€ 370 = 531.69 U.S. dollars
About the same actually. Granted one's a high end smart phone, the other's just gold plated.
Smart phones without a plan tend to run $400-$600 dollars, so the N900's price isn't that unreasonable. Compare it to the Droid ($559.99 without contract), probably the most on par Android phone spec for spec and the N900 is cheaper from quite a few retailers.
On top of that, given that the new model PS3s don't allow linux at all, this seems particularly laughable. Apparently the hardware change was too radical to keep Linux installed but the rest of their software doesn't skip a beat? Sure....
I find it interesting how trying to reacquire rights stripped from individuals can be spun to "discrimination." No where is there any talk of Google having a problem with those that have faith, nor wanting to deny them anything. (Other than the "right" to take away rights from others.)
I actually have faith in humanity, but sometimes I wonder if it's misplaced.
Taking it the other extreme isn't any better really. I realize that someone can think that marriage should be between a man and woman only and at the same time really not want to hate on homosexuals. Even then though, it's inherently pretty surprising for someone to be in charge of diversity understanding and still be a proponent of seperate and equal. Something that's pretty ingrained in this country by now as not being such.
Honestly I think being concerned with the environment tends to amount to good intentions. As I said though, being willing to do whatever to get your point across is at best amoral.
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faq.jsp#environment
Assuming you ignore that. This is a repeat of old news anyways. Their criticisms of Nintendo basically boil down to them not having an answer to everything on their checklist exactly how they like it. Greenpeace means well but they tend to demonstrate a horrifying lack of thought or genuine consideration of anything other than their own agenda.
I haven't seen too much to confirm the wife's "golddigger past" other than Reiser's claims. The desire to return home is hardly the desire to frame your husband for murder and vanish. The creepy boyfriend's a mutual friend of the two originally, and says a lot about the company they both keep. More importantly though, like all of Resier's explanations to try to rule out all of the circumstantial evidence laid against him, it require's going on on way too thin a limb. All of this mental footwork to inch away from the substantial pile of evidence that makes him look pretty damn guilty.
As for the people not liking him. I don't think being an asshole is a reason to convict, but hell it's not an excuse either.
Technically that changed today. That's not to say that he can't appeal or even be completely exonerated in the future. But guilty beyond a reasonable doubt he is.
If someone goes completely missing, with no sign of them by anyone for days, let alone years; it's already quite reasonable to assume that something's quite wrong. When their car's found abandoned, and their ex-husband whom they've had a rough past with has the missing person's blood at his home, and in his car, you're already well into the zone of murder being a reasonable conclusion. And that's ignoring the pile of additional circumstantial evidence. It's awkward that it's circumstantial, definitely. But with this much, I can easily see how a jury could find no reasonable doubt.
The problem there is that we only have a response to a possible threat, not the threat itself. That's not to say that there wasn't, but it doesn't necessarily mean there was one either. It's also odd that they were able to dig up the email responding to the threat, and not the threatening email itself?
Re:It's not unscientific to reject evolution.
on
Science Debate 2008
·
· Score: 1
This is ultimately true, though it's rather difficult to dig up things that contradict the theory of evolution that aren't based on what are basically lies heavily employed by people afraid of the implications otherwise for their faith. Pretty much every criticism I've heard from a creationist is easily refuted with a quick fact check. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't accept questions of course, but it certainly merits taking them with a grain of salt. Most of these people unfortunately just hear an argument or bit of evidence that contradicts mainstream scientific theory and latch onto it for dear life without even checking to see if there's anything behind it at all.
I probably should clarify my original post a bit. It's not merely insensitivity I mean to point out, but that fundamentalists in general tend to be crazy and on the slope towards committing acts of violence. Right now Islam probably has one of it not the highest percentages of fundamentalists and in the highest concentrations in it's dominant regions.
More to the point, if you pull a Christian or a Muslim off the streets in the US, where fundamentalists are still far from the majority, you're unlikely go get anyone that'll react that violently. However if you pull your Christian out of the bible belt or your Muslim out of certain parts of the Middle East, the odds go up rather dramatically. It's not Muslims or Christians that are more likely to be violent, it's fundamentalists that are. Muslims in general don't bomb embassies just like Christians in general don't stone homosexuals. Its their crazies that do!
People can freely show insensitivity to Christians, Catholics, Jews, Buddists, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers....(although none of the mentioned will try to blow you up or cut your head off if you do so).
I hate to be so glum but try telling that to abortion clinics and gay bars that get targeted by unsavory Christian whack-jobs. It's not too common fortunately, but if you think Islamic fundamentalists are the only violent ones today you're ignoring quite a bit. (It's hardly limited to those two spin-offs either!)
There's a world of difference between congress debating taxing Second Life's currency, which is converted back and forth into US dollars; and people selling virtual items and gold in WoW which is designed to be a closed system from the start.
More people running OS X are interesting in games than there are Linux users running games. The crowd primarily interested in gaming being content to settle for Cedega/WINE solutions only making the feasibility of ports even less so. Now that OS X is on x86 such a future could be in sight for Apple users as well, however they also tend to be a bit less hard core and tolerant of aggravations such as emulators than Linux users.
"Breaking news! LiveJournal will show you ads if you want them to - and give you a few extra features in exchange. More on this and spontaneous combustion at 11."
This was a big hubub in LJ lang months ago. The short and sweet of it is that unless you browse specifically to someone's journal who OPTED into ads - you won't be seeing them. It's that simple. People have to opt into the sponsored content. If you don't want them you won't be seeing them on your journal or friend's list - it's that simple. I really can't see what the big deal is.
Yeah, looking at their articles they definitely seem to have quite a bit of a right bias. People seem to forget these days that Bush's approval rating is really freaking low. He's managed to upset a lot more than just people not on his "side".
They played a sizable role, but Germanic tribes were by far responsible for Rome's fall. (Outside military wise, that's not touching the corruption and decay within.) This is actually what helped give Islamic society their intellectual booster shot. Where as most of the original Greek works were lost in the West, they picked them up in their raids and preserved them. Hence us getting them back during the crusades. About the only positive thing to come out of any of those..
It's fairly note worthy historically to remind us that while the West was in it's period lovingly referred to as the dark ages, where where we'd lost most of our Greek heritage (such as the works of Aristotle) and religion was maintaining a stranglehold on free thought; Islam was fostering a period of intellectual thinking, and scientific progress. Of course it's also worth mentioning that as the dark ages broke into the Renaissance, Islam entered a sort of decline leading to their own dark ages with the exact same problem of religion dominating free thought.
It'd be easy! Of course if you're downloading things from untrusted sources, and pirating definitely pushing the shady potential a little higher up; what kind of protection COULD help this user? The answer, none other than crippling the system from the user standpoint. At this point the only hope is education. Something even more difficult to sell.
The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is so cute. I mean after all, after several thousand mutations of course a species isn't going to change... The distinction doesn't even really make sense. "We believe that little changes happen, but that big changes don't." Of course big changes not being anything quantified, merely an abstact concept that they feel contradicts their little world. Again though, if you allow for little changes, then it seems crazy to then decide that no matter how many little changes occur, there sitll won't be any "big" change.
Well don't lose help yet. There are two schools of thought on this!
Most gay people and mental health experts take a stand that sexual preference is at the very least deeply ingrained and any attempts to change it are likely to do a great deal if harm if not simply impossible.
On the other hand, although I doubt they'd encourage you, many right wing conservatives and a score of seemingly biased mental health experts fully believe that your sexual preference is a choice. This means that you are free to choose to become a sinner. Of course, many of the poster child examples of this; (Gay men that have chosen to become heterosexual, you're looking at being a pioneer in doing the reverese!) are known for having homosexual relapses of a sort. So it seems quite likely that you may have hetereosexual relapses of your own. You'll simply have to be strong and confront these healthy sinless urges if you wish to persevere!
Slashdot Mirror
€ 370 = 531.69 U.S. dollars About the same actually. Granted one's a high end smart phone, the other's just gold plated. Smart phones without a plan tend to run $400-$600 dollars, so the N900's price isn't that unreasonable. Compare it to the Droid ($559.99 without contract), probably the most on par Android phone spec for spec and the N900 is cheaper from quite a few retailers.
On top of that, given that the new model PS3s don't allow linux at all, this seems particularly laughable. Apparently the hardware change was too radical to keep Linux installed but the rest of their software doesn't skip a beat? Sure....
I find it interesting how trying to reacquire rights stripped from individuals can be spun to "discrimination." No where is there any talk of Google having a problem with those that have faith, nor wanting to deny them anything. (Other than the "right" to take away rights from others.) I actually have faith in humanity, but sometimes I wonder if it's misplaced.
Taking it the other extreme isn't any better really. I realize that someone can think that marriage should be between a man and woman only and at the same time really not want to hate on homosexuals. Even then though, it's inherently pretty surprising for someone to be in charge of diversity understanding and still be a proponent of seperate and equal. Something that's pretty ingrained in this country by now as not being such.
Honestly I think being concerned with the environment tends to amount to good intentions. As I said though, being willing to do whatever to get your point across is at best amoral.
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faq.jsp#environment Assuming you ignore that. This is a repeat of old news anyways. Their criticisms of Nintendo basically boil down to them not having an answer to everything on their checklist exactly how they like it. Greenpeace means well but they tend to demonstrate a horrifying lack of thought or genuine consideration of anything other than their own agenda.
I haven't seen too much to confirm the wife's "golddigger past" other than Reiser's claims. The desire to return home is hardly the desire to frame your husband for murder and vanish. The creepy boyfriend's a mutual friend of the two originally, and says a lot about the company they both keep. More importantly though, like all of Resier's explanations to try to rule out all of the circumstantial evidence laid against him, it require's going on on way too thin a limb. All of this mental footwork to inch away from the substantial pile of evidence that makes him look pretty damn guilty. As for the people not liking him. I don't think being an asshole is a reason to convict, but hell it's not an excuse either.
Technically that changed today. That's not to say that he can't appeal or even be completely exonerated in the future. But guilty beyond a reasonable doubt he is.
If someone goes completely missing, with no sign of them by anyone for days, let alone years; it's already quite reasonable to assume that something's quite wrong. When their car's found abandoned, and their ex-husband whom they've had a rough past with has the missing person's blood at his home, and in his car, you're already well into the zone of murder being a reasonable conclusion. And that's ignoring the pile of additional circumstantial evidence. It's awkward that it's circumstantial, definitely. But with this much, I can easily see how a jury could find no reasonable doubt.
The problem there is that we only have a response to a possible threat, not the threat itself. That's not to say that there wasn't, but it doesn't necessarily mean there was one either. It's also odd that they were able to dig up the email responding to the threat, and not the threatening email itself?
This is ultimately true, though it's rather difficult to dig up things that contradict the theory of evolution that aren't based on what are basically lies heavily employed by people afraid of the implications otherwise for their faith. Pretty much every criticism I've heard from a creationist is easily refuted with a quick fact check. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't accept questions of course, but it certainly merits taking them with a grain of salt. Most of these people unfortunately just hear an argument or bit of evidence that contradicts mainstream scientific theory and latch onto it for dear life without even checking to see if there's anything behind it at all.
I probably should clarify my original post a bit. It's not merely insensitivity I mean to point out, but that fundamentalists in general tend to be crazy and on the slope towards committing acts of violence. Right now Islam probably has one of it not the highest percentages of fundamentalists and in the highest concentrations in it's dominant regions.
More to the point, if you pull a Christian or a Muslim off the streets in the US, where fundamentalists are still far from the majority, you're unlikely go get anyone that'll react that violently. However if you pull your Christian out of the bible belt or your Muslim out of certain parts of the Middle East, the odds go up rather dramatically. It's not Muslims or Christians that are more likely to be violent, it's fundamentalists that are. Muslims in general don't bomb embassies just like Christians in general don't stone homosexuals. Its their crazies that do!
People can freely show insensitivity to Christians, Catholics, Jews, Buddists, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers....(although none of the mentioned will try to blow you up or cut your head off if you do so).
I hate to be so glum but try telling that to abortion clinics and gay bars that get targeted by unsavory Christian whack-jobs. It's not too common fortunately, but if you think Islamic fundamentalists are the only violent ones today you're ignoring quite a bit. (It's hardly limited to those two spin-offs either!)
There's a world of difference between congress debating taxing Second Life's currency, which is converted back and forth into US dollars; and people selling virtual items and gold in WoW which is designed to be a closed system from the start.
More people running OS X are interesting in games than there are Linux users running games. The crowd primarily interested in gaming being content to settle for Cedega/WINE solutions only making the feasibility of ports even less so. Now that OS X is on x86 such a future could be in sight for Apple users as well, however they also tend to be a bit less hard core and tolerant of aggravations such as emulators than Linux users.
"Breaking news! LiveJournal will show you ads if you want them to - and give you a few extra features in exchange. More on this and spontaneous combustion at 11." This was a big hubub in LJ lang months ago. The short and sweet of it is that unless you browse specifically to someone's journal who OPTED into ads - you won't be seeing them. It's that simple. People have to opt into the sponsored content. If you don't want them you won't be seeing them on your journal or friend's list - it's that simple. I really can't see what the big deal is.
Yeah, looking at their articles they definitely seem to have quite a bit of a right bias. People seem to forget these days that Bush's approval rating is really freaking low. He's managed to upset a lot more than just people not on his "side".
Agreed, though because of that I'm pretty perturbed that it looks like they did ultimately go for some MS support. http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/04/new-olpc-deets- 500-mhz-128mb-ram-windows-ce-and-no-hand-crank/
Shame on me! I nearly forgot!
They played a sizable role, but Germanic tribes were by far responsible for Rome's fall. (Outside military wise, that's not touching the corruption and decay within.) This is actually what helped give Islamic society their intellectual booster shot. Where as most of the original Greek works were lost in the West, they picked them up in their raids and preserved them. Hence us getting them back during the crusades. About the only positive thing to come out of any of those..
It's fairly note worthy historically to remind us that while the West was in it's period lovingly referred to as the dark ages, where where we'd lost most of our Greek heritage (such as the works of Aristotle) and religion was maintaining a stranglehold on free thought; Islam was fostering a period of intellectual thinking, and scientific progress. Of course it's also worth mentioning that as the dark ages broke into the Renaissance, Islam entered a sort of decline leading to their own dark ages with the exact same problem of religion dominating free thought.
It'd be easy! Of course if you're downloading things from untrusted sources, and pirating definitely pushing the shady potential a little higher up; what kind of protection COULD help this user? The answer, none other than crippling the system from the user standpoint. At this point the only hope is education. Something even more difficult to sell.
Is it news when Dvorak predicts Apple/MacOS dying?
The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is so cute. I mean after all, after several thousand mutations of course a species isn't going to change... The distinction doesn't even really make sense. "We believe that little changes happen, but that big changes don't." Of course big changes not being anything quantified, merely an abstact concept that they feel contradicts their little world. Again though, if you allow for little changes, then it seems crazy to then decide that no matter how many little changes occur, there sitll won't be any "big" change.
Well don't lose help yet. There are two schools of thought on this! Most gay people and mental health experts take a stand that sexual preference is at the very least deeply ingrained and any attempts to change it are likely to do a great deal if harm if not simply impossible. On the other hand, although I doubt they'd encourage you, many right wing conservatives and a score of seemingly biased mental health experts fully believe that your sexual preference is a choice. This means that you are free to choose to become a sinner. Of course, many of the poster child examples of this; (Gay men that have chosen to become heterosexual, you're looking at being a pioneer in doing the reverese!) are known for having homosexual relapses of a sort. So it seems quite likely that you may have hetereosexual relapses of your own. You'll simply have to be strong and confront these healthy sinless urges if you wish to persevere!