The problem here isn't discrimination against creationists. It's legislators wasting their time, and the legislature's time, on bills that are not going to go into law, and exist only to create a campaign ad later on.
Hey Texas! Closed that $25 billion shortfall yet? No? Okay, better get on to righting the wrongs done against the massive, silent majority of creationist biologists denied tenure.
Robert McNamara was in a documentary a few years a back, expressing his regret over the Vietnam strategy he implemented, mainly because it led to so much destruction and slaughter.
Well, that's great, Bob. Too bad you didn't THINK OF THAT AT THE TIME.
There's something chillingly cynical about guys like Perry and Kissinger complaining now about the nuclear posture that they created, as if the closeness of their deaths has made them fear an everlasting punishment. Like Lee Atwater in the last few months of his life apologizing for the blatantly racist campaign strategies he crafted, the only human response should be "TOO FUCKING LATE, YOU ASSHOLE!"
Legal definitions of privacy don't respect arbitrarily drawn circles. You don't get to declare a "privacy zone" composed of only your friends or members of your sekret club who know the password. You can have private communications with your spouse, your doctor, your lawyer, and your priest, and that it's, as far as "violation" having any legal weight to it.
Otherwise, it's just "waaah, he read my sekret note!"
America has plenty of shale oil, which is more expensive to produce than the oil in the tar sands of Alberta, which is more expensive to produce than the oil in the Middle East. Environmentalism has nothing to do with failure to develop North American oilfields; the cost of a barrel of oil simply isn't high enough to start thoroughly exploiting local deposits.
Oil has to be around $70/barrel for the tar sands to be worthwhile, and no one knows the floor price to make shale oil extraction profitable because that's a field of engineering only now being developed. As for the Gulf of Mexico, the reason BP was drilling 5,000 feet down was because all the shallow fields have been sucked dry.
That actually sounds like an awesome third party product. It would just have to plug in to the main connector, and could be integrated into a hard case.
To limit yourself to a single output method and limit your customer base
... that is growing, while not wasting dollars on investing in the shrinking "legacy connector" customer base.
The more time passes, the more your connectors will be irrelevant, and the less money Boxee will have wasted on trying to capture your smaller and smaller slice of the market.
No, I don't care to explain, because i wasn't running down PC choices. I simply said that I prefer Macs enough to pay the Apple tax, and identified the things I like about it.
See how that works? I didn't piss in your breakfast cereal. You didn't need to piss in mine.
See, I love Apple keyboards. I love them so much that I use one on my desktop PC and my linux box. They have just the right crispness coupled with the shortest travel. I can't stand model Ms and don't know how anyone who isn't a 'roided freak needing a machine gun soundtrack can use them. When I want exercise, I swim.
However, I do recognize that this is a matter of personal preference.
You're paying for OS X, for an aluminum unibody, for an awesome keyboard and high-res screen.
If that's worth the extra money to you, then awesome, you're good to go (which it is to me--I don't imagine I'll have any laptop besides a Macbook in the future, though my assembled desktop runs Windows 7). If not, I have a plastic HP that might interest you...
Your grandfather is likely aware of the role that encryption played in WWII, so use that. You say something like this:
After WWII, encryption became entirely dependent upon math to prove that, even with computers, some encryption schemes would be virtually impossible to break in any reasonable timeframe. In other words, as long as the math was safe, the encryption was safe.
Proving P = NP means that the math isn't safe anymore. It used to be safe because, given the state of mathematical knowledge at the time, no one knew how to program a computer to break the encryption. But now, they know that it's possible, in theory, to program a computer to break any current encryption scheme, so all the encryption that we use--government communications, secure commerce, military communications--is vulnerable.
On the bright side, this means other things that seemed to be mathematically impossible are possible, like using computers to simulate biological processes to explore potential cures and disease mechanisms.
And people like you attack Apple like it's your enemy's religion.
If you bought the Apple because its pretty and you have money to burn, be honest rather than lie about some bullshit "superior user experience".
I am being honest when I say that it's not because I think it's pretty or that I have money to burn. You're the one imagining that buying Apple products is all about accessorizing, not about paying more for a better experience. You're the one who can't understand why literally tens of millions of people pay extra and feel like they're getting extra.
This is just a suggestion, but when tens of millions of people do something, and you think they're idiots, you might consider the possibility that you're failing to understand the appeal, not that they're idiots.
For the record, eye pleasing graphic transitions != superior user experience.
The superior user experience of my MacBook is like the superior user experience of my Honda Accord over a Ford Escort: There's a whole bunch of individually better bits that add up to a much improved experience overall.
The most immediate feature of OS X over Windows or Ubuntu is font anti-aliasing, especially on the screens that ship with MacBooks. Windows anti-aliasing is too harsh, and Ubuntu's just looks sloppy. In comparison, text on my MacBook looks crisp at any size and is easiest to read.
Another feature that I far prefer are Apple keyboards. I like the crispness coupled with the short key travel.
Another thing is that "just works" happens far more often for me under OSX than under any Linux yet that I've tried, yet when I want command-line goodness, I have one icon click away with iTerm. Superior desktop experience coupled with the full power of Unix under the hood.
I could go on, but listing all the details misses the point. I genuinely prefer the collection of better things that I get with my MacBook, and I'm willing to pay extra to get it. I don't give a shit about how someone looks at me when I'm working on my MacBook, and I don't have money to burn. I'm just old enough, and have been working with computers long enough, that I'm no longer willing to put up with all the rough edges and sharp corners that litter the landscape in the Unix desktop experience. I've been doing this long enough that I appreciate a "nice" environment that just seems to work as expected.
So please, cut the fucking bullshit about how people who buy Apple products are status-seeking zombies. Your failure to understand does not imply idiocy on the part of everyone else. It's just your failure to understand.
You can get the same user experience and clean design out of an HP with an aluminum chassis with Ubuntu installed.
Bwahahahah! Okay, now I know you're a troll. The user experience of OS X vs. Ubuntu is like comparing a professional massage to a kick in the nuts. The aluminum case on the MacBook is just icing on an already delicious cake.
And yes, I've used a variety of linuxes (and Windows) boxes for my main workday computers. As someone who's actually worked hard with all three, my MacBook wins hands down for the nebulous but real quality of "best user experience."
Name another country that hasn't been as belligerent and warmongering as they were able to be.
Yeah, it would be fantastic if the U.S. went all peacenik, but realistically, any country, any people, with their economy and relative safety would (and have, in the past) build up their military and throw their weight around. It's asking a little much for Americans to take an enlightened that everyone else has failed at taking, and crapping on them for not doing it is pretty simpleminded.
With a gold backed currency, you can still adjust the size of the money supply by adjusting the reserve requirements for banks issuing debt. Unless you're prepared to disallow reserve banking completely, a gold-backed currency is exactly as prone to monkeying around with the total supply as a fiat currency, except it has some huge liabilities as well.
By adjusting the fractional reserve requirements for banks in a gold-backed currency, you can increase or reduce the money supply just as easily as with a fiat currency. This is why the goldbugs are such total morons: They imagine that there's some limit on the money supply based on the limit of the gold supply; unless you have a 1:1 correspondence between gold and dollars (an economically crippling thing in itself), there's no effective limit because you can always adjust the ratio--just like with a fiat currency.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem here isn't discrimination against creationists. It's legislators wasting their time, and the legislature's time, on bills that are not going to go into law, and exist only to create a campaign ad later on.
Hey Texas! Closed that $25 billion shortfall yet? No? Okay, better get on to righting the wrongs done against the massive, silent majority of creationist biologists denied tenure.
Would you let that teacher teach his theory instead of calculus?
That's some awesome trolling, that is.
How do you get around, dragging such a huge penis everywhere?
To be clear, I don't work for Google. I meant that the identity of my employer is irrelevent when I've got objective statistics backing me up.
Javascript is turned on in 90-95% of browsers in use.
Me working for Google is irrelevant: Most people leave Javascript enabled and don't block it.
You can go ahead and take pride in being 90-95% wrong, through. Yer bad to the bone, you are, a real rebel, the way you fight... well, reality.
Because people like you who turn JavaScript off are tiny minority of users. Almost everyone else actually uses and enjoys it.
Robert McNamara was in a documentary a few years a back, expressing his regret over the Vietnam strategy he implemented, mainly because it led to so much destruction and slaughter.
Well, that's great, Bob. Too bad you didn't THINK OF THAT AT THE TIME.
There's something chillingly cynical about guys like Perry and Kissinger complaining now about the nuclear posture that they created, as if the closeness of their deaths has made them fear an everlasting punishment. Like Lee Atwater in the last few months of his life apologizing for the blatantly racist campaign strategies he crafted, the only human response should be "TOO FUCKING LATE, YOU ASSHOLE!"
Legal definitions of privacy don't respect arbitrarily drawn circles. You don't get to declare a "privacy zone" composed of only your friends or members of your sekret club who know the password. You can have private communications with your spouse, your doctor, your lawyer, and your priest, and that it's, as far as "violation" having any legal weight to it.
Otherwise, it's just "waaah, he read my sekret note!"
America has plenty of shale oil, which is more expensive to produce than the oil in the tar sands of Alberta, which is more expensive to produce than the oil in the Middle East. Environmentalism has nothing to do with failure to develop North American oilfields; the cost of a barrel of oil simply isn't high enough to start thoroughly exploiting local deposits.
Oil has to be around $70/barrel for the tar sands to be worthwhile, and no one knows the floor price to make shale oil extraction profitable because that's a field of engineering only now being developed. As for the Gulf of Mexico, the reason BP was drilling 5,000 feet down was because all the shallow fields have been sucked dry.
That actually sounds like an awesome third party product. It would just have to plug in to the main connector, and could be integrated into a hard case.
The more time passes, the more your connectors will be irrelevant, and the less money Boxee will have wasted on trying to capture your smaller and smaller slice of the market.
And the magnetic power coupling, which has saved my MBP from my cats on at least a couple occasions.
No, I don't care to explain, because i wasn't running down PC choices. I simply said that I prefer Macs enough to pay the Apple tax, and identified the things I like about it.
See how that works? I didn't piss in your breakfast cereal. You didn't need to piss in mine.
See, I love Apple keyboards. I love them so much that I use one on my desktop PC and my linux box. They have just the right crispness coupled with the shortest travel. I can't stand model Ms and don't know how anyone who isn't a 'roided freak needing a machine gun soundtrack can use them. When I want exercise, I swim.
However, I do recognize that this is a matter of personal preference.
Anonymous coward offers anecdotal evidence. Well, I'm sold!
You're paying for OS X, for an aluminum unibody, for an awesome keyboard and high-res screen.
If that's worth the extra money to you, then awesome, you're good to go (which it is to me--I don't imagine I'll have any laptop besides a Macbook in the future, though my assembled desktop runs Windows 7). If not, I have a plastic HP that might interest you...
Your grandfather is likely aware of the role that encryption played in WWII, so use that. You say something like this:
After WWII, encryption became entirely dependent upon math to prove that, even with computers, some encryption schemes would be virtually impossible to break in any reasonable timeframe. In other words, as long as the math was safe, the encryption was safe.
Proving P = NP means that the math isn't safe anymore. It used to be safe because, given the state of mathematical knowledge at the time, no one knew how to program a computer to break the encryption. But now, they know that it's possible, in theory, to program a computer to break any current encryption scheme, so all the encryption that we use--government communications, secure commerce, military communications--is vulnerable.
On the bright side, this means other things that seemed to be mathematically impossible are possible, like using computers to simulate biological processes to explore potential cures and disease mechanisms.
And people like you attack Apple like it's your enemy's religion.
I am being honest when I say that it's not because I think it's pretty or that I have money to burn. You're the one imagining that buying Apple products is all about accessorizing, not about paying more for a better experience. You're the one who can't understand why literally tens of millions of people pay extra and feel like they're getting extra.
This is just a suggestion, but when tens of millions of people do something, and you think they're idiots, you might consider the possibility that you're failing to understand the appeal, not that they're idiots.
The superior user experience of my MacBook is like the superior user experience of my Honda Accord over a Ford Escort: There's a whole bunch of individually better bits that add up to a much improved experience overall.
The most immediate feature of OS X over Windows or Ubuntu is font anti-aliasing, especially on the screens that ship with MacBooks. Windows anti-aliasing is too harsh, and Ubuntu's just looks sloppy. In comparison, text on my MacBook looks crisp at any size and is easiest to read.
Another feature that I far prefer are Apple keyboards. I like the crispness coupled with the short key travel.
Another thing is that "just works" happens far more often for me under OSX than under any Linux yet that I've tried, yet when I want command-line goodness, I have one icon click away with iTerm. Superior desktop experience coupled with the full power of Unix under the hood.
I could go on, but listing all the details misses the point. I genuinely prefer the collection of better things that I get with my MacBook, and I'm willing to pay extra to get it. I don't give a shit about how someone looks at me when I'm working on my MacBook, and I don't have money to burn. I'm just old enough, and have been working with computers long enough, that I'm no longer willing to put up with all the rough edges and sharp corners that litter the landscape in the Unix desktop experience. I've been doing this long enough that I appreciate a "nice" environment that just seems to work as expected.
So please, cut the fucking bullshit about how people who buy Apple products are status-seeking zombies. Your failure to understand does not imply idiocy on the part of everyone else. It's just your failure to understand.
Bwahahahah! Okay, now I know you're a troll. The user experience of OS X vs. Ubuntu is like comparing a professional massage to a kick in the nuts. The aluminum case on the MacBook is just icing on an already delicious cake.
And yes, I've used a variety of linuxes (and Windows) boxes for my main workday computers. As someone who's actually worked hard with all three, my MacBook wins hands down for the nebulous but real quality of "best user experience."
Name another country that hasn't been as belligerent and warmongering as they were able to be.
Yeah, it would be fantastic if the U.S. went all peacenik, but realistically, any country, any people, with their economy and relative safety would (and have, in the past) build up their military and throw their weight around. It's asking a little much for Americans to take an enlightened that everyone else has failed at taking, and crapping on them for not doing it is pretty simpleminded.
So you would do away with reserve banking entirely. All trade is in gold coins?
With a gold backed currency, you can still adjust the size of the money supply by adjusting the reserve requirements for banks issuing debt. Unless you're prepared to disallow reserve banking completely, a gold-backed currency is exactly as prone to monkeying around with the total supply as a fiat currency, except it has some huge liabilities as well.
By adjusting the fractional reserve requirements for banks in a gold-backed currency, you can increase or reduce the money supply just as easily as with a fiat currency. This is why the goldbugs are such total morons: They imagine that there's some limit on the money supply based on the limit of the gold supply; unless you have a 1:1 correspondence between gold and dollars (an economically crippling thing in itself), there's no effective limit because you can always adjust the ratio--just like with a fiat currency.
Because there's no tablet running Android with 15 million already sold.