"The goal of Scientology is the very opposite of psychiatry - it wants to split you from society (to better 'form' you), not help you work better with it. The things most 'evil' to any religion are things a threat to the religion itself."
The greatest delusion Scientology attempts to instill is the sense that Psychiatry is not a science, which it of course is. If they denounce this science, then why not all of the others? Knowledge of how the human mind works has been a subject of intense study by people far smarter than we over the course of human history. To announce that it's all "hogwash" and the "result of Nazi practices" is beyond reason. To completely dismiss very real, and very well studied chemical imbalances, imbalances that can be corrected at times with drugs, is nearly surreal. When Tom Cruise says that we just do not know the history of Psychiatry, and that if we did we would denounce it speaks to his intelligence.
Using simple reasoning and a cursory understanding of science and human curiosity would tell you that we should, at this stage in our scientific evolution, know quite a bit about how the brain functions and many of it's diversions from "normal". Just as we know the same things about many of the other biological functions. Why the study of how the brain works would be denounced by Scientologists is blindingly obvious... they use quite a bit of psychology to convince people of their beyond silly beliefs. As you stated, "The things most 'evil' to any religion are things a threat to the religion itself." Amen.
So, psychiatry is bunk, all brain abnormality is the cause of aliens, and the only "proof" of such are the writings of a science fiction writer. Hmmm... I'm sorry, but Scientology is nothing more than a study of ignorance, psychological warfare for profit, and is damaging to all who join this cult.
I support over 60 clients (mostly small design firms) from my house via VPN Tracker, Cisco VPN, Apple VPN, and the viewer for them all... ARD (Apple Remote Desktop). It's a very lucrative job, ARD freaking rocks.
To the study... the Macs, percentage wise, are using far more "application" than their PC counterparts. Far more (designers, audio, video, etc...). Just because 1000 PC's running Explorer and Outlook are easier to maintain than the 500 Macs running Final Cut, Adobe Suite, Logic and Windows (yup) means nothing. Before you panties are in a bunch I would never say that either couldn't be switched in the example, but percentage wise, this is a fact. With that said, the Macs (which is why I chose this profession ATM), are easier to maintain. No doubt. From OS installation (especially re-installation) to general fixes, it's simply no contest (Archive and Install, genius, and you've been able to do this for years). Virus protection, nicer to stare at for 10 hours a day, etc... This would be a similar find in the corporate world, but I can only assume.
You are exactly right. Apple won't care, it's not their target market (obviously), and enough people will buy an iPhone to make this segment largely unseen by Apple. Opening it up will also cause Apple's support for the thing to increase dramatically, something I'm sure they also won't miss.
I for one use my phone for business, taking pictures, sending them via email, etc... all of which the iPhone will be able to do, and very nicely so I will be purchasing one. Besides, most of the business people I know use theirs to send emails (view attachments, etc...) and answer calls. Again, the iPhone wold be great for this too, but far too expensive. Apple knows their market, and they know the price points to hit. The iPhone will be a hit, it will make Apple money, and life goes on.
"this incessant pushing of the technology/standards envelope is creating a lot of disjoint, stilted, and otherwise unreadable web sites. etc..."
The technology standards didn't create those websites, the developers did. You seem to be asking to halt technological advancement to save developers from themselves, when it should be the other way around...
"Don't pretend the price of making music/tv shows is relevant. YouTube & co prove it isn't."
Right... the viewership (and time spent watching) compared to network television isn't even close... not even on the same planet. Come back to me when a show like Scrubs or Boston Legal is on YouTube, commercial free, every week. Not going to happen my friend. YouTube is a vast collection of amateur video nuggets, nothing more. It's fun, it makes a lot of money via hits, but that's it.
Yes, now consider what would happen if you treated music as you did TV (free or otherwise). There is no way we could listen to music if it was interrupted a few times a song to tell you that there's a sale for tampons at Walgreens. Nope, it just wouldn't happen. Now, we can listen to it with advertising inbetween songs and get it for free (radio), but TV revenue works only if you put that advertisement inside the actual program, not inbetween them. They day I can purchase a series online and cheaply (doh... iTMS coupled with AppleTV?), is the day I turn off my Comcast... which is coming up soon. I wonder if Comcast (and the others) realize how big AppleTV could be, and how much it would hurt them? We'll see...
"Your comment like saying "Nobody would PAY for Cable Television. It makes no sense. Few people are willing to shell out money for television that stops playing when they stop paying""
Bullshit. I can connect my antannea and get all the free TV the airwaves have to offer. It's worth the advertising revenue to do so. Cable is merely a paid upgrade, a luxury. The difference, is that there are millions of songs and millions of bands out there making music. How I get to choose which ones I listen to, out of all of them is worth 99 cents a song, that I now own. TV, you have a few shows, are extremely expensive to create (compared to music), and get paid by advertising during those shows.
This is all I know about subcription services, and it's all I need to know to never use one...
When you stop paying, the music goes bye bye. You never actually "own" the music. I'm sorry, but I want to buy that song and own it, to do whatever I wish to do with it for as long as I'm alive, and so do most people. When people buy something, we usually like something tangable that we can cuddle around. I can buy a song from iTMS and it's mine, for 99 cents, and I can do whatever I want with it. It just feels better than this overbearing sense of "I have to pay them or my music will stop!! ahhhh!!!". No thanks..
About the movies, why would you want to burn your TV purchases? Use your iPod to play them anywhere (you said you owned one, right?). The AV cable, sold by Apple BTW, will let you play all of your media on your TV (or anyone elses). Is it just a "because" thing then? I seriously don't get your grip there...
.3% was the first monthly drop since June 2006. People are waiting for Leopard, some lines are long in the tooth, AppleTV, iPhone (working with iLife), and many professionals were waiting for CS3... right, see me again in a few months.
What the flying hell is that "Slashdottit!" box doing next to the articles. It doesn't display correctly in Safari (unless you like the left letters missing in a paragraph), and it's spelled Slashdot Tit....Slashdot.... Tit....
Whomever is to blame for this... tie him up and make him squeal like a pig. In either case, can someone tell me how to diable it? Thanks...
"And it doesn't set a bad precedent against the RIAA either: confronted with a choice between paying a settlement of $3750 or avoiding a settlement by paying your lawyer $6880.25, most "rational" people would probably chose the settlement. And that's all the RIAA needs."
So, Mr. Merchant chose to pay 3 grand to force the RIAA to pay its own lawyers (not cheap!) and get nothing in return but a black eye. He had to have known this since he in fact didn't settle and went to court. He could have just paid it and went on his way. I don't see the issue here. We should be thanking Mr. Merchant and his lawyer IMO. I think there is a difference between being "rational" and being "right". I'm a pretty righteous person, and if I had the means I would have done the same exact thing as Mr. Merchant. Gives the RIAA a black eye and a spring in my step. If I had the means, it would be money well spent.
So, when the people cited in the disclosure project tell you that the reason is because it's being covered up, and that they have seen it, this means absolutely, positively nothing to you? You do realize that these people have had their credentials checked, and knew they were going to be ridiculed and punished for their actions, right? Considering the sources, I just can't throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. Seems counterintuitive, and lacking any critical thought. Ah well... they've been doing a great job of it for over 50 years (as evident by your utter skepticism), so I guess there's nothing more to be said.
"I doubt that's true be it's definitely irrelevant. All that is required to prove your theory is one single bit of physical evidence. To date no such evidence has ever been discovered."
Really? You could get convicted for murder just because a few people saw you do it, wihout a body, without a murder weapon, etc... The ease of which it could be "proven" in our courts of law would be a slam dunk, as they say.
"To date no such evidence has ever been discovered."
Again, how do you know this? Seems you guys have some sort of crystal ball that I would really love to have! And still haven't responded to the disclosureproject... Interseting...
"Not once have they made proper contact and opened a dialogue, or established a visible presence."
How do you know such things?! Are you one of "them"?
Seriously though, consider the prime directive... if a dialogue had been established, do you think they would choose Chester from the West Virginia hills on his pig farm, or an established, secretive authority to handle any contact. I wonder...
And, until you can dismiss every one of these guys and their witness testimony without one ounce of repercussion outside of complete ridicule, then we must consider this case open. In our courts of law, alien visitation would be able to be easily proven, but to the scientist, one that has not read the wealth of highly credible testimony across thousands of texts, it would be extremely difficult to convince. Ergo...
Just because fantastic claims require fantastic proof doesn't make it not true.
"2. "Blind faith" is a term that gets (incorrectly) thrown around a lot*. Many people become religious because of some form of evidence presented to them. Evidence that usually speaks to someone on a personal level. Thus those who believe in a religion, believe that they are following something. Whether they are misinterpreting the events around them is a matter for another forum."
Or... they "believe" via an indoctrination process starting from birth, one where even the hardiest of intellects (critical thought processes) would be stressed to overcome. Imagine this: you are a few years old, and your parents ("gods" in your eyes) say that "this and that" is real, and their friends and family (aunts, uncles, grandparents) also solidify this "idea", along with the people you see your "gods" (parents) looking up to, like priests, everyone on the Church on Sunday, etc...
This indoctrination process is nearly full-proof. See: regions of the world and their respective faith-based beliefs. If you grow up in India, you are going to be Hindu (80%), and so on. This is by far the biggest reason. This "Evidence that usually speaks to someone on a personal level" is something else.
I would have to discard any semblance of probability found through reason. But, I can say that I have no more bearing on the reality or lack therof of the Greek Gods than I do of the "general idea of god" that you seem to speak of (quite vaguely I migth add, point given). This may reveal a more reasoned explanation, one where the validity of either is largely questionable. But, the probability of a vague "God" may be easier to prove as "existing". Is God merely an overwhelming and guiding force of nature that we have yet to discover, or is he a single entity sitting on a shiny throne laughing holding a lightning bolt in his hand. Do you see?
You may prove that I am not a true example of agnosticism, but if you show me that person, I will show you a pitiful human.
"I hate MS, I own a MAC, I helped found a linux distribution."
You own a Mac and still use all caps to describe it? Let me see your secret Apple Owner's card... I thought so...
The dev costs for Office for Mac is far less when a great deal of the code already existed for the Windows version. So, your analogy fails, sorry. And remember, profitable means that it's making them money. Period. Whether it's making as much as some other part of their company is largely irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
If she just wants something for the average user, and simply wants to get away from Windows, why not just get a Mac and run any OS you want?
Seems like a lot of trouble on her part for nothing...
"The goal of Scientology is the very opposite of psychiatry - it wants to split you from society (to better 'form' you), not help you work better with it. The things most 'evil' to any religion are things a threat to the religion itself."
The greatest delusion Scientology attempts to instill is the sense that Psychiatry is not a science, which it of course is. If they denounce this science, then why not all of the others? Knowledge of how the human mind works has been a subject of intense study by people far smarter than we over the course of human history. To announce that it's all "hogwash" and the "result of Nazi practices" is beyond reason. To completely dismiss very real, and very well studied chemical imbalances, imbalances that can be corrected at times with drugs, is nearly surreal. When Tom Cruise says that we just do not know the history of Psychiatry, and that if we did we would denounce it speaks to his intelligence.
Using simple reasoning and a cursory understanding of science and human curiosity would tell you that we should, at this stage in our scientific evolution, know quite a bit about how the brain functions and many of it's diversions from "normal". Just as we know the same things about many of the other biological functions. Why the study of how the brain works would be denounced by Scientologists is blindingly obvious... they use quite a bit of psychology to convince people of their beyond silly beliefs. As you stated, "The things most 'evil' to any religion are things a threat to the religion itself." Amen.
So, psychiatry is bunk, all brain abnormality is the cause of aliens, and the only "proof" of such are the writings of a science fiction writer. Hmmm... I'm sorry, but Scientology is nothing more than a study of ignorance, psychological warfare for profit, and is damaging to all who join this cult.
Damn! You beat me to it, was just about to say theexact same thing.
I support over 60 clients (mostly small design firms) from my house via VPN Tracker, Cisco VPN, Apple VPN, and the viewer for them all... ARD (Apple Remote Desktop). It's a very lucrative job, ARD freaking rocks.
To the study... the Macs, percentage wise, are using far more "application" than their PC counterparts. Far more (designers, audio, video, etc...). Just because 1000 PC's running Explorer and Outlook are easier to maintain than the 500 Macs running Final Cut, Adobe Suite, Logic and Windows (yup) means nothing. Before you panties are in a bunch I would never say that either couldn't be switched in the example, but percentage wise, this is a fact. With that said, the Macs (which is why I chose this profession ATM), are easier to maintain. No doubt. From OS installation (especially re-installation) to general fixes, it's simply no contest (Archive and Install, genius, and you've been able to do this for years). Virus protection, nicer to stare at for 10 hours a day, etc... This would be a similar find in the corporate world, but I can only assume.
You are exactly right. Apple won't care, it's not their target market (obviously), and enough people will buy an iPhone to make this segment largely unseen by Apple. Opening it up will also cause Apple's support for the thing to increase dramatically, something I'm sure they also won't miss.
I for one use my phone for business, taking pictures, sending them via email, etc... all of which the iPhone will be able to do, and very nicely so I will be purchasing one. Besides, most of the business people I know use theirs to send emails (view attachments, etc...) and answer calls. Again, the iPhone wold be great for this too, but far too expensive. Apple knows their market, and they know the price points to hit. The iPhone will be a hit, it will make Apple money, and life goes on.
"let's suppose he's paying $2000 for each class and it meets 16 times (a semester)"
He's paying that much to go to highschool? Yikes... And what highschool classes only meet 16 times a year?
YouTube is down right now... that's a crime.
After a conversation with friends and a promise that I could find I Love Lucy's "Vitameatavegamin" video within a minute, we get nothing...
"Should Schools Block Sites Like Wikipedia?"
No, schools should teach critical thought. Then questions like this... unbelievably stupid questions like would never, ever have to be asked.
"this incessant pushing of the technology/standards envelope is creating a lot of disjoint, stilted, and otherwise unreadable web sites. etc..."
The technology standards didn't create those websites, the developers did. You seem to be asking to halt technological advancement to save developers from themselves, when it should be the other way around...
"Don't pretend the price of making music/tv shows is relevant. YouTube & co prove it isn't."
Right... the viewership (and time spent watching) compared to network television isn't even close... not even on the same planet. Come back to me when a show like Scrubs or Boston Legal is on YouTube, commercial free, every week. Not going to happen my friend. YouTube is a vast collection of amateur video nuggets, nothing more. It's fun, it makes a lot of money via hits, but that's it.
Yes, now consider what would happen if you treated music as you did TV (free or otherwise). There is no way we could listen to music if it was interrupted a few times a song to tell you that there's a sale for tampons at Walgreens. Nope, it just wouldn't happen. Now, we can listen to it with advertising inbetween songs and get it for free (radio), but TV revenue works only if you put that advertisement inside the actual program, not inbetween them. They day I can purchase a series online and cheaply (doh... iTMS coupled with AppleTV?), is the day I turn off my Comcast... which is coming up soon. I wonder if Comcast (and the others) realize how big AppleTV could be, and how much it would hurt them? We'll see...
"Your comment like saying "Nobody would PAY for Cable Television. It makes no sense. Few people are willing to shell out money for television that stops playing when they stop paying""
Bullshit. I can connect my antannea and get all the free TV the airwaves have to offer. It's worth the advertising revenue to do so. Cable is merely a paid upgrade, a luxury. The difference, is that there are millions of songs and millions of bands out there making music. How I get to choose which ones I listen to, out of all of them is worth 99 cents a song, that I now own. TV, you have a few shows, are extremely expensive to create (compared to music), and get paid by advertising during those shows.
This is all I know about subcription services, and it's all I need to know to never use one...
When you stop paying, the music goes bye bye. You never actually "own" the music. I'm sorry, but I want to buy that song and own it, to do whatever I wish to do with it for as long as I'm alive, and so do most people. When people buy something, we usually like something tangable that we can cuddle around. I can buy a song from iTMS and it's mine, for 99 cents, and I can do whatever I want with it. It just feels better than this overbearing sense of "I have to pay them or my music will stop!! ahhhh!!!". No thanks..
About the movies, why would you want to burn your TV purchases? Use your iPod to play them anywhere (you said you owned one, right?). The AV cable, sold by Apple BTW, will let you play all of your media on your TV (or anyone elses). Is it just a "because" thing then? I seriously don't get your grip there...
6.08% in March.
.3% was the first monthly drop since June 2006. People are waiting for Leopard, some lines are long in the tooth, AppleTV, iPhone (working with iLife), and many professionals were waiting for CS3... right, see me again in a few months.
"Moral of the story, when technology advances it is used for more comfort, not for more efficiency."
There's another one that no on has mentioned, suprisiningly. When technology advances it is used to do more. Period.
What the flying hell is that "Slashdottit!" box doing next to the articles. It doesn't display correctly in Safari (unless you like the left letters missing in a paragraph), and it's spelled Slashdot Tit. ...Slashdot.... Tit....
Whomever is to blame for this... tie him up and make him squeal like a pig. In either case, can someone tell me how to diable it? Thanks...
"And it doesn't set a bad precedent against the RIAA either: confronted with a choice between paying a settlement of $3750 or avoiding a settlement by paying your lawyer $6880.25, most "rational" people would probably chose the settlement. And that's all the RIAA needs."
So, Mr. Merchant chose to pay 3 grand to force the RIAA to pay its own lawyers (not cheap!) and get nothing in return but a black eye. He had to have known this since he in fact didn't settle and went to court. He could have just paid it and went on his way. I don't see the issue here. We should be thanking Mr. Merchant and his lawyer IMO. I think there is a difference between being "rational" and being "right". I'm a pretty righteous person, and if I had the means I would have done the same exact thing as Mr. Merchant. Gives the RIAA a black eye and a spring in my step. If I had the means, it would be money well spent.
So, when the people cited in the disclosure project tell you that the reason is because it's being covered up, and that they have seen it, this means absolutely, positively nothing to you? You do realize that these people have had their credentials checked, and knew they were going to be ridiculed and punished for their actions, right? Considering the sources, I just can't throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. Seems counterintuitive, and lacking any critical thought. Ah well... they've been doing a great job of it for over 50 years (as evident by your utter skepticism), so I guess there's nothing more to be said.
"I doubt that's true be it's definitely irrelevant. All that is required to prove your theory is one single bit of physical evidence. To date no such evidence has ever been discovered."
Really? You could get convicted for murder just because a few people saw you do it, wihout a body, without a murder weapon, etc... The ease of which it could be "proven" in our courts of law would be a slam dunk, as they say.
"To date no such evidence has ever been discovered."
Again, how do you know this? Seems you guys have some sort of crystal ball that I would really love to have! And still haven't responded to the disclosureproject... Interseting...
"Not once have they made proper contact and opened a dialogue, or established a visible presence."
How do you know such things?! Are you one of "them"?
Seriously though, consider the prime directive... if a dialogue had been established, do you think they would choose Chester from the West Virginia hills on his pig farm, or an established, secretive authority to handle any contact. I wonder...
And, until you can dismiss every one of these guys and their witness testimony without one ounce of repercussion outside of complete ridicule, then we must consider this case open. In our courts of law, alien visitation would be able to be easily proven, but to the scientist, one that has not read the wealth of highly credible testimony across thousands of texts, it would be extremely difficult to convince. Ergo...
Just because fantastic claims require fantastic proof doesn't make it not true.
"This "Evidence that usually speaks to someone on a personal level" is something else.
I can't help but wonder if these "something else's" are nothing more than psychological hitches I suppose...
"2. "Blind faith" is a term that gets (incorrectly) thrown around a lot*. Many people become religious because of some form of evidence presented to them. Evidence that usually speaks to someone on a personal level. Thus those who believe in a religion, believe that they are following something. Whether they are misinterpreting the events around them is a matter for another forum."
Or... they "believe" via an indoctrination process starting from birth, one where even the hardiest of intellects (critical thought processes) would be stressed to overcome. Imagine this: you are a few years old, and your parents ("gods" in your eyes) say that "this and that" is real, and their friends and family (aunts, uncles, grandparents) also solidify this "idea", along with the people you see your "gods" (parents) looking up to, like priests, everyone on the Church on Sunday, etc...
This indoctrination process is nearly full-proof. See: regions of the world and their respective faith-based beliefs. If you grow up in India, you are going to be Hindu (80%), and so on. This is by far the biggest reason. This "Evidence that usually speaks to someone on a personal level" is something else.
Holy right winger Batman!
Reading some of his other articles is scarier than hell. CNN isn't nearly as far from center. That guy is just nuts...
I would have to discard any semblance of probability found through reason. But, I can say that I have no more bearing on the reality or lack therof of the Greek Gods than I do of the "general idea of god" that you seem to speak of (quite vaguely I migth add, point given). This may reveal a more reasoned explanation, one where the validity of either is largely questionable. But, the probability of a vague "God" may be easier to prove as "existing". Is God merely an overwhelming and guiding force of nature that we have yet to discover, or is he a single entity sitting on a shiny throne laughing holding a lightning bolt in his hand. Do you see?
You may prove that I am not a true example of agnosticism, but if you show me that person, I will show you a pitiful human.
"I hate MS, I own a MAC, I helped found a linux distribution."
You own a Mac and still use all caps to describe it? Let me see your secret Apple Owner's card... I thought so...
The dev costs for Office for Mac is far less when a great deal of the code already existed for the Windows version. So, your analogy fails, sorry. And remember, profitable means that it's making them money. Period. Whether it's making as much as some other part of their company is largely irrelevant.