipoprotein? When you realize this, you'll understand why common ideas regarding cholesterol are flat wrong. Hint: There is a reason plants don't have cholesterol!
ANd of course, why don't you point out that dietary cholesterol consumption has nothing to do with blood levels of cholesterol.
Oh, and don't forget cholesterol is the largest component of your brain after water, and there is 10 times as much cholesterol in human breast milk as protein... the list goes on.
Bottom line? Cholesterol is good for you, and for some reason, some people exhibit unusual cholesterol profiles that are associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular diseases, however these profiles are not related to diet.
Actually, the FIRST service on British Airways is much better than you think - International flights have business class which is more similar to typical 1st class on domestic American flights.
But anyway, for cretins such as yourself, I'll give you a bit of insight into American wine neologisms. Technically, any wine with a classification of Appellation d'Origine Contrôlé or AOC is fine wine. True connoisseurs use the term to differentiate wine made in accordance with such high standards with table wine. Certainly, what is often served in the vast majority of restaurants and on most flights is not classified AOC.
Needless to say, what is served in first class on British Airways is not table wine.
So, obviously, you don't know shit about wine and have never flown first class from New York to London. Only a lower class fool would think a simple term like "fine wine" refers to something far beyond what is minimally acceptable for a refined pallet. You probably think Hennessey makes the best Cognac too.
So, obviously, you don't know shit about wine and have never flown first class from New York to London. Only a lower class fool would think a simple term like "fine wine" refers to something far beyond what is minimally acceptable for a refined palet. You probably think Hennessey makes the best Cognac too.
By the way, my ticket was $7,500. Do you really think they are going to serve "suck wine" as you put it for that much cash? I don't think so.
I am by no means a kid, I am actually in my late 20s and have a college degree. I live in a metropolitan area (with a lower CoL then NYC, thank god), and I make a fairly handy sum of cash (enough that public transit ain't my option).
Yeah, well you're still a loser. I could barely even bring myself to read the miserable drivel you just wrote prior to this snippet. My god, have you ever gotten LAID? This is a really pathetic redirection of your sexual desire.
As for cash, I actually make $250K a year and live in a $1.7 million historic brownstone. I ride the subway like all New Yorkers do because it's the only way to get to work in a reasonable amount of time.
You rant indicates you have no life, or authority. See, a successful person like me doesn't give a fuck about a gaming console. I like to PLAY video games, I could care less which system is better than any other.
Go back to masturbating and playing video games exclusively in your free time. I've got a plane to catch - by the way, it's a first class flight to London, and I'll be playing my PSP the entire time while I get trashed on fine wine!
Listen, slashdot is total shit these days. Sony is not going to waste their time astroturfing this place. I think your response is fanatical.
I don't argue with fanatics. You're just some loser kid who can't appreciate an opinion that contradicts your religious devotion to Nintendo. Enjoy your pathetic life.
It's funny, I hear these complaints about PSP games all the time. I'm a busy guy and don't have much time for a console, I got a PSP to play on the subway mostly. Here in NYC, I'd say I see at least 10-20 times as many PSP's as I do DSs.
I got maybe 6 months ago. So far, I've gotten 10 really great games that constantly amaze me. Ace Combat X is a great flight sim with impressive graphics, the GTA games are just plain fun, Wipeout Pure is what F-zero could have been - it's awesome. Lumines II is a great puzzle game that is visually stunning. Metal Gear is also incredible, I can't believe they got such a game on a handheld. Even Sid Meir's Pirates has great graphics and gameplay and brings me back to my childhood. Mega Man Power Up is also a great remake of a classic game.
I don't know, slashdot is just filled with PSP FUD - I just don't get it. There isn't a single DS game that interests me, and the graphics are just terrible. Small screens and jagged edges just suck. I'm really not into the stylus either.
Anyway, I think the DS is for suburban folks who don't really have a NEED for a portable system. It is an accessory to their uber-game filled life, and maybe the novelty is a big bonus. For those of us who are looking for as close of an experience to a home console as you can get, the PSP is amazing.
Frankly, I can't understand why any blithering idiot moderated you post "Insightful" when it is not only entirely off topic, but completely inane. Please, if you are going to waste the time to post something, try to use at least 10 multi-syllable words.
Really? Look at what Reagan did tot he Air Traffic Controllers. The president decided they were no longer allowed to unionize and they decided to strike. THey were all fired and new controllers were trained to replace them.
I loathe using the the "for the children" slogan, as it is typically nothing more than reactionary nonsense to allow women the opportunity spend more of men's hard earned money, but in this case it holds true. Teachers should not be allowed to unionize. Period. Their whims and desires are ultimately irrelevant, considering the role they play in shaping the future of our civilization.
Perhaps this can be the Governator's final opportunity to prove himself. ALl he has to do is tell the unions to fuck off, and fire any and every teacher that refuses to participate. There comes a time for executives to come close to abusing their power - and this is one of those times. People will bitch and moan and call him a tyrant, but in the end the people will be far better off.
You don't quite understand how the concept of "work" is necessary for social order, or more specifically social control.
The purpose of technology is to eliminate work, yet people work more today than ever before. This is not coincidental.
The future you are proposing - a future where all manual labor is eliminated - would result in chaos of epic proportions. Just take a walk through a major public housing project where the dumbest members of society live and do nothing all day but eat fried chicken, play stolen video games, and dream about the latest and greatest cell phone. Oh, and sell, deal, and have gun battles over drugs.
The problem is that while YOU believe in egalitarianism, the ruling powers realize it is a lie. The only possible way your future could survive is with a vast eugenics program that prevents the reproduction of the violent and retarded, and strong controls regarding parenting and education.
Only under those circumstances could you trust your entire population with pure, unrestricted leisure.
Most people are slaves, self determination is impossible for them. They NEED someone to tell them what to do, otherwise they turn into animals.
Those are the people that must be eliminated from society for your dream to be fullfilled.
Cool device, but kinda weird it doesn't have wifi built in. You'd actually have to waste a CF slot for a wifi card! I'm not even sure if they make them anymore as virtually every device with a CF slot has wifi already built in.
as its been pointed out, your ignorant to any non european culture to think that the same things Europeans colonizers were known for were done by everyone else in the world. Several cultures have little history of rampantly expanding their borders at the expense of wiping out other cultures. in fact, its almost purely a european trait(though the Japanese have been very long history of doing it, as did certain tribes in Africa).
My god, what history books are you reading? Ever hear of Ghengis Khan? What about the Aryan invasion of India? China was once a collection of many countries, and now is one country. The history of that country is littered with cultural conquest as various nations/peoples fought against one another. Japan and China are no different in that respect. The Japanese conquest of Korea is nothing compared to the Manchurian conquest of all of China.
The reason you hear more specifics regarding death and destruction by Europeans is they had a greater appreciation for historical record than any other culture. As for Africans, sheesh - they are doing this today, all the time. Thanks for pointing that out.
The Muslim conquests hardly wiped out local populations. in fact, the reason there were groups to oppose them in Hispania and the Balkans was because it wasn't their way to completely wipe out a population. The Roman conquest of Gaul was at times genocide.
Umm, it's a bit more complicated than that. Why don't you go to Romania and talk to the local people there about their legends regarding Ottoman domination. You are very wrong. As for Hispania, I don't really see how that is different than the New World. It's not like the Indians were eradicated overnight. They had hundreds of years to resist, and they did resist.
Study some history and then go study some modern biology to try and figure out why people say disease was the major factor in the fall of the Indian tribes. just to start you off, go look up small pox. you may even find out that there wasn't a single case of it in the new world before introduction by the Europeans. of course, you may just respond with some complete BS that "we have lots of disease cells, its not like one more could possibly wipe out an entire population". You know, AIDS is just one more disease, I'm sure you'd say that the mass introduction of it into a population couldn't wipe it out. of course, then you'd be ignorant of modern history.
I am quite familiar with disease. As I said previously, disease is a part of life. There are more non-human cells in your body than human cells. Sometimes diseases win, other times they don't. No disease in the entire history humankind has ever wiped out an entire people or species. Only in certain circumstances where food is scarce can even a small group be eradicated, such as during seige warfare.
You are repeating an early 20th century neroticism: that you can somehow ever live free from disease. You cannot. It is impossible. Our immune systems are perfectly capable of resisting almost any infection. The weak and inferm may succumb, but it is very unusual for an otherwise healthy person of any race to succumb to disease, even something like smallpox. Today, smallpox has an average 10% mortality rate, yet folks like you cannot explain why the Indian was so genetically deficient their mortality rate would be beyond every other observable group - even what we observe in Africa today.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. People like you don't want to admit the truth: the Native Americans were barbarians and unable to organize sufficient resistence to European invasions.
It's not true though. Vista is much more responsive than XP - it's only downside as far as speed is running games.
I just got my girlfriend a cheapo laptop with 1 gig of ram and a ATI X1300 video card with 128 megs of ram - Aero is fast, so fast there is no lag I can detect.
My machine uses a Athlon64 X2 that retails for about $100 today, and I have an ATI X300 that retails for about $25. I have 2 gigs of ram - but still.
The thing is fine, and faster than XP was.
I really don't understand all the whining. If RAM prices hand't gone through the roof the past year, this would be a non-issue.
Unfortunately, the $100 processor and $25 video card pails in comparison to ram being $100-$200 a gig.
I hate to tell you this, but until around 1912, most senators were appointed by the various state legislatures.
So, the republic has changed - I think that's an important point. And, given the worldwide failure of democracy, perhaps the hybrid approach is best. I don't think it's any coincidence that not 2 years after 17th amendment was passed, the United states embarked upon a century of warfare and endless economic decline.
Direct election of all legislatures opens the door for corruption in an extreme degree, and the US certainly has become a much more corrupt place in the 90 years since this democratic republic of yours was initiated.
Careful! by that logic, Southeast Asia 'deserves' to spread bird flu and take over everyplace that has less resistance than they do...
I think you'll find China or India will invade Africa sometime soon, using this very same logic.
I could care less. It's the natural order of things. As for the rest of your post - I categorically reject any notion that disease can have such an effect. Archaeological evidence is wholly insufficient.
Your post is based upon the myth that disease is somehow unnatural. It is not. As I said in another post, infectious non-human cells outnumber human cells in your body all the time. Living without disease simply isn't possible.
The Indians lost because the lacked advanced technology. This is the way the world works, and has always worked.
My question is when will it stop. Don't you see the war in Iraq is the same song and dance. A tribal people have something you want (oil) so you call them the savage and take what they have. Same old song and dance. Fucking wake up
Hmm, actually the Iraq war is exactly what I'm talking about.
What you don't understand is the population explosion amongst the masses of people on this planet is only because of modern farming practices, most specifically farm equipment powered by oil.
We are approaching the maximum carrying capacity of this planet. The problem for the poor native americans is they were last in the race for technological supremacy. To accomodate growing populations, every last bit of productive land had to be exploited to the maximum degree. Once every piece of arable land was farmed extensively, the next step was the invention of farming equipment and related technology.
Tractors and fertilizer allowed us to increase our population level to nearly 7 billion souls this century, but now we've hit a wall. There are no new technologies and no more land.
People will fight over what is left of the world's oil reserves. The victors will continue in the short term without significant population declines. The losers will starve.
In the end, people will do what they always do - and what the Native Americans always did, relentlessly - fight for scarce natural resources.
This planet's ideal population level is about 500 million people. Only with an intelligent eugenics program can we ever achieve peace. As long as there is the unlimited right of reproduction, competition for scarce natural resources will frequently result in war. There is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.
There are two serious misconceptions about the disease issue
1) It is illogical and unreasonable to assume that casual population contact results in the spreading of plague. Did Attila the Hun bring disease when he marched on Rome? Or Ghengis Khan? This theory is fundamentally based upon the naive belief the New World was some garden of eden, where the residents had never had a cough in their life. Disease is a natural part of life. Did you know non-human cells outnumber hunman cells in your body right now? By a factor of 10 to 1?
2) There were no population statistics of native peoples, especially in what is now the United States. Any population estimate is ridiculous guess at best.
When people start referring to the Roman conquest of Gaul, the Muslim conquest of the Balkans and Hispania, and the Slavic invasions of Central Europe as "genocide", perhaps you'll have a point.
The reality is this: The population density of the New World was incredibly low compared to Europe.
What drives all world politics is love and sex. Too much fucking produces too many people, said people do what they can to survive and continue the trend.
Europeans were many and the aboriginal peoples of the Americas were few. It is only natural that they would be displaced. They would have done the same had the situations been reversed. That is what people do.
Borders are never static, they expand and contract and perhaps even disappear, depending upon population density and technological advancements that minimize population pressures (ie, fertilizer).
I think Microsoft may have unknowingly shot themselves in the foot by making some of the betas public. This made a lot of the "almost-enthusiast, but not really knowledgable" people decide that because the beta had some performance quirks, the RTM must too. And they've been surprisingly loud with it.
It's always been this way. I remember when I got the first NT 3.1 Beta (wasn't it called Daytona??). It was dog slow, unbelievably slow - way slower than OS/2 2.1 at the time. It was just like the anti-Vista crowd today.
Not entirely true. I have a Dell laptop with a Pentium-M 1800 and 1 gig of ram, I also started using a spare 2 gig SD card for ReadyBoost. The machine is faster with Vista than without, although the weak Intel video card disables all the Aero features.
It's not as fast as my main system which is similar to the parent poster, but overall on my two machines, Vista is a significant improvement and I think worth the upgrade price.
Brother, it's actually the exact opposite for everyone I've talked to. Windows Vista is in fact FASTER than XP on the same equipment.
I have a X2 3800+ with 2 gigs of ram, and a Pentium-M 1800 laptop with 1 gig of ram. Vista made the performance of both these machines increase significantly. Applications launch faster and are more responsive, and the overall machine feels much more smooth. I was actually so impressed with the performance I put it on my father's machine. A couple friends also installed it and the feelings are unanimous: Vista is much better, performance wise, than XP. Granted, this is all anecdotal evidence, but it seems folks like you are just parrotting the same crap on the various MS bashing media outlets like Slashdot. You clearly haven't used Vista.
So, help us understand the fanboy psychology. It seems sort of like the Reds and the Greens in Roman times. Your unwavoring devotion to OS ? provides you with some sort of satisfaction with your pathetic life, right? I mean, do you have enough sex? Do you feel out of control in your life?
You are in this post lying, but the question is why? What does it get you? Why be committed to a reality that is false?
I hate to tell you this, but you are obviously a cultural dead weight, a pathetic member of the slave strata who wouldn't understand true beauty if your life depended upon it.
The very simple fact that you find ANYTHING on major broadcast radio means you are likely also a total idiot with only average intelligence at best.
Enjoy the fact that you are a loser, and you will die forgotten, an embarrassment to the fucked up brats you will undoubtedly spawn to replace yourself.
My last upgrade was a complete rebuild of every single component. I went from a 486 VLB system to my current PCI-E one. I think I skipped about 4-5 generations.
Umm, is this a joke?
I have a Compaq LTE Elite laptop I got in 1994 for like $4,000. It has a 486 DX2/50, 16 megs of ram, and an ungodly slow 340 meg hard drive. It has Windows 95 installed it. They made computers solid back in those days. This thing still works incredibly.
I powered it up a few weeks ago and was amazed at how slow it was. Netscape 3.0 was installed on the machine, as well as Opera 5. I remember installing Opera on it years ago as it worked so well in low-memory setups.
Needless to say, the thing is useless. I would lose my mind if I had to use such a laptop on a daily basis.
Again, please, what's an example? I really have a hard time believing you because those directory names aren't fixed, and every application I've used that uses that theme (which is all of them it seems) works just fine.
I haven't encountered any problems except for antivirus software, which is to be expected.
Honestly, I hear this crap on slashdot all the time. Why is it so difficult to name one application that has a reasonably large installed base?
Slashdot Mirror
You might want to read up on this topic a bit. You obviously have a lot to learn. There are dozens of studies, just a sample of which are below, that indicate your goal of low serum levels of cholesterol will induce severe depression. One stupid study doesn't mean a thing. You have to ask yourself: For what does your body use cholesterol? Why is it called a lipoprotein? When you realize this, you'll understand why common ideas regarding cholesterol are flat wrong. Hint: There is a reason plants don't have cholesterol!
o l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=16263178
p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=100 71176&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus
o l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=9018390
o l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11954543
o l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11099742
o l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11022402
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?ito
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?ito
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?ito
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?ito
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?ito
ANd of course, why don't you point out that dietary cholesterol consumption has nothing to do with blood levels of cholesterol.
Oh, and don't forget cholesterol is the largest component of your brain after water, and there is 10 times as much cholesterol in human breast milk as protein... the list goes on.
Bottom line? Cholesterol is good for you, and for some reason, some people exhibit unusual cholesterol profiles that are associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular diseases, however these profiles are not related to diet.
Actually, the FIRST service on British Airways is much better than you think - International flights have business class which is more similar to typical 1st class on domestic American flights.
But anyway, for cretins such as yourself, I'll give you a bit of insight into American wine neologisms. Technically, any wine with a classification of Appellation d'Origine Contrôlé or AOC is fine wine. True connoisseurs use the term to differentiate wine made in accordance with such high standards with table wine. Certainly, what is often served in the vast majority of restaurants and on most flights is not classified AOC.
Needless to say, what is served in first class on British Airways is not table wine.
So, obviously, you don't know shit about wine and have never flown first class from New York to London. Only a lower class fool would think a simple term like "fine wine" refers to something far beyond what is minimally acceptable for a refined pallet. You probably think Hennessey makes the best Cognac too.
So, obviously, you don't know shit about wine and have never flown first class from New York to London. Only a lower class fool would think a simple term like "fine wine" refers to something far beyond what is minimally acceptable for a refined palet. You probably think Hennessey makes the best Cognac too.
By the way, my ticket was $7,500. Do you really think they are going to serve "suck wine" as you put it for that much cash? I don't think so.
I am by no means a kid, I am actually in my late 20s and have a college degree. I live in a metropolitan area (with a lower CoL then NYC, thank god), and I make a fairly handy sum of cash (enough that public transit ain't my option).
Yeah, well you're still a loser. I could barely even bring myself to read the miserable drivel you just wrote prior to this snippet. My god, have you ever gotten LAID? This is a really pathetic redirection of your sexual desire.
As for cash, I actually make $250K a year and live in a $1.7 million historic brownstone. I ride the subway like all New Yorkers do because it's the only way to get to work in a reasonable amount of time.
You rant indicates you have no life, or authority. See, a successful person like me doesn't give a fuck about a gaming console. I like to PLAY video games, I could care less which system is better than any other.
Go back to masturbating and playing video games exclusively in your free time. I've got a plane to catch - by the way, it's a first class flight to London, and I'll be playing my PSP the entire time while I get trashed on fine wine!
Full of it? I've been paid off?
Listen, slashdot is total shit these days. Sony is not going to waste their time astroturfing this place. I think your response is fanatical.
I don't argue with fanatics. You're just some loser kid who can't appreciate an opinion that contradicts your religious devotion to Nintendo. Enjoy your pathetic life.
It's funny, I hear these complaints about PSP games all the time. I'm a busy guy and don't have much time for a console, I got a PSP to play on the subway mostly. Here in NYC, I'd say I see at least 10-20 times as many PSP's as I do DSs.
I got maybe 6 months ago. So far, I've gotten 10 really great games that constantly amaze me. Ace Combat X is a great flight sim with impressive graphics, the GTA games are just plain fun, Wipeout Pure is what F-zero could have been - it's awesome. Lumines II is a great puzzle game that is visually stunning. Metal Gear is also incredible, I can't believe they got such a game on a handheld. Even Sid Meir's Pirates has great graphics and gameplay and brings me back to my childhood. Mega Man Power Up is also a great remake of a classic game.
I don't know, slashdot is just filled with PSP FUD - I just don't get it. There isn't a single DS game that interests me, and the graphics are just terrible. Small screens and jagged edges just suck. I'm really not into the stylus either.
Anyway, I think the DS is for suburban folks who don't really have a NEED for a portable system. It is an accessory to their uber-game filled life, and maybe the novelty is a big bonus. For those of us who are looking for as close of an experience to a home console as you can get, the PSP is amazing.
Frankly, I can't understand why any blithering idiot moderated you post "Insightful" when it is not only entirely off topic, but completely inane. Please, if you are going to waste the time to post something, try to use at least 10 multi-syllable words.
Really? Look at what Reagan did tot he Air Traffic Controllers. The president decided they were no longer allowed to unionize and they decided to strike. THey were all fired and new controllers were trained to replace them.
I loathe using the the "for the children" slogan, as it is typically nothing more than reactionary nonsense to allow women the opportunity spend more of men's hard earned money, but in this case it holds true. Teachers should not be allowed to unionize. Period. Their whims and desires are ultimately irrelevant, considering the role they play in shaping the future of our civilization.
Perhaps this can be the Governator's final opportunity to prove himself. ALl he has to do is tell the unions to fuck off, and fire any and every teacher that refuses to participate. There comes a time for executives to come close to abusing their power - and this is one of those times. People will bitch and moan and call him a tyrant, but in the end the people will be far better off.
You don't quite understand how the concept of "work" is necessary for social order, or more specifically social control.
The purpose of technology is to eliminate work, yet people work more today than ever before. This is not coincidental.
The future you are proposing - a future where all manual labor is eliminated - would result in chaos of epic proportions. Just take a walk through a major public housing project where the dumbest members of society live and do nothing all day but eat fried chicken, play stolen video games, and dream about the latest and greatest cell phone. Oh, and sell, deal, and have gun battles over drugs.
The problem is that while YOU believe in egalitarianism, the ruling powers realize it is a lie. The only possible way your future could survive is with a vast eugenics program that prevents the reproduction of the violent and retarded, and strong controls regarding parenting and education.
Only under those circumstances could you trust your entire population with pure, unrestricted leisure.
Most people are slaves, self determination is impossible for them. They NEED someone to tell them what to do, otherwise they turn into animals.
Those are the people that must be eliminated from society for your dream to be fullfilled.
Cool device, but kinda weird it doesn't have wifi built in. You'd actually have to waste a CF slot for a wifi card! I'm not even sure if they make them anymore as virtually every device with a CF slot has wifi already built in.
as its been pointed out, your ignorant to any non european culture to think that the same things Europeans colonizers were known for were done by everyone else in the world. Several cultures have little history of rampantly expanding their borders at the expense of wiping out other cultures. in fact, its almost purely a european trait(though the Japanese have been very long history of doing it, as did certain tribes in Africa).
My god, what history books are you reading? Ever hear of Ghengis Khan? What about the Aryan invasion of India? China was once a collection of many countries, and now is one country. The history of that country is littered with cultural conquest as various nations/peoples fought against one another. Japan and China are no different in that respect. The Japanese conquest of Korea is nothing compared to the Manchurian conquest of all of China.
The reason you hear more specifics regarding death and destruction by Europeans is they had a greater appreciation for historical record than any other culture. As for Africans, sheesh - they are doing this today, all the time. Thanks for pointing that out.
The Muslim conquests hardly wiped out local populations. in fact, the reason there were groups to oppose them in Hispania and the Balkans was because it wasn't their way to completely wipe out a population. The Roman conquest of Gaul was at times genocide.
Umm, it's a bit more complicated than that. Why don't you go to Romania and talk to the local people there about their legends regarding Ottoman domination. You are very wrong. As for Hispania, I don't really see how that is different than the New World. It's not like the Indians were eradicated overnight. They had hundreds of years to resist, and they did resist.
Study some history and then go study some modern biology to try and figure out why people say disease was the major factor in the fall of the Indian tribes. just to start you off, go look up small pox. you may even find out that there wasn't a single case of it in the new world before introduction by the Europeans. of course, you may just respond with some complete BS that "we have lots of disease cells, its not like one more could possibly wipe out an entire population". You know, AIDS is just one more disease, I'm sure you'd say that the mass introduction of it into a population couldn't wipe it out. of course, then you'd be ignorant of modern history.
I am quite familiar with disease. As I said previously, disease is a part of life. There are more non-human cells in your body than human cells. Sometimes diseases win, other times they don't. No disease in the entire history humankind has ever wiped out an entire people or species. Only in certain circumstances where food is scarce can even a small group be eradicated, such as during seige warfare.
You are repeating an early 20th century neroticism: that you can somehow ever live free from disease. You cannot. It is impossible. Our immune systems are perfectly capable of resisting almost any infection. The weak and inferm may succumb, but it is very unusual for an otherwise healthy person of any race to succumb to disease, even something like smallpox. Today, smallpox has an average 10% mortality rate, yet folks like you cannot explain why the Indian was so genetically deficient their mortality rate would be beyond every other observable group - even what we observe in Africa today.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. People like you don't want to admit the truth: the Native Americans were barbarians and unable to organize sufficient resistence to European invasions.
It's not true though. Vista is much more responsive than XP - it's only downside as far as speed is running games.
I just got my girlfriend a cheapo laptop with 1 gig of ram and a ATI X1300 video card with 128 megs of ram - Aero is fast, so fast there is no lag I can detect.
My machine uses a Athlon64 X2 that retails for about $100 today, and I have an ATI X300 that retails for about $25. I have 2 gigs of ram - but still.
The thing is fine, and faster than XP was.
I really don't understand all the whining. If RAM prices hand't gone through the roof the past year, this would be a non-issue.
Unfortunately, the $100 processor and $25 video card pails in comparison to ram being $100-$200 a gig.
Funny though how the imprisonment rate in China is far less than the US.
Perhaps re-education is better than just locking up your problem minorities and throwing away the key.
I hate to tell you this, but until around 1912, most senators were appointed by the various state legislatures.
So, the republic has changed - I think that's an important point. And, given the worldwide failure of democracy, perhaps the hybrid approach is best. I don't think it's any coincidence that not 2 years after 17th amendment was passed, the United states embarked upon a century of warfare and endless economic decline.
Direct election of all legislatures opens the door for corruption in an extreme degree, and the US certainly has become a much more corrupt place in the 90 years since this democratic republic of yours was initiated.
Careful! by that logic, Southeast Asia 'deserves' to spread bird flu and take over everyplace that has less resistance than they do...
I think you'll find China or India will invade Africa sometime soon, using this very same logic.
I could care less. It's the natural order of things. As for the rest of your post - I categorically reject any notion that disease can have such an effect. Archaeological evidence is wholly insufficient.
Your post is based upon the myth that disease is somehow unnatural. It is not. As I said in another post, infectious non-human cells outnumber human cells in your body all the time. Living without disease simply isn't possible.
The Indians lost because the lacked advanced technology. This is the way the world works, and has always worked.
I think your signature shows you to be the zealot that you are.
UAC is not that big of a deal.
My question is when will it stop. Don't you see the war in Iraq is the same song and dance. A tribal people have something you want (oil) so you call them the savage and take what they have. Same old song and dance. Fucking wake up
Hmm, actually the Iraq war is exactly what I'm talking about.
What you don't understand is the population explosion amongst the masses of people on this planet is only because of modern farming practices, most specifically farm equipment powered by oil.
We are approaching the maximum carrying capacity of this planet. The problem for the poor native americans is they were last in the race for technological supremacy. To accomodate growing populations, every last bit of productive land had to be exploited to the maximum degree. Once every piece of arable land was farmed extensively, the next step was the invention of farming equipment and related technology.
Tractors and fertilizer allowed us to increase our population level to nearly 7 billion souls this century, but now we've hit a wall. There are no new technologies and no more land.
People will fight over what is left of the world's oil reserves. The victors will continue in the short term without significant population declines. The losers will starve.
In the end, people will do what they always do - and what the Native Americans always did, relentlessly - fight for scarce natural resources.
This planet's ideal population level is about 500 million people. Only with an intelligent eugenics program can we ever achieve peace. As long as there is the unlimited right of reproduction, competition for scarce natural resources will frequently result in war. There is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.
There are two serious misconceptions about the disease issue
1) It is illogical and unreasonable to assume that casual population contact results in the spreading of plague. Did Attila the Hun bring disease when he marched on Rome? Or Ghengis Khan? This theory is fundamentally based upon the naive belief the New World was some garden of eden, where the residents had never had a cough in their life. Disease is a natural part of life. Did you know non-human cells outnumber hunman cells in your body right now? By a factor of 10 to 1?
2) There were no population statistics of native peoples, especially in what is now the United States. Any population estimate is ridiculous guess at best.
When people start referring to the Roman conquest of Gaul, the Muslim conquest of the Balkans and Hispania, and the Slavic invasions of Central Europe as "genocide", perhaps you'll have a point.
The reality is this: The population density of the New World was incredibly low compared to Europe.
What drives all world politics is love and sex. Too much fucking produces too many people, said people do what they can to survive and continue the trend.
Europeans were many and the aboriginal peoples of the Americas were few. It is only natural that they would be displaced. They would have done the same had the situations been reversed. That is what people do.
Borders are never static, they expand and contract and perhaps even disappear, depending upon population density and technological advancements that minimize population pressures (ie, fertilizer).
I think Microsoft may have unknowingly shot themselves in the foot by making some of the betas public. This made a lot of the "almost-enthusiast, but not really knowledgable" people decide that because the beta had some performance quirks, the RTM must too. And they've been surprisingly loud with it.
It's always been this way. I remember when I got the first NT 3.1 Beta (wasn't it called Daytona??). It was dog slow, unbelievably slow - way slower than OS/2 2.1 at the time. It was just like the anti-Vista crowd today.
These people don't really matter.
Not entirely true. I have a Dell laptop with a Pentium-M 1800 and 1 gig of ram, I also started using a spare 2 gig SD card for ReadyBoost. The machine is faster with Vista than without, although the weak Intel video card disables all the Aero features.
It's not as fast as my main system which is similar to the parent poster, but overall on my two machines, Vista is a significant improvement and I think worth the upgrade price.
Yee haw, another fanboy!
Brother, it's actually the exact opposite for everyone I've talked to. Windows Vista is in fact FASTER than XP on the same equipment.
I have a X2 3800+ with 2 gigs of ram, and a Pentium-M 1800 laptop with 1 gig of ram. Vista made the performance of both these machines increase significantly. Applications launch faster and are more responsive, and the overall machine feels much more smooth. I was actually so impressed with the performance I put it on my father's machine. A couple friends also installed it and the feelings are unanimous: Vista is much better, performance wise, than XP. Granted, this is all anecdotal evidence, but it seems folks like you are just parrotting the same crap on the various MS bashing media outlets like Slashdot. You clearly haven't used Vista.
So, help us understand the fanboy psychology. It seems sort of like the Reds and the Greens in Roman times. Your unwavoring devotion to OS ? provides you with some sort of satisfaction with your pathetic life, right? I mean, do you have enough sex? Do you feel out of control in your life?
You are in this post lying, but the question is why? What does it get you? Why be committed to a reality that is false?
I hate to tell you this, but you are obviously a cultural dead weight, a pathetic member of the slave strata who wouldn't understand true beauty if your life depended upon it.
The very simple fact that you find ANYTHING on major broadcast radio means you are likely also a total idiot with only average intelligence at best.
Enjoy the fact that you are a loser, and you will die forgotten, an embarrassment to the fucked up brats you will undoubtedly spawn to replace yourself.
My last upgrade was a complete rebuild of every single component. I went from a 486 VLB system to my current PCI-E one. I think I skipped about 4-5 generations.
Umm, is this a joke?
I have a Compaq LTE Elite laptop I got in 1994 for like $4,000. It has a 486 DX2/50, 16 megs of ram, and an ungodly slow 340 meg hard drive. It has Windows 95 installed it. They made computers solid back in those days. This thing still works incredibly.
I powered it up a few weeks ago and was amazed at how slow it was. Netscape 3.0 was installed on the machine, as well as Opera 5. I remember installing Opera on it years ago as it worked so well in low-memory setups.
Needless to say, the thing is useless. I would lose my mind if I had to use such a laptop on a daily basis.
Are you a masochist?
Again, please, what's an example? I really have a hard time believing you because those directory names aren't fixed, and every application I've used that uses that theme (which is all of them it seems) works just fine.
I haven't encountered any problems except for antivirus software, which is to be expected.
Honestly, I hear this crap on slashdot all the time. Why is it so difficult to name one application that has a reasonably large installed base?