As a med student, I couldn't be more pleased about this. Hopefully by the time I get out there, they'll have these standard in hospitals. And, more importantly, part of the standard of care, so when they screw up, I wont be sued.
Have you ever tried to see a small diffuse tumor on an X-ray before? It take a Jedi mind trick on just to convince yourself they're there.
X-rays are cheap, fast, and awesome for bones/opaque liquids, but my eyeballs can't see loose tissue worth a crap.
>Oddly It does not actually go on the books as debt even but it is a liability.
Wait hold on, I thought liability was another word for debt, in accounting terms... .
And wasn't the USA PATRIOT act written almost entirely by democrats and republicans in congress? Wasn't there a ton of that nazi crap we hate thrown amended in there by democrats ? Google the "USA" in "USA PATRIOT" act.
A lot of democrats voted for the current bailout, and most of the people who changed their votes in the house were dems too.
>Bzzzt, thank you for playing. Freddie Mac was creating in 1970 under Nixon.
Wow, you need to learn to google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac#History From 1938 to 1968, the secondary mortgage market in the United States was monopolized by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), which was a government agency during that period. In 1968, to help balance the federal budget, part of Fannie Mae was converted to a private corporation. To provide competition in the secondary mortgage market, and to end Fannie Mae's monopoly, Congress chartered Freddie Mac as a private corporation.
Looks like Dems did create both, it was just rearranged under Nixon. I don't like republicans either, but I like reading.
AFAIK, they "get you" by joining the network as a peer and then writing down all the IPs that send them pieces of the torrent.
I don't think they do it by monitoring network traffic--that would be a pain in the butt.
It's not hard to gain access to many of these networks, and their real goal is just to slow piracy (stopping it is a little far out). All they really need to do to slow it is start suing users and the rest will run scared, like they did with Kazaa et al. Real pirates will go underground, for sure, but they wont have as much of an impact on sales as say, Napster.
The one and only problem with biofuels (apart from the fact that they produce as much greenhouse gas as petroleum products) is and always has been that we really like our food prices low, and diverting food to vehicle fuel increases the demand and therefore price.
In fact, the main factor in the current food price increase is not oil prices or inflation (though they're helping), it's actually the higher demand for corn due to ethanol subsidies for vehicles [citation: The Economist magazine].
Making more biofuel will increase food prices which is probably not a good idea from a political standpoint. What we need to do is continue to work on hydrogen tech--the main hurdle being the low energy density. Hydrogen is chiefly derived from extracting it from water using electricity (thermodynamics states this does not "create" energy, just change its form).
At present, per joule, electricity (which can be converted into hydrogen energy) is 1/4 the cost of gasoline. Obviously, as with food prices, that would change if we were using electricity to fuel our cars. However, it still may ultimately be less costly to switch over to hydrogen (or some other pure electric car).
Fox claims to be a professional news organization. Slashdot doesn't, and in fact just takes stories from anybody... no real journalism involved.
Define "professional".. and while you're at it, define 'real journalism'.
There are no real active peer reviewers anywhere, and no real consequences for printing falsehoods unless they're just totally false and against someone very powerful. If Dan Rather hadn't actually shown those fake Bush Nat'l Guard records on national television (60 minutes), would anybody have ever figured it out?
Jason Blair worked for the New York Times printing bogus stories for at least a year before he was found out. What if he'd just been more careful?
I don't think there is a line between 'real' journalists and bloggers, and that's not to say that I think bloggers have especially high integrity or professionalism, either. There is no real distinction between the two.
This is my personal favorite. It explains that the expansion of governmental power has been going on for quite some time, sighting specific examples and laws.
IMHO, in this day in age, there is no such thing anymore as job loyalty (from either party), nor job security. If that is the case, then the two main things that would draw a person to a direct, salaried job are gone. That being the case, you might as well contract.
But that would involve taking responsibility for my own welfare and treating my labor and their money like it's some sort of 'thing' to be 'traded'!
No, I'm afraid a much simpler, 'fairer', and efficient solution is to get some fancy-pants lawyer to sue the crap out of the employer I hate so much and yet am unwilling to leave. In the process, the lawyer will make tons of money, the company will have to cut a few jobs to pay for the legal fees on both sides, but at least I'll get half of what I asked for and they'll get their comeupance!
Seriously though, you point out that 'in this day and age' there is no loyalty on either side. I'd say that's partially a reflection of the unwillingness of workers to ask for (demand?) what they're worth. Labor is a business transaction, you shouldn't hate your business partners or let them treat you 'unfairly'. Get a good idea if what you should be paid, ask for it, and leave if you don't get it.
I read an article a few years ago comparing jobs now as opposed to 20 years prior. It said that fewer employees are asking for raises but theft by employees is way up. It quantified the two and estimated that the employers are probably coming out ahead. People are less willing to play by the rules and just play hard; they have this impression that the only way to get ahead is to bend or break them.
What would you think if just about every retail TV sold had a Kodak DVD player bundled with it? What if you didn't WANT a Kodak DVD player?
If it took 1-2 hours to plug in and configure a DVD player, and the TV couldn't work without one, I'd expect the TV to be bundled with one.
A computer needs an OS to run and it takes me about an hour (a 'regular' person 2 - 3hrs) to install, update, and configure an OS.
Is it unreasonable for a computer to be bundled with an OS? Of course not. Windows is, by far, the most popular OS out there, it should come with that.
But even so, it's hard to see how anyone could possibly find it justified at this point in time. If it weren't for the DMCA, we could get it by show off of YouTube...Clearly there is no technical limitation.
Oh? Well if you don't mind watching it on youtube--with crappy sound and resolution--sure, there's no technical problem.
However, if we all wanted even NTSC resolution/sound fidelity at fairly good bitrate and framerate (read: better than iTunes), we would be in a world of sh!t.
There really isn't enough bandwidth to give everyone On-demand high-quality TV. There was a smart guy from google a while back pointing this out in an article (which I have conveniently misplaced).
The problem is, intuitively, that if you have 400 cable channels going to 1 million subscribers, that's only 400 signals at whatever bitrate. If you had on demand, however, that would be 1 million signals at that same bitrate (everyone needs their own, because nobody's watching the same thing at the same time).
Especially now, when people are demanding high definition, on-demand video is either for low-res or bust.
A better lawsuit, and something I've always wanted, is for cable companies to make EVERYONE get a cable box, and you pay for each channel you want to watch. CNN alone, for instance, is costing you around $4/month (when my parents' cable company raised TV prices, they sent them a letter stating as such).
You forget that the US has suspended habeus corpus and has indeed made it illegal to criticize the government in the past. Some of those laws were temporary, but laws like the Smith Act, which make it illegal to even advocate violent overthrow of the US gov't, are still around.
This is a big issue for me. I can't believe people are so shortsighted they think The Patriot Act was the first real loss of freedom in this country.
I see people ranting and raving about civil liberties nowadays and think "Where have you been?" I wont pick on specific groups except to say people are vehemently opposed to one candidate based on civil liberties only to vote for others who have records that are still bad.
My point is, we've been losing freedoms for a long time and it's not exclusive to a single party being in power. Here's a quote from former attorney general and later Supreme Court justice, Robert H Jackson in 1940--61 years before USA PATRIOT Act.:
With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.
I think it's counterproductive to focus on just the Patriot Act and other 'recent' laws when the roots of authoritarianism in this country run far more deep. Once people really understand how much and how long they've been screwing us, they can really grasp how much needs to be changed.
Tissue rejection isn't an issue with heart valves (one of the few tissues where it's not a problem).
The problem with heart valves is that if you replace one with, say, a pig valve, it won't grow. For adults, this is not a problem, but for kids, it means they'll have to have a replacement in a few years as their heart literally grows out of the valve(s).
This new grow-your-own approach would probably be best for children. For adults, however, heart valve replacement is actually fairly routine and requires no anti-rejection drugs afterwards.
The american people couldn't revolt their way out of a paper bag.
You know, there's something called the Smith Act which makes it illegal to knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association..
This was passed in 1940, and is still around today. I just looked it up to fact-check myself, I didn't know it spread to advocacy too... man I wish I could delete comments in slashdot. Yikes.
Luckily for most Americans, the polls show almost nobody is even close to caring enough about our shift towards authoritarianism to want to start a revolt. Did I read somewhere that 63% of Americans support NSA wiretaps?
Here is a video going over what we've lost, mostly in the past 60 years.
Now that we've picked on America, I think it should be said that much of the rest of the world is walking with us down this road. Here is a graphical illustration of this (created by The Economist magazine), just consisting of those things that happened after 9/11.
Right now, the opposition party has failed in it's watchdog duties.
Political parties have no duties, only the need and desire to keep themselves in power. Congress (controlled by Democrats) has one of the lowest approval ratings ever at present. They aren't pushing for anything now.
But perhaps they couldn't. Perhaps what you perceive as a choice between 10 better ways on their part is a choice, but at the same time the choice they made is the only choice they could have made. You choose to think otherwise, but do you really have a choice in thinking you have a choice, did you choose to have a choice, or did you decide anyway?
Freewill is a myth. I didn't choose to have this headache.
The mini's a very entry-level Mac. It can be used as a media center and for basic use. It's not a hardcore gaming machine.
Correct! Worthless for gaming.
The iMac is the mid-range desktop solution, it comes with an OK graphics card.
Actually, it comes with a crappy graphics card which is actually slower than the card in the previous iMac line.
The old 24" iMacs had a GeForce 7300GT standard, which is faster, in most cases, than the top graphics card in the new iMacs (ATI HD 2600 Pro). It could also be upgraded, for a fee, to the 7600GT, which demolishes the 2600 Pro in nearly every game it's tested on. Whenever the 2600 does beat the 7300/7600GT, it's usually by tiny increments.
Since I can remember, Apple has included benchmarks of their iMac vs the previous model on their apple.com/imac product page. This is notably absent from the current product page, and it's pretty obvious why.
The Power Mac is a powerhouse, but it's mostly for professionals.
Actually, they call it a 'Mac Pro' now, and all the graphics cards (Quadro 4500, GeForce 7300, Radeon X1900) are all at least 19 months old (they were all released around January of 2006).
Apple NEEDS to fix this. Regardless, this is not supposed to be a gaming rig. At $2500, you could get something way better for games for 20% less.
The Macbook is somewhere between the Mini and the iMac. It's the entry level mobile platform.
You neglected to mention its video card: Intel GMA--worthless for gaming.
The Macbook Pro is the professional powerhouse mobile offering. It has a pretty good (DX10 actually) video card.
Yeah, it's great... for a laptop. This is probably the only Apple product I'd say includes a proper video card.
My point is not to disagree with you, but to point out that the reason EA and other companies don't make games is that out of the top selling mac computers (Mac Mini, Macbook, Macbook Pro, iMac), only one has a decent graphics card.
Apple has a tiny market share, and only a small portion of those users have a computer capable of running the latest games. The latter is Apple's fault. If Apple were to start including better cards, the image of quality over PCs they try to project would be much more truthful.
The iMac is especially sad, because even though they have packages going for $1500, $1800, and $2300 they all include a mediocre video card. This really represents a terrible bargain. Not only that, but Apple downgraded the video cards in their latest model.
I'd be willing to wager that EA's broken promise was partially due to a divestment in the Mac ports due to the insanely crappy nature of the new Macbook, Mac Mini, and iMac specs.
Why release games to a market which can't even run them?
Forcing everything to be arbitrated on a case-by-case basis would mean that the cost to consumers of recovering whatever they've been screwed out of was hundreds or thousands of times the amount recovered. Which means that nobody would actually get compensated, nor would AT&T (or whoever) ever suffer enough costs to deter bad behavior.
Yes, but everyone who did get paid would probably get what they deserve.
Most class action law suits do next to nothing for the plaintiffs and everything for the lawyer, which is why lawyers doing the suits advertise on television to make the class action impossible to fight.
The most unique feature of the new MGVs is that the traditional engine has been decoupled from the drive train and is used only to recharge the battery and power other systems within the vehicle.
M1 Abrams tanks have a turbine engine that is hooked directly into a generator which powers a 1500 hp (1119 kW) electric motor.
It is high time this crap about settlements stopped.
Well most lawsuits against IT companies are BS or unprovable anyway.
Also, there's a thing called 'limited liability' which, among other things, means nobody in the company can be sued for the company's actions. In this sue-for-all age of lawyers extorting anybody of means, the importance if limited liability seems more obvious.
Limited liability is what takes enough of the fear away from people to start their own businesses and be successful. It's a tough pill to swallow, but I think it's worth it.
the Bush administration just rammed a [bad] bill through Congress
Even when the democrats control congress, Bush still has to be responsible for everything. Amazing. How did he do it, I wonder? I know he has a slightly less dismal approval rating (lowest since Hoover), but does that really amount to political capital?
I don't like him either, but it seems like we're being counterproductive to ignore the fact that both the major parties are responsible. Once you lose your fear of the worst of two evil candidates getting into power, they'll either start paying attention, or they'll lose. Personally, I have never voted for a republican or a democrat. I may make an exception for Ron Paul.
Much as I like the second amendment, some people are going to have to learn that the right to bear arms is a little fucking vague, and could do with a little polish after 200 years of wear and tear.
Vague? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory: 'The people' need as much firepower as would be necessary to ward off an army sent by the federal government. The founders differed on the specifics, but they all agreed on that.
John Adams said it should be a militia run by the STATES.
Somewhere back in the early 1900's, someone decided that 'militia' meant 'National Guard'. At the time, this seemed alright, because the Nat'l guards were run by the states. Ike Eisenhower, however, decided that the notion of states having rights was just too scary for the ever-expanding federal government to deal with, so the feds took control. Now, we have much of our supposed 'well regulated militia' in Iraq.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
A lot of people think that guns are for hunting. The NRA actually gives a negative rating to candidates who are 'too pro gun' (look at Ron Paul's rating). If guns were only for sport, I'd say it'd be woefully irresponsible for them to be legal.
Guns are not for sport, however, they're first and foremost for killing other human beings when they are screwing around. Since people continue to screw around, it should be apparently obvious that guns are still necessary. Does anyone actually think they're going to give us our rights back willingly?
>You must work in a really boring field. If someone makes a deceitful argument, I would hope they would be exposed as a liar, not simply contradicted. And I don't mind reading colourful prose, rather than the dead academic passive voice.
The 'colorful prose' is a great litmus test for bullshit. If a scientist reveals data on a subject on global warming and then details what (s)he thinks to be the effects which are outside the scope of their expertise, my bullshit detector goes ape sh*t.
Economic impacts and massive changes in human history are not for climate scientists to say. I'm relieved when they do, however, as it lets me know that there's a great chance that their data was collected to prove their point, rather than the other way around. It really simplifies the process when they basically tell you to ignore their data before you have even read it yet.
A 'good scientist' would be equally interested in data that disproves their theories as data that verifies them. I seriously doubt Hansen is a 'good scientist', by this definition.
Slashdot Mirror
As a med student, I couldn't be more pleased about this. Hopefully by the time I get out there, they'll have these standard in hospitals. And, more importantly, part of the standard of care, so when they screw up, I wont be sued.
Have you ever tried to see a small diffuse tumor on an X-ray before? It take a Jedi mind trick on just to convince yourself they're there.
X-rays are cheap, fast, and awesome for bones/opaque liquids, but my eyeballs can't see loose tissue worth a crap.
>Oddly It does not actually go on the books as debt even but it is a liability.
Wait hold on, I thought liability was another word for debt, in accounting terms. .. .
And wasn't the USA PATRIOT act written almost entirely by democrats and republicans in congress? Wasn't there a ton of that nazi crap we hate thrown amended in there by democrats ? Google the "USA" in "USA PATRIOT" act.
A lot of democrats voted for the current bailout, and most of the people who changed their votes in the house were dems too.
Not saying the republicans are better... but...
>Bzzzt, thank you for playing. Freddie Mac was creating in 1970 under Nixon.
Wow, you need to learn to google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac#History
From 1938 to 1968, the secondary mortgage market in the United States was monopolized by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), which was a government agency during that period. In 1968, to help balance the federal budget, part of Fannie Mae was converted to a private corporation. To provide competition in the secondary mortgage market, and to end Fannie Mae's monopoly, Congress chartered Freddie Mac as a private corporation.
Looks like Dems did create both, it was just rearranged under Nixon. I don't like republicans either, but I like reading.
>Do you work for the Republican campaign? I only ask because such blatant cherry-picking of the facts to suit your own position is a party trademark.
Hey, I found his post insightful.. It was full of real facts.
Is that impossible? I mean if OP is right, does that make you wrong? Because it seems you're right as well.
All his facts check out. I'm sure yours do too.
Between the two of you, we can plainly see it took a bipartisan effort to F up this country. INCONCEIVABLE!
Why encrypt pirate traffic?
AFAIK, they "get you" by joining the network as a peer and then writing down all the IPs that send them pieces of the torrent.
I don't think they do it by monitoring network traffic--that would be a pain in the butt.
It's not hard to gain access to many of these networks, and their real goal is just to slow piracy (stopping it is a little far out). All they really need to do to slow it is start suing users and the rest will run scared, like they did with Kazaa et al. Real pirates will go underground, for sure, but they wont have as much of an impact on sales as say, Napster.
The one and only problem with biofuels (apart from the fact that they produce as much greenhouse gas as petroleum products) is and always has been that we really like our food prices low, and diverting food to vehicle fuel increases the demand and therefore price.
In fact, the main factor in the current food price increase is not oil prices or inflation (though they're helping), it's actually the higher demand for corn due to ethanol subsidies for vehicles [citation: The Economist magazine].
Making more biofuel will increase food prices which is probably not a good idea from a political standpoint. What we need to do is continue to work on hydrogen tech--the main hurdle being the low energy density. Hydrogen is chiefly derived from extracting it from water using electricity (thermodynamics states this does not "create" energy, just change its form).
At present, per joule, electricity (which can be converted into hydrogen energy) is 1/4 the cost of gasoline. Obviously, as with food prices, that would change if we were using electricity to fuel our cars. However, it still may ultimately be less costly to switch over to hydrogen (or some other pure electric car).
Fox claims to be a professional news organization. Slashdot doesn't, and in fact just takes stories from anybody ... no real journalism involved.
Define "professional".. and while you're at it, define 'real journalism'.
There are no real active peer reviewers anywhere, and no real consequences for printing falsehoods unless they're just totally false and against someone very powerful. If Dan Rather hadn't actually shown those fake Bush Nat'l Guard records on national television (60 minutes), would anybody have ever figured it out?
Jason Blair worked for the New York Times printing bogus stories for at least a year before he was found out. What if he'd just been more careful?
I don't think there is a line between 'real' journalists and bloggers, and that's not to say that I think bloggers have especially high integrity or professionalism, either. There is no real distinction between the two.
This is my personal favorite. It explains that the expansion of governmental power has been going on for quite some time, sighting specific examples and laws.
IMHO, in this day in age, there is no such thing anymore as job loyalty (from either party), nor job security. If that is the case, then the two main things that would draw a person to a direct, salaried job are gone. That being the case, you might as well contract.
But that would involve taking responsibility for my own welfare and treating my labor and their money like it's some sort of 'thing' to be 'traded'!
No, I'm afraid a much simpler, 'fairer', and efficient solution is to get some fancy-pants lawyer to sue the crap out of the employer I hate so much and yet am unwilling to leave. In the process, the lawyer will make tons of money, the company will have to cut a few jobs to pay for the legal fees on both sides, but at least I'll get half of what I asked for and they'll get their comeupance!
Seriously though, you point out that 'in this day and age' there is no loyalty on either side. I'd say that's partially a reflection of the unwillingness of workers to ask for (demand?) what they're worth. Labor is a business transaction, you shouldn't hate your business partners or let them treat you 'unfairly'. Get a good idea if what you should be paid, ask for it, and leave if you don't get it.
I read an article a few years ago comparing jobs now as opposed to 20 years prior. It said that fewer employees are asking for raises but theft by employees is way up. It quantified the two and estimated that the employers are probably coming out ahead. People are less willing to play by the rules and just play hard; they have this impression that the only way to get ahead is to bend or break them.
What would you think if just about every retail TV sold had a Kodak DVD player bundled with it? What if you didn't WANT a Kodak DVD player?
If it took 1-2 hours to plug in and configure a DVD player, and the TV couldn't work without one, I'd expect the TV to be bundled with one.
A computer needs an OS to run and it takes me about an hour (a 'regular' person 2 - 3hrs) to install, update, and configure an OS.
Is it unreasonable for a computer to be bundled with an OS? Of course not. Windows is, by far, the most popular OS out there, it should come with that.
But even so, it's hard to see how anyone could possibly find it justified at this point in time. If it weren't for the DMCA, we could get it by show off of YouTube...Clearly there is no technical limitation.
Oh? Well if you don't mind watching it on youtube--with crappy sound and resolution--sure, there's no technical problem.
However, if we all wanted even NTSC resolution/sound fidelity at fairly good bitrate and framerate (read: better than iTunes), we would be in a world of sh!t.
There really isn't enough bandwidth to give everyone On-demand high-quality TV. There was a smart guy from google a while back pointing this out in an article (which I have conveniently misplaced).
The problem is, intuitively, that if you have 400 cable channels going to 1 million subscribers, that's only 400 signals at whatever bitrate. If you had on demand, however, that would be 1 million signals at that same bitrate (everyone needs their own, because nobody's watching the same thing at the same time).
Especially now, when people are demanding high definition, on-demand video is either for low-res or bust.
A better lawsuit, and something I've always wanted, is for cable companies to make EVERYONE get a cable box, and you pay for each channel you want to watch. CNN alone, for instance, is costing you around $4/month (when my parents' cable company raised TV prices, they sent them a letter stating as such).
This is a big issue for me. I can't believe people are so shortsighted they think The Patriot Act was the first real loss of freedom in this country.
I see people ranting and raving about civil liberties nowadays and think "Where have you been?" I wont pick on specific groups except to say people are vehemently opposed to one candidate based on civil liberties only to vote for others who have records that are still bad.
My point is, we've been losing freedoms for a long time and it's not exclusive to a single party being in power. Here's a quote from former attorney general and later Supreme Court justice, Robert H Jackson in 1940--61 years before USA PATRIOT Act.:
-Robert H. Jackson
Realize this was back in 1940, when the federal body of law was half what it is today.
The Cato Institute had an extremely interesting talk on this subject.
I think it's counterproductive to focus on just the Patriot Act and other 'recent' laws when the roots of authoritarianism in this country run far more deep. Once people really understand how much and how long they've been screwing us, they can really grasp how much needs to be changed.
>He died playing WoW. Do I have any takers?
If that were true, I'd say his life just improved.
Tissue rejection isn't an issue with heart valves (one of the few tissues where it's not a problem).
The problem with heart valves is that if you replace one with, say, a pig valve, it won't grow. For adults, this is not a problem, but for kids, it means they'll have to have a replacement in a few years as their heart literally grows out of the valve(s).
This new grow-your-own approach would probably be best for children. For adults, however, heart valve replacement is actually fairly routine and requires no anti-rejection drugs afterwards.
The american people couldn't revolt their way out of a paper bag.
You know, there's something called the Smith Act which makes it illegal to knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association..
This was passed in 1940, and is still around today. I just looked it up to fact-check myself, I didn't know it spread to advocacy too... man I wish I could delete comments in slashdot. Yikes.
Luckily for most Americans, the polls show almost nobody is even close to caring enough about our shift towards authoritarianism to want to start a revolt. Did I read somewhere that 63% of Americans support NSA wiretaps?
Here is a video going over what we've lost, mostly in the past 60 years.
Now that we've picked on America, I think it should be said that much of the rest of the world is walking with us down this road. Here is a graphical illustration of this (created by The Economist magazine), just consisting of those things that happened after 9/11.
OK, well on the box, why don't they just say "Removes spyware, malware, viruses... and Zango"
Wouldn't that take care of the legal problem?
Right now, the opposition party has failed in it's watchdog duties.
Political parties have no duties, only the need and desire to keep themselves in power. Congress (controlled by Democrats) has one of the lowest approval ratings ever at present. They aren't pushing for anything now.
But perhaps they couldn't. Perhaps what you perceive as a choice between 10 better ways on their part is a choice, but at the same time the choice they made is the only choice they could have made. You choose to think otherwise, but do you really have a choice in thinking you have a choice, did you choose to have a choice, or did you decide anyway?
Freewill is a myth. I didn't choose to have this headache.
The mini's a very entry-level Mac. It can be used as a media center and for basic use. It's not a hardcore gaming machine.
Correct! Worthless for gaming.
The iMac is the mid-range desktop solution, it comes with an OK graphics card.
Actually, it comes with a crappy graphics card which is actually slower than the card in the previous iMac line.
The old 24" iMacs had a GeForce 7300GT standard, which is faster, in most cases, than the top graphics card in the new iMacs (ATI HD 2600 Pro). It could also be upgraded, for a fee, to the 7600GT, which demolishes the 2600 Pro in nearly every game it's tested on. Whenever the 2600 does beat the 7300/7600GT, it's usually by tiny increments.
Since I can remember, Apple has included benchmarks of their iMac vs the previous model on their apple.com/imac product page. This is notably absent from the current product page, and it's pretty obvious why.
The Power Mac is a powerhouse, but it's mostly for professionals.
Actually, they call it a 'Mac Pro' now, and all the graphics cards (Quadro 4500, GeForce 7300, Radeon X1900) are all at least 19 months old (they were all released around January of 2006).
Apple NEEDS to fix this. Regardless, this is not supposed to be a gaming rig. At $2500, you could get something way better for games for 20% less.
The Macbook is somewhere between the Mini and the iMac. It's the entry level mobile platform.
You neglected to mention its video card: Intel GMA--worthless for gaming.
The Macbook Pro is the professional powerhouse mobile offering. It has a pretty good (DX10 actually) video card.
Yeah, it's great... for a laptop. This is probably the only Apple product I'd say includes a proper video card.
My point is not to disagree with you, but to point out that the reason EA and other companies don't make games is that out of the top selling mac computers (Mac Mini, Macbook, Macbook Pro, iMac), only one has a decent graphics card.
Apple has a tiny market share, and only a small portion of those users have a computer capable of running the latest games. The latter is Apple's fault. If Apple were to start including better cards, the image of quality over PCs they try to project would be much more truthful.
The iMac is especially sad, because even though they have packages going for $1500, $1800, and $2300 they all include a mediocre video card. This really represents a terrible bargain. Not only that, but Apple downgraded the video cards in their latest model.
I'd be willing to wager that EA's broken promise was partially due to a divestment in the Mac ports due to the insanely crappy nature of the new Macbook, Mac Mini, and iMac specs.
Why release games to a market which can't even run them?
Forcing everything to be arbitrated on a case-by-case basis would mean that the cost to consumers of recovering whatever they've been screwed out of was hundreds or thousands of times the amount recovered. Which means that nobody would actually get compensated, nor would AT&T (or whoever) ever suffer enough costs to deter bad behavior.
Yes, but everyone who did get paid would probably get what they deserve.
Most class action law suits do next to nothing for the plaintiffs and everything for the lawyer, which is why lawyers doing the suits advertise on television to make the class action impossible to fight.
The most unique feature of the new MGVs is that the traditional engine has been decoupled from the drive train and is used only to recharge the battery and power other systems within the vehicle.
:)
M1 Abrams tanks have a turbine engine that is hooked directly into a generator which powers a 1500 hp (1119 kW) electric motor.
However, you can hardly call it fuel-efficient
It is high time this crap about settlements stopped.
Well most lawsuits against IT companies are BS or unprovable anyway.
Also, there's a thing called 'limited liability' which, among other things, means nobody in the company can be sued for the company's actions. In this sue-for-all age of lawyers extorting anybody of means, the importance if limited liability seems more obvious.
Limited liability is what takes enough of the fear away from people to start their own businesses and be successful. It's a tough pill to swallow, but I think it's worth it.
the Bush administration just rammed a [bad] bill through Congress
Even when the democrats control congress, Bush still has to be responsible for everything. Amazing. How did he do it, I wonder? I know he has a slightly less dismal approval rating (lowest since Hoover), but does that really amount to political capital?
I don't like him either, but it seems like we're being counterproductive to ignore the fact that both the major parties are responsible. Once you lose your fear of the worst of two evil candidates getting into power, they'll either start paying attention, or they'll lose. Personally, I have never voted for a republican or a democrat. I may make an exception for Ron Paul.
Much as I like the second amendment, some people are going to have to learn that the right to bear arms is a little fucking vague, and could do with a little polish after 200 years of wear and tear.
Vague? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory: 'The people' need as much firepower as would be necessary to ward off an army sent by the federal government. The founders differed on the specifics, but they all agreed on that.
John Adams said it should be a militia run by the STATES.
Somewhere back in the early 1900's, someone decided that 'militia' meant 'National Guard'. At the time, this seemed alright, because the Nat'l guards were run by the states. Ike Eisenhower, however, decided that the notion of states having rights was just too scary for the ever-expanding federal government to deal with, so the feds took control. Now, we have much of our supposed 'well regulated militia' in Iraq.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
A lot of people think that guns are for hunting. The NRA actually gives a negative rating to candidates who are 'too pro gun' (look at Ron Paul's rating). If guns were only for sport, I'd say it'd be woefully irresponsible for them to be legal.
Guns are not for sport, however, they're first and foremost for killing other human beings when they are screwing around. Since people continue to screw around, it should be apparently obvious that guns are still necessary. Does anyone actually think they're going to give us our rights back willingly?
>You must work in a really boring field. If someone makes a deceitful argument, I would hope they would be exposed as a liar, not simply contradicted. And I don't mind reading colourful prose, rather than the dead academic passive voice.
The 'colorful prose' is a great litmus test for bullshit. If a scientist reveals data on a subject on global warming and then details what (s)he thinks to be the effects which are outside the scope of their expertise, my bullshit detector goes ape sh*t.
Economic impacts and massive changes in human history are not for climate scientists to say. I'm relieved when they do, however, as it lets me know that there's a great chance that their data was collected to prove their point, rather than the other way around. It really simplifies the process when they basically tell you to ignore their data before you have even read it yet.
A 'good scientist' would be equally interested in data that disproves their theories as data that verifies them. I seriously doubt Hansen is a 'good scientist', by this definition.