So because someone is going to get hurt, let's continue to let people murder, torture and oppress others. Is that the sum of your point? (brash comparisons of U.S./GITMO and Saddam's Regime are forthcoming, I'm sure.)
Let me make my stance very clear - even though you will never believe me: I have already put my money where my mouth is with my comment about freedom. Very few people in the US are willing and ready to possibly die for someone they don't even know. I have done so, survived, and the two people I helped are moving on with their lives. And I would do so again without a moment's thought. The point I made was not from some idealogical high school kid with a penchant for self-abuse (and commenting on/. does take a fair amount of masochistic tendencies to do.)
This nation of ours is filled with spineless yokels unwilling to do anything but whine or turn a blind eye towards the realities of the world around them.
To answer your question: Say one day the U.S.A. becomes a true dictatorial regime and a foreign power liberates us, but my family dies as a result. How would I feel, you questioned. I would feel grateful to the foreign power that liberated us, but extremely sorrowful that my family died in the process. Why should I hate the foreign power because they did not save my family? Why should I be mad that they meddled in our nation's affairs? The only reason I would have to be angry with that foreign power is if I wanted the life that the regime had offered.
But who am I kidding? I'll be lucky if this doesn't get marked -1 flamebait, or my favorite, off topic. I don't hold popular opinions.
I'm curious, what's your feeling about Iraq, do you still think it was the correct thing to do?
There are two possibilities, either you were blind because the hundred thousands of death caused by the US induced chaos was totally predictable or you consider that those death are a good price to get Iraq's oil (bleach)..
I would say the blind ones are those that can only see one or two sides of any given situation.
I can't say why this administration went into Iraq. Maybe it was for oil, perhaps they honestly thought there was WMDs, or maybe Bush had a grudge. I can't and won't speak for them. Nevertheless, one thing is very clear to me: The people of Iraq have an opportunity, however small, for a better life than they did before we got rid of Saddam. There are radical groups that want to destroy that and return Iraq to what it was before. However, we have at least given the citizens of Iraq a slight chance of having a real democracy. How much blood is that worth?
I believe that there is no price too high for freedom. Even if that freedom is not my own.
I'm so sorry to interrupt, but you seem to have a shaky grasp on reality. The argument that people can lie during any poll is a very valid one. If you think that any voluntary response sample is going to have a margin of error anywhere near less than a percent, you're out of your goddamn mind!
You're missing the point. If the pregnancy was an accident, why should it be treated differently than any other accident. If the pregnancy was planned, why should an employer make special exceptions for the sole purpose of giving special treatment to someone? No one is asking anyone to justify anything. What was being asked is why anyone should have to take responsibility for the choices made by someone else with whom they have no control over.
In general, those who choose to have children will not be as successful in business as those who choose not to. However, it can be argued that those who choose to have children will have richer lives than those who do not.
The article makes no point that women are not allowed to work in the IT field. It makes the point that many women don't like the hours and requirements of working in the IT field. In any profession, there are sacrifices that a person makes to further his or her career. It just so happens that the IT field requires sacrifices on a level unheard of outside of the medical field.
Hah, that was actually humorous. But I honestly don't care what you spend your money on. That's your business. My beef was your posting a claim without anything to back it up. And I have read all the articles.
By the way, you'd be right that I shelled out $600 for the PS3. Not the base model though. And any price cuts don't bother me in the least. My hobby is gaming and getting systems when released costs more money than waiting until they're several years old. I'm also single and make a decent salary, so I can afford it. That should also answer your age question. I've also never been interested in drinking, but that's neither here nor there...
Seattle? That would explain the prissy attitude. Have a good day, sir.
I don't know about the guy you're replying to, but I would hardly call PS3 sales a flop. Are they selling as well as pop-culture's new chic? Nope. Few things do. Do I have more fun on my 360, PC and PS3 than I ever did with my Wii? That would be a resounding yes, Sir.
And yes, I know know.. I'm not the target market for the Wii. I'm not a casual gamer. I would wager a lot of others aren't either. The Wii is still riding on a lot of hype for a system most people have not even played yet. But make no mistake, the Wii is selling well considering Nintendo's inability or reluctance to manufacture enough units. Being trendy and chic goes a long way towards heavy sales.
My final point is a question: If the Wii maintains a leading position this generation, how well will the game-to-system attachment ratio be in an environment dominated by casual gamers?
Feel free to enlighten us all with your greatness and provide a reference. Otherwise don't be surprised when people call you out on your claims. Since you only ready such news in print media, reference the magazine/journal, volume and page(s).
Then again, seeing as online sites are updated far more quickly than print media, I won't hold my breath. Have fun with your impending rebuttal based on conjecture.
Re:Vista: the cowtow starts now
on
AMD's New DRM
·
· Score: 1
Implementing DRM functions in the CPU is not cowtowing to Vista, it's responding to the same rights management pressures that VISTA had to accommodate. VISTA's DRM is there to satisfy the demands of the content providers so that Vista can play back DRMed media from those providers. I know you want to blame Sony for all the ills of the World, but you'd do better directing your misplaced anger at things like the RIAA and MPAA which make the DRM demands that Vista meets.
The PS3 can play DVD formatted media just fine. But in all honesty, I really wouldn't like to see DVD format games on PS3. After one of my friends dropped my RFOM disk, I was sold on the protective coating that Blu-Ray disks have. Also, I can live with the slower spindle speed of the Blu-Ray drive as the PS3 is whisper quiet compared to my turbine inspired 360. The noise level of the 360 console is a strong reason why I purchase the PS3 versions of games whenever possible.
As I said before, consoles are heavy pieces of equipment. Why pay shipping on it, when you can just as easily pick it up at a normal brick & mortar store?
Because Amazon, like a lot of other high profile online stores, will provide free shipping on orders above a certain currency threshold.
Actually, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia for unbiased, factual information.
It would make for an interesting read. However, I doubt your knowledge would be greatly increased if you happened to be researching on the day that some wise guy decided to make Calvin receive a visitation from the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Humorous? Most certainly. Enlightening? Not so much.
Because the education level in one subject area does not indicate the overall intelligence of an individual. Especially an area as hotly debated as macroevolution, which most people uneducated in evolutionary theory will immediately associate with the word, evolution.
Personally, I don't consider all those people stupid. I consider them to be poor biologists. However, if you want to define intelligence in the manner you did above, then by your own standards you're not so intelligent yourself. You certainly failed in your rational analysis of those who don't believe in evolution.
Most people glaze over when it gets to the point of genetics adapting enough to change the subject into a completely different species. Discounting time and scale, microevolution is quite easy to understand, but macroevolution is a whole other bucket of trouble. I also think this is where a lot of contention from religious folk comes from. There is a common belief among the religious that all evolutionary studies refer to and entail only macroevolution.
Just my two-cents that hopefully bought you a different point of view.;)
Slashdot Mirror
But I thought everyone knew women's anatomy were made with spare IBM thinkpad parts.
I always thought of mine as a darker shade of fuchsia, really.
Maybe I should volunteer to help in the search. I know this place like the back of my
So because someone is going to get hurt, let's continue to let people murder, torture and oppress others. Is that the sum of your point? (brash comparisons of U.S./GITMO and Saddam's Regime are forthcoming, I'm sure.)
/. does take a fair amount of masochistic tendencies to do.)
Let me make my stance very clear - even though you will never believe me: I have already put my money where my mouth is with my comment about freedom. Very few people in the US are willing and ready to possibly die for someone they don't even know. I have done so, survived, and the two people I helped are moving on with their lives. And I would do so again without a moment's thought. The point I made was not from some idealogical high school kid with a penchant for self-abuse (and commenting on
This nation of ours is filled with spineless yokels unwilling to do anything but whine or turn a blind eye towards the realities of the world around them.
To answer your question: Say one day the U.S.A. becomes a true dictatorial regime and a foreign power liberates us, but my family dies as a result. How would I feel, you questioned. I would feel grateful to the foreign power that liberated us, but extremely sorrowful that my family died in the process. Why should I hate the foreign power because they did not save my family? Why should I be mad that they meddled in our nation's affairs? The only reason I would have to be angry with that foreign power is if I wanted the life that the regime had offered.
But who am I kidding? I'll be lucky if this doesn't get marked -1 flamebait, or my favorite, off topic. I don't hold popular opinions.
I'm curious, what's your feeling about Iraq, do you still think it was the correct thing to do?
There are two possibilities, either you were blind because the hundred thousands of death caused by the US induced chaos was totally predictable or you consider that those death are a good price to get Iraq's oil (bleach)..
I would say the blind ones are those that can only see one or two sides of any given situation.
I can't say why this administration went into Iraq. Maybe it was for oil, perhaps they honestly thought there was WMDs, or maybe Bush had a grudge. I can't and won't speak for them. Nevertheless, one thing is very clear to me: The people of Iraq have an opportunity, however small, for a better life than they did before we got rid of Saddam. There are radical groups that want to destroy that and return Iraq to what it was before. However, we have at least given the citizens of Iraq a slight chance of having a real democracy. How much blood is that worth?
I believe that there is no price too high for freedom. Even if that freedom is not my own.
I'm so sorry to interrupt, but you seem to have a shaky grasp on reality. The argument that people can lie during any poll is a very valid one. If you think that any voluntary response sample is going to have a margin of error anywhere near less than a percent, you're out of your goddamn mind!
Yes, self-fulfilling prophesies are such a bitch, aren't they?
The Sarcasm Meter Recalibration Service would like to have a word with you.
You're missing the point. If the pregnancy was an accident, why should it be treated differently than any other accident. If the pregnancy was planned, why should an employer make special exceptions for the sole purpose of giving special treatment to someone? No one is asking anyone to justify anything. What was being asked is why anyone should have to take responsibility for the choices made by someone else with whom they have no control over.
In general, those who choose to have children will not be as successful in business as those who choose not to. However, it can be argued that those who choose to have children will have richer lives than those who do not.
What happened to all those jobs in which you can work at home with?
Companies realised that if people can work from home, it's cheaper if those homes happen to be located in India.
This happens to be one of those comments where there should be an, "Underrated" tag.
The article makes no point that women are not allowed to work in the IT field. It makes the point that many women don't like the hours and requirements of working in the IT field. In any profession, there are sacrifices that a person makes to further his or her career. It just so happens that the IT field requires sacrifices on a level unheard of outside of the medical field.
Hah, that was actually humorous. But I honestly don't care what you spend your money on. That's your business. My beef was your posting a claim without anything to back it up. And I have read all the articles.
By the way, you'd be right that I shelled out $600 for the PS3. Not the base model though. And any price cuts don't bother me in the least. My hobby is gaming and getting systems when released costs more money than waiting until they're several years old. I'm also single and make a decent salary, so I can afford it. That should also answer your age question. I've also never been interested in drinking, but that's neither here nor there...
Seattle? That would explain the prissy attitude. Have a good day, sir.
I sense much anger in you.
Your troll fu is weak today.
I don't know about the guy you're replying to, but I would hardly call PS3 sales a flop. Are they selling as well as pop-culture's new chic? Nope. Few things do. Do I have more fun on my 360, PC and PS3 than I ever did with my Wii? That would be a resounding yes, Sir.
And yes, I know know.. I'm not the target market for the Wii. I'm not a casual gamer. I would wager a lot of others aren't either. The Wii is still riding on a lot of hype for a system most people have not even played yet. But make no mistake, the Wii is selling well considering Nintendo's inability or reluctance to manufacture enough units. Being trendy and chic goes a long way towards heavy sales.
My final point is a question: If the Wii maintains a leading position this generation, how well will the game-to-system attachment ratio be in an environment dominated by casual gamers?
Feel free to enlighten us all with your greatness and provide a reference. Otherwise don't be surprised when people call you out on your claims. Since you only ready such news in print media, reference the magazine/journal, volume and page(s).
Then again, seeing as online sites are updated far more quickly than print media, I won't hold my breath. Have fun with your impending rebuttal based on conjecture.
Implementing DRM functions in the CPU is not cowtowing to Vista, it's responding to the same rights management pressures that VISTA had to accommodate. VISTA's DRM is there to satisfy the demands of the content providers so that Vista can play back DRMed media from those providers. I know you want to blame Sony for all the ills of the World, but you'd do better directing your misplaced anger at things like the RIAA and MPAA which make the DRM demands that Vista meets.
There, fixed that for ya.
Policy.
The PS3 can play DVD formatted media just fine. But in all honesty, I really wouldn't like to see DVD format games on PS3. After one of my friends dropped my RFOM disk, I was sold on the protective coating that Blu-Ray disks have. Also, I can live with the slower spindle speed of the Blu-Ray drive as the PS3 is whisper quiet compared to my turbine inspired 360. The noise level of the 360 console is a strong reason why I purchase the PS3 versions of games whenever possible.
Since when does high demand require that products always be sold out?
Because Amazon, like a lot of other high profile online stores, will provide free shipping on orders above a certain currency threshold.
"And how, exactly, did you come to that conclusion?"
j .1475-4983.2006.00603.x6 /j.1420-9101.2002.00437.x/abs/
By reading articles from scientific journals and using deductive reasoning to make connections between competing theories in evolutionary biology.
Check the following articles that relate to what I've been writing about.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/
and
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.104
Actually, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia for unbiased, factual information.
It would make for an interesting read. However, I doubt your knowledge would be greatly increased if you happened to be researching on the day that some wise guy decided to make Calvin receive a visitation from the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Humorous? Most certainly. Enlightening? Not so much.
". . . Large changes such as speciation are mearly [sic] the sum of smaller changes over time."
Which is considered, albeit without 100% consensus in the scientific community, to fall under the umbrella of microevolution.
Because the education level in one subject area does not indicate the overall intelligence of an individual. Especially an area as hotly debated as macroevolution, which most people uneducated in evolutionary theory will immediately associate with the word, evolution.
Personally, I don't consider all those people stupid. I consider them to be poor biologists. However, if you want to define intelligence in the manner you did above, then by your own standards you're not so intelligent yourself. You certainly failed in your rational analysis of those who don't believe in evolution.
Most people glaze over when it gets to the point of genetics adapting enough to change the subject into a completely different species. Discounting time and scale, microevolution is quite easy to understand, but macroevolution is a whole other bucket of trouble. I also think this is where a lot of contention from religious folk comes from. There is a common belief among the religious that all evolutionary studies refer to and entail only macroevolution.
;)
Just my two-cents that hopefully bought you a different point of view.