a couple weeks after Leopard was released. I got it from Newegg so Tiger was on it. I upgraded to Leopard and I haven't had any issues but I'm a new Mac user and don't have that many 3rd party apps (just Firefox, Thunderbird, and Yahoo Messenger) installed. The upgrade went w/o a hitch too. I'm still learning about the OS but I have 10 years of Linux and Windows experience but since it is my laptop, and therefore not my main PC, I don't use it that much. Anecdotal I know, but then so is the article.
And yet you not once said why language like 'fuck' is "filth" and why it shouldn't be common. Why should I censor myself around people like you that get all riled up over a word? It's a fucking word, chill the shit out.
Because of the connotations society has attached to the word and others like it. That's why. You don't ever state why you think it *should* be common. As others have pointed out, the connotations are a combination of crudeness and lack of respect. Why should someone believe anything you say if you don't talk with respect? Anyone can say fuck especially college students. It's such a common word in dorm rooms and bars that I really have to question the intelligence of people who act like "fuck" is the only adjective/verb/adverb/etc. in existence.
The words you use, your children (if you have any), and the people you are friends with are a reflection of you just like you are a reflection of your friends. Not once have I heard a good reason for why certain words like "fuck" should be used instead of less disrespectful words. I can tell you that any movie with that word in it is made better by *not* including the word at all. It's a word that is just not needed but is still used by people who just don't have a vocabulary large enough to have any other word at their disposal. All words come with implications, definitions and connotations; that's the point of a language. When you realize that you *might* realize why certain words have a place in society and why others do not even though they merely exist as a collection of symbols at their simplest level.
Do you say "fuck" when talking to your mother? What about your kids (if you have any or would you if you did)? Do you say it at work? Do you say it in front of strangers? What about in front of women? If you answered no to any of those then I have to ask why if you think it should be so common.
Because the speed of light affects atomic decay and there is proof the speed of light has always been decreasing, radiocarbon dating of fossils and anything else is put into question. Not to say the values are wrong, but they aren't the final values because they don't take into account the fact that c has always been decaying which changes the carbon date results. Gary Setterfield has a ton of information on this topic on his site along with referenced research papers for those who think evolution (which needs millions/billions of years) is unquestionably correct. A timeline matching up traditional geological ages with the real ages of the universe is also on his site here which seems to be appropriate for this story. If anyone has some sites that refute these claims I'd like to read them.
Also, the FCC doesn't cover cable-only channels like FX (lots of "shit" and near nudity there with shows like The Shield and Nip/Tuck, with only self-regulation stopping them from going further), in terms of censorship. They cover broadcast channels that then happen to be re-distributed via cable.
Any channel that has to rely on content like that must be targeting the trailer trash because only the trailer trash really don't care about their own language and will say whatever they want around anyone because they don't care. For them, "fuck" is as common as "the" so they feel right at home watching FX. It's sad that people don't realize their language is a reflection upon themselves (and they don't care if their kids hear it either) and endorsing FX and others like it is a moral issue that will only exacerbate the problem. FX must be desperate if they have to rely on filth like that.
If you're halfway competent and intelligent, you continue to learn from experience, and very soon know MORE than your teachers did.
If that wasn't the case, knowledge would continue to shrink, as a bit of it is lost every generation, while in reality, the opposite is true.
Is it the individual which ends up accumulating the extra knowledge (from being taught) so it continues from generation to generation or is it society as a whole that keeps the collection of information from shrinking (multiple individuals required)?
Its time to implement encryption of ALL traffic from ALL applications.
If I was actually doing something questionable where I thought someone would care enough to listen to what I am doing or what I have to say then I might consider that. As it is, I don't worry about it and even if I was type where I'd worry about it on the principle of the matter, the fact is I won't ever see the person doing the sniffing (b/c I'm not doing anything wrong) so they can listen to my boring chats all they want. Just my opinion. By the way, out of curiousity, you don't think someone hearing you say "we're out of milk" is their business. You aren't the type of person to use your cell phone in public with an "outside" voice when you are inside so everyone can hear you, are you? I just want to make sure you are consistent with what is other people's business.
based on research suggesting the speed of light is not constant and has been decreasing on a logarithmic scale since Creation.
the act of observing certain facets of our universe may have shortened its life Because the speed of light affects atomic decay, radiocarbon dating of fossils and anything else is put into question. Not to say the values are wrong, but they aren't the final values because they don't take into account the fact that c has always been decaying which changes the carbon date results. Gary Setterfield has a ton of information on this topic on his site along with referenced research papers for those who think evolution (which needs millions/billions of years) is unquestionably correct. A timeline matching up traditional geological ages with the real ages of the universe is also on his site here. If anyone has some sites that refute these claims I'd like to read them.
the first is, as someone already stated, we aren't sending out photons to these distant objects to observe them. The photons come to us so the common way of observing something (hitting it with a photon) isn't being done in this case and in fact the opposite is occurring which means we aren't affecting it.
Second, (this is a long one) I'm currently reading "Decoding the Universe" by Charles Seife and he discusses information theory and how it relates to quantum and relativity theory. An interesting thing he discusses is decoherence and how a cat can't be in superposition but an atom can.
The problem is that decoherence happens too fast for us to measure the superposition for a cat compared to an atom. To prevent decoherence from happening you have to prevent something in the environment from interacting with it, that is to put the object in a complete vaccuum and cool it to absolute zero. This slows down and minimizes the chance of a particle interacting with the object you want in superposition. The bigger and warmer the object the harder it is to cool it, put it in a vaccuum, and prevent any atomic particle from hitting it. That's why cats and anything else on the macroscopic scale can't be in superposition.
Seife states that observing particles can actually slow radioactive decay because the observation continually resets its superposition but sometimes it will still decay. What makes it decay? Nature is making measurements too using vaccum flutuations (at the quantum level). Sometimes during the observation of the vaccuum flutuation the superposition collapses in a way to make the atom split (decay). Finally, my conclusion is that if Nature is making observations then the fact that we are observing supernovae shouldn't affect them anymore than Nature is already affecting them and the universe as a whole.
Like I said, all in all you're on the mark, but just don't forget that we don't live in the world of teenage mutant ninja turtles where life just randomly mutates into other things after it's been born:-P
Why not? People like you seem so convinced of mutations prior to birth leading to a new species so what's so outrageous about post-birth mutations? Do you just feel like being in an arbitrary mood today? Cells are multiplying all the time (beginning when the zygote forms), why does it matter they do so on either side of the birth event? Evolution never removes anything from the organism; why is that? Not everything an organism has is useful for survival so why would a mutation only add something? Besides, we have no first-hand evidence that mutations have ever created a new species so stating evolution even exists is a stretch to say the least. All we know is that mutations occur and andy other cause/effect relationship is purely speculation.
You can't move an awful lot of government programming offsite.
Yeah we can't move it offshore nor just simply offsite to workers' homes because the information is sensitive in many cases. That rules out telecommuting for some people (both gov't and contract people).
Protect the children from everything, then send them to Iraq to die.
Nice spin, unfortunately for you it is just that, spin. They aren't children when they go to war and they voluntarily sign up for the military knowing that "war" is in the job description. If they don't want to face the possibility of dying in a war scenario they shouldn't sign up. Acting like they are snatched from their mother's home in the middle of the night and put on a plane to a war-torn area of the world is spin that you should be ashamed of.
WE live in a society that is addicted to fear, tries to hide it from children while simultaneously trying to live it vicariously through the others. We are an oversexualized culture that while trying to protect children from sexual predators (which the media would have you believe live on every street), feeds them a diet of sexual images on TV.
Bingo. There are a few problems that exist: the media makes money off fear with society as the target of the fear, political correctness, and sexual indoctrination of children. In this case of the Sesame Street DVD, I agree with someone else that this is a political correctness issue. Too many people (especially on this site) blame everything on the conservatives during times of censorship because they must be wrong under the assumption that the liberals are correct. Oddly enough, its the liberals who, in many cases, attempt to pass something off as "appropriate for all ages" which kicks in the conservative reaction that not everything is appropriate for all ages. That describes the problem of sexual indoctrination of children. In this case though it's just an insane level of political correctness. Unfortunately, parents who don't know how to raise kids are some of the people who support what other parents believe is the problem. In situations like that the media and the government isn't always the sole source of the problem.
But in all likelyhood [sic], I'm guessing that the people who are going to be shopping less this year are going to be the lowest-lower income families, since a larger portion of their income is going to be spent on interest rates because they got taken advantage of with the adjustable-rate mortages [sic] and Home Equity Lines of Credit.
A larger portion of their income is going towards gasoline. Heating oil prices have gone up as well which will decrease the amount of money pumped into the retail sector.
Every year, there's some retailer whose e-commerce or supply chain fails. And it's a big deal, since the holiday shopping season can make or break their year.
No, it's not the holiday shopping season (whatever the hell that even means) that can make or break a retailer's year. Christmas is what makes or breaks a retailer's year. When did we forget that? Retailers still use Christmas music and props along with Santa Claus in their commercials but why they refuse to reference Christmas by name when they make billions off it is beyond me. Give credit where credit is due.
Thanks for the response. I don't think it is an issue of whether there is ever going to be a time when we would create something that is hand-written and therefore not have the advantage of a spell/typo checker. However it is the principle of the matter. People need to know how to spell. If they know how to spell then a spell checker really does become a typo checker. They can worry less about whether any words were spelled wrong. They can be more confident in their writing. If people paid attention to the spell checker to learn why a word was misspelled then it wouldn't detract from people learning because it would just be another learning tool but I don't think many people do this. Spelling was bad enough before spellcheckers and I think it has just gotten worse.
The same can apply to calc.exe. How many people whip that out now instead of just doing simple subtraction to balance their checkbook (or use another app that does it all for you)? When we don't exercise our brains we lose those skills over time; it's similar to muscle atrophy. Some IM clients include spell checkers now too so kids don't have to look as stupid to their peers when talking to them. Unfortunately they probably don't learn from the spell checker correcting them. I'm sure some students do (those who really care) but others will always just rely on the spell checker because it's the lazier way out.
I disagre. SS drives can be used in all desktops as the c: drive in Windows (and/or as the drive where you place your swap file) and as the/swap in Linux. For any system that needs swap, a SS drive is better than the traditional mechanical drive. I have a 80 gig stripe array of 2 drives being used as my c: drive on my desktop but I use a 320 mirror array of 2 drives being used for my data storage. Having a small stripe array be used for my system drive and swap space is nice. It would be even better if they were solid-state. Bottom line: just because SS drives have a low capacity doesn't mean they are relegated to certain setups. Using a SS drive as a system drive could be used by everyone.
I was quite slow with my iPhone keyboard till I started to be more trusting of what the spell checker will fix automatically, there's no mention of anything like this in the article.
I think a spell checker should be used more as a typo-checker than a spellchecker except for really unusual, strange, unique, rarely used words. A typo-checker will allow you to type faster but a spellchecker, especially for younger kids, just dumbs them down where they don't have to learn how to spell words because the computer does it for them. I can't believe how many words I've seen people misspell over the last few years: definitely, a lot, calendar, and many others. These are basic words for which spellcheckers shouldn't be needed but are automatically enabled anyway and thus fix the words. I would guess that in many cases a kid (or a 25 year old adult for that matter) doesn't even know he spelled a word wrong because the spellchecker caught it without informing him or him noticing it being fixed. Thus he never learns. Of course, maybe the worst case is someone who uses something like MS Word, has the redlines in their text denoting that *something* is wrong but never takes the time to fix it.
I was only reminding people that Democrats do it so it didn't turn into a one-sided issue.
And in doing so, you turned it into a polarizing issue, ending all possibility of useful discourse. Also the "but Timmy did it first" excuse didn't work in the second grade, and it doesn't work for politics.
I didn't turn it into anything. You seem to be the one who is polarizing the situation by accusing others of the problem and absolving yourself of all blame. Just because you didn't vote for Bush doesn't mean you aren't to blame for "running the country into the ground". Also, I never stated the Democrats did anything first. I just said they do it too. You can stop putting words in my mouth at anytime now.
At least people like me try to do the right thing,
By voting for Bush? Twice? You are evil. You voted for revoking the Constitution, twice. You voted for the deaths of about a million people in Iraq. You voted for the "best" candidate, knowing that he was going to do bad things because you didn't like the other guy. You caused evil. You defend that evil. Thus, you are evil. You can whine about how any other vote was wasted, not voting causes the problem, or whatever, but I didn't vote for Bush. You can't blame me for the evil he caused. However, you are not only responsible for the evil, you are defending it.
I didn't vote for what he ended up doing. I voted for what he said he would do and what he had done in the past concerning other issues. I voted for him because of the other issues he stands for. I didn't vote for him as the "best" knowing he was going to do "evil" things. I can't read people's minds to know what they are going to do despite your accusations to the contrary. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about if you think Bush is the evil one or me for that matter. What about the civilians killed by the terrorists 6 years ago? You have nothing to say about that? The people who killed them are the evil ones. You speak and act like you are the only righteous person alive. I feel sorry for your wife, if you are married. You can't blame me for the evil Bush has caused either. You seem to forget Congress has to authorize the decisions Bush makes. Why aren't you calling them evil?
I haven't found any estimates for the death toll to be any definitive number above 650k. Although that is a big number it is hardly a million people. I didn't vote for any of the deaths in Iraq but if it makes you feel any better to make obscene leaps in logic then you keep telling that to the voices in your head. In war, civilians die. That is the spoils of war. Our civilians were killed outside of war. There is no excuse for that. That is evil.
Look in the mirror if you want someone to blame because you don't like what is happening with the country.
Yes, because the evil done by Bush is caused by all those that didn't vote for him.
You think because you *didn't* vote that you are righteous? I can blame you for the "evil" he has caused because you didn't vote for anyone at all therefore you let him win. Thus you let him have the chance of committing evil acts knowing he would do so as long as he got re-elected. You stood by and let evil do its job. That makes you an accessory.
Great. You response is "incompetence is ok because Democrats do it too." First, you are admitting incompetence. Second, you are stating that you believe and expect the government to be incompetent. This means that you have purposefully voted for people you believe to be incompetent. I have heard many Bush supporters using such statements before voting for him a second time, so they knew what they were getting into. So, why are you voting for someone you know to be incompetent, rather than crying out for a better candidate? People like you, whether Republicans or Democrats, are the cause of the problem. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and you are purposefully running our country into the ground. Just because you think the other guy will run it into the ground too on a path you like less doesn't excuse you from purposefully running our country into the ground.
But thanks for patronising everyone else with your excuses while you do what you claim to hate.
No where did I state it was okay for Republicans to perform questionable acts because Democrats do it too. I was only reminding people that Democrats do it so it didn't turn into a one-sided issue. I don't admit anything let alone incompetence. You like drawing incorrect conclusions if you think just because I expect/believe the gov't to be incompetent that I have also voted for people in order to have a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even if I did vote for someone who later acted incompetently, that isn't my fault because I'm not responsible for their actions. You have no f*cking clue who I voted for and why so don't act like you dowhile throw insults around in the process. We all vote for who we *think* is the best candidate. We also all know just how much politicians lie to get voted into office only to show their true colors once in office. We also never really consider there to ever be a "best" candidate, just a lesser of 3 or 4 evils. Bush was the lesser of 2 evils way back when. Obviously those who voted for Gore (and later, Kerry) thought the opposite. Many people believe a Democract would be too scared to have fought back after 9/11 and are glad they voted for Bush despite other problems. We'll never know whether Gore or Kerry would have fought back.
If you don't vote at all you still aren't helping the situation. The only thing you can do at that point is blame everyone else, whoever they voted for, which is exactly what you are doing now. "It's not my fault, I didn't vote for anyone". That doesn't solve anything. You just like to blame other people without attempting to do anything about the problem on your own. Since you seem to know everything, how do you propose to go about not running the country into the ground when only given certain people to vote for as President?
I don't have to cry out for a better candidate because Bush can't be in office anymore after his current term is up so whether I wanted him to stay in office or not he will be out. I hope we can get someone better in there the next time but all we can do is hope; there is no guarantee. Thanks for being such an ass and claiming to be all knowing about everyone else while blaming them for the country's troubles and absolvng yourself of any blame. I don't purposely run the country into the ground despite what you have in your head. You don't know me so you know nothing. Those who do nothing have no room to speak so I'd suggest you be quiet. People like you are the problem because you don't do anything to solve the real problems. At least people like me try to do the right thing, whether we succeed is a different issue, but at least we tried. In the case of voting for President, once in office it is totally up to him what happens after that. Look in the mirror if you want someone to blame because you don't like what is happening with the country.
We need a commander-in-chief that doesn't abuse his position. Many are probably afraid to sign up, not wanting to be stuck on a ten-year tour-of-duty. We should have been in and out of Afghanistan in a few months, and we shouldn't have entered Iraq at all. We didn't have a single good reason to invade. Why would anyone want to sign up for an pointless war? Our soldiers should have the right to protect our country with honor.
Well, I'm sure the current folks out there risking their lives for the United States of America feel better after reading your diatribe. I'm sure it boosts their morale to know that some people believe they will die in vain and w/o honor. No one enlisting in the military signs up for war necessarily. They enlist to protect their country. That usually involves war but not always. If you are lucky when you enlist you never have to go to war but don't be surprised if your boss, the President, says it's time to go; it's in the job description. Also, remember that Congress has to approve going to war because it has to be funded. As far as abusing his position is concerned, he isn't the first and won't be the last so don't act like he is alone. The democrats *cough*Clinton*cough* do it too.
Moreover, why is ANYONE "against" convergence? Seriously? Do you really WANT to be carrying around a camera, a phone, a PDA, and a laptop?
Who needs all 4 of those devices at the same time? For that matter, if you have the phone and laptop why would you need the PDA? I've never *needed* more than 1 of those at a time but I do carry around a phone when I have a laptop. I don't own a PDA and when I get a camera it's going to be one that gives me a lot more than one embedded in a phone. Did you ever stop to think why digital cameras don't include a phone? There is a good reason. It's STUPID. If you are important enough (or the job is) to *need* all those you probably need some quality and flexibility and having all 4, or even 2 of them, in the same device hardly guarantees you either.
Yesterday, when I got an email from my advisor. Thankfully, I had my iPhone at the ready and it was quite capable of opening the document. I was able to answer her question immediately and it made me look like I was really on top of things. I guess that makes me "insane."
Being on top of things means you wouldn't even have to open the document because you would have everything in your head and have no need to look it up. W/o the iPhone you simply could have told your advisor that you can provide the answer as soon as you get back to your office. Since you still had to look it up all you did was show that you had quick access to it. Not much different than just letting her wait until you had traditional (computer) access to the document. We are creating a culture that wants everything instantly. Whatever happened to patience?
The functionality of this helmet is impressive, but I do take issue with the idea that because it looks good (does it?) it "kinda makes you wish you were in the army." There are potentially a lot of reasons to want to be in the military, but the way a helmet LOOKs should NOT be one of them.
For anyone over 18, no that should not be the reason but for little kids who want to grow up to be a soldier/sailor/pilot, there isn't anything wrong with having something that stokes their interest so that they grow up to have actual, serious reasons for joining the military.
Slashdot Mirror
a couple weeks after Leopard was released. I got it from Newegg so Tiger was on it. I upgraded to Leopard and I haven't had any issues but I'm a new Mac user and don't have that many 3rd party apps (just Firefox, Thunderbird, and Yahoo Messenger) installed. The upgrade went w/o a hitch too. I'm still learning about the OS but I have 10 years of Linux and Windows experience but since it is my laptop, and therefore not my main PC, I don't use it that much. Anecdotal I know, but then so is the article.
Some people (IT and CxO especially) have one each for work and personal use.
Because of the connotations society has attached to the word and others like it. That's why. You don't ever state why you think it *should* be common. As others have pointed out, the connotations are a combination of crudeness and lack of respect. Why should someone believe anything you say if you don't talk with respect? Anyone can say fuck especially college students. It's such a common word in dorm rooms and bars that I really have to question the intelligence of people who act like "fuck" is the only adjective/verb/adverb/etc. in existence.
The words you use, your children (if you have any), and the people you are friends with are a reflection of you just like you are a reflection of your friends. Not once have I heard a good reason for why certain words like "fuck" should be used instead of less disrespectful words. I can tell you that any movie with that word in it is made better by *not* including the word at all. It's a word that is just not needed but is still used by people who just don't have a vocabulary large enough to have any other word at their disposal. All words come with implications, definitions and connotations; that's the point of a language. When you realize that you *might* realize why certain words have a place in society and why others do not even though they merely exist as a collection of symbols at their simplest level.
Do you say "fuck" when talking to your mother? What about your kids (if you have any or would you if you did)? Do you say it at work? Do you say it in front of strangers? What about in front of women? If you answered no to any of those then I have to ask why if you think it should be so common.
Because the speed of light affects atomic decay and there is proof the speed of light has always been decreasing, radiocarbon dating of fossils and anything else is put into question. Not to say the values are wrong, but they aren't the final values because they don't take into account the fact that c has always been decaying which changes the carbon date results. Gary Setterfield has a ton of information on this topic on his site along with referenced research papers for those who think evolution (which needs millions/billions of years) is unquestionably correct. A timeline matching up traditional geological ages with the real ages of the universe is also on his site here which seems to be appropriate for this story. If anyone has some sites that refute these claims I'd like to read them.
Any channel that has to rely on content like that must be targeting the trailer trash because only the trailer trash really don't care about their own language and will say whatever they want around anyone because they don't care. For them, "fuck" is as common as "the" so they feel right at home watching FX. It's sad that people don't realize their language is a reflection upon themselves (and they don't care if their kids hear it either) and endorsing FX and others like it is a moral issue that will only exacerbate the problem. FX must be desperate if they have to rely on filth like that.
Is it the individual which ends up accumulating the extra knowledge (from being taught) so it continues from generation to generation or is it society as a whole that keeps the collection of information from shrinking (multiple individuals required)?
If I was actually doing something questionable where I thought someone would care enough to listen to what I am doing or what I have to say then I might consider that. As it is, I don't worry about it and even if I was type where I'd worry about it on the principle of the matter, the fact is I won't ever see the person doing the sniffing (b/c I'm not doing anything wrong) so they can listen to my boring chats all they want. Just my opinion. By the way, out of curiousity, you don't think someone hearing you say "we're out of milk" is their business. You aren't the type of person to use your cell phone in public with an "outside" voice when you are inside so everyone can hear you, are you? I just want to make sure you are consistent with what is other people's business.
the first is, as someone already stated, we aren't sending out photons to these distant objects to observe them. The photons come to us so the common way of observing something (hitting it with a photon) isn't being done in this case and in fact the opposite is occurring which means we aren't affecting it.
Second, (this is a long one) I'm currently reading "Decoding the Universe" by Charles Seife and he discusses information theory and how it relates to quantum and relativity theory. An interesting thing he discusses is decoherence and how a cat can't be in superposition but an atom can.
The problem is that decoherence happens too fast for us to measure the superposition for a cat compared to an atom. To prevent decoherence from happening you have to prevent something in the environment from interacting with it, that is to put the object in a complete vaccuum and cool it to absolute zero. This slows down and minimizes the chance of a particle interacting with the object you want in superposition. The bigger and warmer the object the harder it is to cool it, put it in a vaccuum, and prevent any atomic particle from hitting it. That's why cats and anything else on the macroscopic scale can't be in superposition.
Seife states that observing particles can actually slow radioactive decay because the observation continually resets its superposition but sometimes it will still decay. What makes it decay? Nature is making measurements too using vaccum flutuations (at the quantum level). Sometimes during the observation of the vaccuum flutuation the superposition collapses in a way to make the atom split (decay). Finally, my conclusion is that if Nature is making observations then the fact that we are observing supernovae shouldn't affect them anymore than Nature is already affecting them and the universe as a whole.
Why not? People like you seem so convinced of mutations prior to birth leading to a new species so what's so outrageous about post-birth mutations? Do you just feel like being in an arbitrary mood today? Cells are multiplying all the time (beginning when the zygote forms), why does it matter they do so on either side of the birth event? Evolution never removes anything from the organism; why is that? Not everything an organism has is useful for survival so why would a mutation only add something? Besides, we have no first-hand evidence that mutations have ever created a new species so stating evolution even exists is a stretch to say the least. All we know is that mutations occur and andy other cause/effect relationship is purely speculation.
I agree, considering how safe gasoline is next to a flame (cigarette anyone?).
Yeah we can't move it offshore nor just simply offsite to workers' homes because the information is sensitive in many cases. That rules out telecommuting for some people (both gov't and contract people).
Nice spin, unfortunately for you it is just that, spin. They aren't children when they go to war and they voluntarily sign up for the military knowing that "war" is in the job description. If they don't want to face the possibility of dying in a war scenario they shouldn't sign up. Acting like they are snatched from their mother's home in the middle of the night and put on a plane to a war-torn area of the world is spin that you should be ashamed of.
Bingo. There are a few problems that exist: the media makes money off fear with society as the target of the fear, political correctness, and sexual indoctrination of children. In this case of the Sesame Street DVD, I agree with someone else that this is a political correctness issue. Too many people (especially on this site) blame everything on the conservatives during times of censorship because they must be wrong under the assumption that the liberals are correct. Oddly enough, its the liberals who, in many cases, attempt to pass something off as "appropriate for all ages" which kicks in the conservative reaction that not everything is appropriate for all ages. That describes the problem of sexual indoctrination of children. In this case though it's just an insane level of political correctness. Unfortunately, parents who don't know how to raise kids are some of the people who support what other parents believe is the problem. In situations like that the media and the government isn't always the sole source of the problem.
A larger portion of their income is going towards gasoline. Heating oil prices have gone up as well which will decrease the amount of money pumped into the retail sector.
No, it's not the holiday shopping season (whatever the hell that even means) that can make or break a retailer's year. Christmas is what makes or breaks a retailer's year. When did we forget that? Retailers still use Christmas music and props along with Santa Claus in their commercials but why they refuse to reference Christmas by name when they make billions off it is beyond me. Give credit where credit is due.
Thanks for the response. I don't think it is an issue of whether there is ever going to be a time when we would create something that is hand-written and therefore not have the advantage of a spell/typo checker. However it is the principle of the matter. People need to know how to spell. If they know how to spell then a spell checker really does become a typo checker. They can worry less about whether any words were spelled wrong. They can be more confident in their writing. If people paid attention to the spell checker to learn why a word was misspelled then it wouldn't detract from people learning because it would just be another learning tool but I don't think many people do this. Spelling was bad enough before spellcheckers and I think it has just gotten worse.
The same can apply to calc.exe. How many people whip that out now instead of just doing simple subtraction to balance their checkbook (or use another app that does it all for you)? When we don't exercise our brains we lose those skills over time; it's similar to muscle atrophy. Some IM clients include spell checkers now too so kids don't have to look as stupid to their peers when talking to them. Unfortunately they probably don't learn from the spell checker correcting them. I'm sure some students do (those who really care) but others will always just rely on the spell checker because it's the lazier way out.
I disagre. SS drives can be used in all desktops as the c: drive in Windows (and/or as the drive where you place your swap file) and as the /swap in Linux. For any system that needs swap, a SS drive is better than the traditional mechanical drive. I have a 80 gig stripe array of 2 drives being used as my c: drive on my desktop but I use a 320 mirror array of 2 drives being used for my data storage. Having a small stripe array be used for my system drive and swap space is nice. It would be even better if they were solid-state. Bottom line: just because SS drives have a low capacity doesn't mean they are relegated to certain setups. Using a SS drive as a system drive could be used by everyone.
I think a spell checker should be used more as a typo-checker than a spellchecker except for really unusual, strange, unique, rarely used words. A typo-checker will allow you to type faster but a spellchecker, especially for younger kids, just dumbs them down where they don't have to learn how to spell words because the computer does it for them. I can't believe how many words I've seen people misspell over the last few years: definitely, a lot, calendar, and many others. These are basic words for which spellcheckers shouldn't be needed but are automatically enabled anyway and thus fix the words. I would guess that in many cases a kid (or a 25 year old adult for that matter) doesn't even know he spelled a word wrong because the spellchecker caught it without informing him or him noticing it being fixed. Thus he never learns. Of course, maybe the worst case is someone who uses something like MS Word, has the redlines in their text denoting that *something* is wrong but never takes the time to fix it.
I didn't turn it into anything. You seem to be the one who is polarizing the situation by accusing others of the problem and absolving yourself of all blame. Just because you didn't vote for Bush doesn't mean you aren't to blame for "running the country into the ground". Also, I never stated the Democrats did anything first. I just said they do it too. You can stop putting words in my mouth at anytime now.
At least people like me try to do the right thing, By voting for Bush? Twice? You are evil. You voted for revoking the Constitution, twice. You voted for the deaths of about a million people in Iraq. You voted for the "best" candidate, knowing that he was going to do bad things because you didn't like the other guy. You caused evil. You defend that evil. Thus, you are evil. You can whine about how any other vote was wasted, not voting causes the problem, or whatever, but I didn't vote for Bush. You can't blame me for the evil he caused. However, you are not only responsible for the evil, you are defending it.I didn't vote for what he ended up doing. I voted for what he said he would do and what he had done in the past concerning other issues. I voted for him because of the other issues he stands for. I didn't vote for him as the "best" knowing he was going to do "evil" things. I can't read people's minds to know what they are going to do despite your accusations to the contrary. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about if you think Bush is the evil one or me for that matter. What about the civilians killed by the terrorists 6 years ago? You have nothing to say about that? The people who killed them are the evil ones. You speak and act like you are the only righteous person alive. I feel sorry for your wife, if you are married. You can't blame me for the evil Bush has caused either. You seem to forget Congress has to authorize the decisions Bush makes. Why aren't you calling them evil?
I haven't found any estimates for the death toll to be any definitive number above 650k. Although that is a big number it is hardly a million people. I didn't vote for any of the deaths in Iraq but if it makes you feel any better to make obscene leaps in logic then you keep telling that to the voices in your head. In war, civilians die. That is the spoils of war. Our civilians were killed outside of war. There is no excuse for that. That is evil.
Look in the mirror if you want someone to blame because you don't like what is happening with the country. Yes, because the evil done by Bush is caused by all those that didn't vote for him.You think because you *didn't* vote that you are righteous? I can blame you for the "evil" he has caused because you didn't vote for anyone at all therefore you let him win. Thus you let him have the chance of committing evil acts knowing he would do so as long as he got re-elected. You stood by and let evil do its job. That makes you an accessory.
No where did I state it was okay for Republicans to perform questionable acts because Democrats do it too. I was only reminding people that Democrats do it so it didn't turn into a one-sided issue. I don't admit anything let alone incompetence. You like drawing incorrect conclusions if you think just because I expect/believe the gov't to be incompetent that I have also voted for people in order to have a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even if I did vote for someone who later acted incompetently, that isn't my fault because I'm not responsible for their actions. You have no f*cking clue who I voted for and why so don't act like you dowhile throw insults around in the process. We all vote for who we *think* is the best candidate. We also all know just how much politicians lie to get voted into office only to show their true colors once in office. We also never really consider there to ever be a "best" candidate, just a lesser of 3 or 4 evils. Bush was the lesser of 2 evils way back when. Obviously those who voted for Gore (and later, Kerry) thought the opposite. Many people believe a Democract would be too scared to have fought back after 9/11 and are glad they voted for Bush despite other problems. We'll never know whether Gore or Kerry would have fought back.
If you don't vote at all you still aren't helping the situation. The only thing you can do at that point is blame everyone else, whoever they voted for, which is exactly what you are doing now. "It's not my fault, I didn't vote for anyone". That doesn't solve anything. You just like to blame other people without attempting to do anything about the problem on your own. Since you seem to know everything, how do you propose to go about not running the country into the ground when only given certain people to vote for as President?
I don't have to cry out for a better candidate because Bush can't be in office anymore after his current term is up so whether I wanted him to stay in office or not he will be out. I hope we can get someone better in there the next time but all we can do is hope; there is no guarantee. Thanks for being such an ass and claiming to be all knowing about everyone else while blaming them for the country's troubles and absolvng yourself of any blame. I don't purposely run the country into the ground despite what you have in your head. You don't know me so you know nothing. Those who do nothing have no room to speak so I'd suggest you be quiet. People like you are the problem because you don't do anything to solve the real problems. At least people like me try to do the right thing, whether we succeed is a different issue, but at least we tried. In the case of voting for President, once in office it is totally up to him what happens after that. Look in the mirror if you want someone to blame because you don't like what is happening with the country.
Well, I'm sure the current folks out there risking their lives for the United States of America feel better after reading your diatribe. I'm sure it boosts their morale to know that some people believe they will die in vain and w/o honor. No one enlisting in the military signs up for war necessarily. They enlist to protect their country. That usually involves war but not always. If you are lucky when you enlist you never have to go to war but don't be surprised if your boss, the President, says it's time to go; it's in the job description. Also, remember that Congress has to approve going to war because it has to be funded. As far as abusing his position is concerned, he isn't the first and won't be the last so don't act like he is alone. The democrats *cough*Clinton*cough* do it too.
Is this how we attract the teenagers to technology now? Include a free condom? ;)
Who needs all 4 of those devices at the same time? For that matter, if you have the phone and laptop why would you need the PDA? I've never *needed* more than 1 of those at a time but I do carry around a phone when I have a laptop. I don't own a PDA and when I get a camera it's going to be one that gives me a lot more than one embedded in a phone. Did you ever stop to think why digital cameras don't include a phone? There is a good reason. It's STUPID. If you are important enough (or the job is) to *need* all those you probably need some quality and flexibility and having all 4, or even 2 of them, in the same device hardly guarantees you either.
Yesterday, when I got an email from my advisor. Thankfully, I had my iPhone at the ready and it was quite capable of opening the document. I was able to answer her question immediately and it made me look like I was really on top of things. I guess that makes me "insane."Being on top of things means you wouldn't even have to open the document because you would have everything in your head and have no need to look it up. W/o the iPhone you simply could have told your advisor that you can provide the answer as soon as you get back to your office. Since you still had to look it up all you did was show that you had quick access to it. Not much different than just letting her wait until you had traditional (computer) access to the document. We are creating a culture that wants everything instantly. Whatever happened to patience?
For anyone over 18, no that should not be the reason but for little kids who want to grow up to be a soldier/sailor/pilot, there isn't anything wrong with having something that stokes their interest so that they grow up to have actual, serious reasons for joining the military.