They don't have to explain anything. Nobody will cover this in the media. His words will never reach the ears of the average voter who thinks artists will starve if copyright is in any way affected. Slashdot will cover it. Ars will cover it. Libertarian and leaning publications will publish it. But this is all a very small fraction of the voting population. Neither major party is interested at all in copyright reform. His actions were futile and he pointlessly lost his job. Furthermore, nobody will want to hire him in the future regardless of whether they agree with him for fear he might pull something similar should he ever change his mind. Idealists are fucking dangerous loose cannons.
The UK is plenty conservative (in this respect far worse than the US). In Italy you can get prosecuted for insulting the pope. Poland too. Much of Eastern Europe, Italy, and even Spain and Portugal can be frighteningly homophobic depending on where you are, even when compared to the most rural areas in the States. There are many places in Europe I would not take my partner, while there are very few in the states I would feel unsafe in, even in the deep south. Do keep in mind that passing a few hate-speech laws does nothing to change people's minds underneath. It just lets you feel superior to the dirty, crazy, Americans when in reality all you're really doing is hiding the problem. You can take your smug superiority and shove it.
A minority will always be vocal because they feel they have to be in order to compensate for their lack of numbers. At the same time a majority underestimates the damage a minority can do. You're right that it's the fault of the 90% ultimately, but it's easy to understand how it can happen... In order to effectively counter these groups you need to monitor them and counter their every move. If they complain, you send letters of support. If they boycott, you pledge to buy more, and so on. It's very easy to get complacent and forget the damage they can do if the influence is gradual and you don't see sudden changes in front of your eyes. Without seeing the damage, how do you convince people there is a danger?
No doubt. I think Iran is one of the Majority Muslim countries that would likely legitimately go secular if given a chance (then again, there is no guarantee of that). The people have lived under the most brutal sort of religious tyranny for so long. Many voting the new batch of fundamentalists in with this new "Arab Spring" have no clue what it's like. They'll soon learn, unfortunately at the expense of women, gays, and christians.
Yeah, but you ignore them. The only reason why our religious lunatics are given any attention is because we have a two party system and the republican party needs to pander to them in order to win an election. If the Republican party thought they could gain more votes from the center by throwing the jesus freaks under the bus it would happen in a second... and it just might. The inverse could easily happen in any number of European states if the right thought they could gain more from the far right than they would lose from the center.
If you actually lived in the US you might notice that 90% of Americans could give a shit less. There is a small, vocal, minority that will raise a stink over a stray tittay, but that's about it. Also, a graphic headshot will almost always earn a movie an R rating. Then again, there are also times where a an exposed breast will not earn an R rating (e.g. Titanic).
You're right about this, but the same thing happens with IOS. If you upgrade too quickly, a lot of apps break and it takes developers a while to get their programs working with the new version of the OS. Personally I wait a little to make sure my critical apps are updated.
But what you're talking about is mostly the exception, rather than the rule. 99% of apps out there do not rely on a particular CPU, and in the rare cases they do, early marked as such (e.g. some tegra "enhanced") with alternatives available. Even then, as you note, generally the play store could handle this transparently.... if only game developers didn't demand you buy the app twice to get the tegra code and higher res textures. That's not an android problem. That's an asshole problem.
Personally I've bee using spotlight to launch apps since the feature was released. Command + space then "ter" and enter launches terminal, for example. Didn't know there was a shortcut to the apps folder, but then again, I've only been using mac is since 10.3.
I think Apple was more testing the waters -- seeing how many people would use it, and perhaps trolling Microsoft into making a gigantic tactical mistake. What Apple didn't do what force everybody to use Launchpad. Given that nobody is going around saying how much they particularly love the feature, I doubt Apple will force it on everybody. Then again, Steve is dead.
The hell are you talking about? Android apps only run on one kind of cpu? There are android tablets and phones running all sorts of CPUs, including intel. Apps are written in java and run inside a tweaked out virtual machine. I can run the same.apk on an arm based tablet and an intel based phone. The only disadvantage to this approach is speed, but JIT helps this, as have other tweaks.
Not really true anymore. You can legitimately download Windows 7 and 8 images straight from MS. They used to be dicks about it but have gotten a lot better. All you need then is a legit license key, which you should have on a sticker somewhere. Plus with Windows 8, they're allowing you to upgrade from OEM license keys. You enter the number off the bottom of that old laptop, for example, and voila! Windows 8 Pro license key. The installer then downloads an images and makes you a usb key or whatever. I'm hardly a MS fan, but they've gotten a lot better, mostly due to competition.
Personally, i'm running a multi-gpu setup with a raid array. I've never done the math but i'd rather have wattage to spare than power problems. Plus. It's not going to actually draw 700w unless it's needed, and i'd rather have the room to grow than power problems, of which i've had enough to last a lifetime.
Not sure if I agree with you on needing to have the top-of-the line GPUs. My partner's box has twin GTX 460s in SLI and it can play most anything in 1080p with everything cranked up to the max. It's only very recently with some games using tessellation and displacements that it's dropping a few frames, but we're still talking about 50+ FPS, which is very playable. I'd still call it a gaming rig. I'm also not sure i'd agree about needing a top-of-the line processor. A fast i5 will suffice for most anything as very few, if any, games really utilize the extra features of the i7. Totally agree with you about the PSU, though. Why not, indeed. Better to have room to grow.
You're right. We're all social animals seeking to belong to some group. I'd go a lot further than half in that respect. I'd say half admit realize it, and half are in denial. Some people join a knitting circle. Some people play an MMO. Some people post on slashdot and call themselves Nerds. Some people are democrats. Some are republicans. Some are fundamentalist protestants. Some are Jews. Some are Muslims.
Each of these groups, many of which overlap, follow different belief systems (ok, maybe not the knitting circle). Each of these belief systems bestow their followers with certain characteristics that generally make their behavior fairly predictable. I'm more likely to offend a fundamentalist protestant by kissing my partner in public than I am to offend a Democrat, for instance. This is because fundamentalist protestants often believe that the Bible is the immutable word of god and when it says homosexuality is bad, it's not figurative and god really does mean it. The same exact principle applies to every other group with a defined ideology, especially if it's considered the immutable word of god.
Now suppose this protestant is not offended or even argues homosexuality is permissible. I only have to point them to the scriptures that say very clearly it's not and voila... they are stuck in a situation where they either reject (or choose to figuratively interpret) god's word, or accept the text for what it means. Obviously this is not a great example as there are arguments to be made on the matter, but suffice it to say, if I was wanting to recruit homophobes, I would start from a religious community, not a secular one, and build from there. Imagine my trouble trying to convince a liberal, Obama-voting democrat, to hold up a "god hates fats" placard. I could feasibly do it, but it would likely require conversion to religion first. To try and convince an atheist would likely be impossible.
The same applies to Muslims. It's not very hard, especially if you look at the classical islamic interpretations of their core texts, to make a case for terrorism. They already believe the texts are the word of god (or sayings of the prophet as is the case with the Sunnah). They're already fertile ground. Those who take the religion seriously (not all Muslims by any stretch) are gasoline waiting for a match. This is why they must be monitored and those who are already leaning towards extremism need to be tested.
What i'm getting at is you don't have to be perfectly rational, which I don't think actually exists anyway (at least not how you'd define it). You simply have to be rational enough not to blow yourself up.
I asked for a specific example. You did not provide one. Give me an example of a contradiction that was tolerated, not some broad "sometime in this very broad period of time in this very large location". If such examples exist, if such specific contradictions exist, then it should be easy. For example: in such and such a year, such and such a scientist made such and such a discovery that contradicted such and such a passage in the Qur'an and was not persecuted for it. If you're telling the truth, it shouldn't be hard, but it's not the truth, now is it?
It's not surprising since you lie about tolerance of science, you would also lie about my posts, quoting stuff out of context to completely change, and in some cases invert meaning. I won't bother to explain away all of what I wrote as that would be a waste of my time and others are free to read my words in context. I'll just explain the third, about profiling as it's an easy one. If you quoted the following sentence it completely changes the meaning. I wrote: "The problem is you can't tell a Muslim by looking at one and the ones likely to blow shit up are not going to show it if there is any such profiling system in place." In other words I was speaking against profiling because it's ineffective.
You can call me racist or whatever but the fact is Islam is not a race, and I made that very clear, even going so far as to correct others when they conflate the two. I'm not a fan of religion. I don't deny that. That doesn't make me a racist any more than judging people based on what they claim to believe or makes me a bigot. Religion is a choice. I see no problem whatsoever judging people based on the choices they make and they ideologies they voluntarily and openly claim to follow.
That's not what I asked for. Can you cite an actual example. For example: in such and such a year, and such and such a Muslim country, contradicting the Qur'an and Hadith was considered ok. If what you're saying is true and well supported, it shouldn't be hard to find an example.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have to explain anything. Nobody will cover this in the media. His words will never reach the ears of the average voter who thinks artists will starve if copyright is in any way affected. Slashdot will cover it. Ars will cover it. Libertarian and leaning publications will publish it. But this is all a very small fraction of the voting population. Neither major party is interested at all in copyright reform. His actions were futile and he pointlessly lost his job. Furthermore, nobody will want to hire him in the future regardless of whether they agree with him for fear he might pull something similar should he ever change his mind. Idealists are fucking dangerous loose cannons.
The UK is plenty conservative (in this respect far worse than the US). In Italy you can get prosecuted for insulting the pope. Poland too. Much of Eastern Europe, Italy, and even Spain and Portugal can be frighteningly homophobic depending on where you are, even when compared to the most rural areas in the States. There are many places in Europe I would not take my partner, while there are very few in the states I would feel unsafe in, even in the deep south. Do keep in mind that passing a few hate-speech laws does nothing to change people's minds underneath. It just lets you feel superior to the dirty, crazy, Americans when in reality all you're really doing is hiding the problem. You can take your smug superiority and shove it.
I don't really see your point. Whether it's real or fake, it's the same to the viewer.
A minority will always be vocal because they feel they have to be in order to compensate for their lack of numbers. At the same time a majority underestimates the damage a minority can do. You're right that it's the fault of the 90% ultimately, but it's easy to understand how it can happen... In order to effectively counter these groups you need to monitor them and counter their every move. If they complain, you send letters of support. If they boycott, you pledge to buy more, and so on. It's very easy to get complacent and forget the damage they can do if the influence is gradual and you don't see sudden changes in front of your eyes. Without seeing the damage, how do you convince people there is a danger?
No doubt. I think Iran is one of the Majority Muslim countries that would likely legitimately go secular if given a chance (then again, there is no guarantee of that). The people have lived under the most brutal sort of religious tyranny for so long. Many voting the new batch of fundamentalists in with this new "Arab Spring" have no clue what it's like. They'll soon learn, unfortunately at the expense of women, gays, and christians.
Yeah, but you ignore them. The only reason why our religious lunatics are given any attention is because we have a two party system and the republican party needs to pander to them in order to win an election. If the Republican party thought they could gain more votes from the center by throwing the jesus freaks under the bus it would happen in a second... and it just might. The inverse could easily happen in any number of European states if the right thought they could gain more from the far right than they would lose from the center.
So there was no persecution in Europe? No violence between Catholics and the various sects of protestants?
If you actually lived in the US you might notice that 90% of Americans could give a shit less. There is a small, vocal, minority that will raise a stink over a stray tittay, but that's about it. Also, a graphic headshot will almost always earn a movie an R rating. Then again, there are also times where a an exposed breast will not earn an R rating (e.g. Titanic).
Actually, that was the British, technically. The US was not independent at that time.
Actually, Iran does not require the full veil (Niqab). They do, however, require the hair be covered.
You're right about this, but the same thing happens with IOS. If you upgrade too quickly, a lot of apps break and it takes developers a while to get their programs working with the new version of the OS. Personally I wait a little to make sure my critical apps are updated.
But what you're talking about is mostly the exception, rather than the rule. 99% of apps out there do not rely on a particular CPU, and in the rare cases they do, early marked as such (e.g. some tegra "enhanced") with alternatives available. Even then, as you note, generally the play store could handle this transparently.... if only game developers didn't demand you buy the app twice to get the tegra code and higher res textures. That's not an android problem. That's an asshole problem.
Personally I've bee using spotlight to launch apps since the feature was released. Command + space then "ter" and enter launches terminal, for example. Didn't know there was a shortcut to the apps folder, but then again, I've only been using mac is since 10.3.
That's the idea of leaflet drops. NK solves this by threatening war, and SK backs down and forbids the launches (which is not to say activists obey).
I noticed that too. The Bill Gates borg logo also seems to be gone. New ownership, perhaps?
I think Apple was more testing the waters -- seeing how many people would use it, and perhaps trolling Microsoft into making a gigantic tactical mistake. What Apple didn't do what force everybody to use Launchpad. Given that nobody is going around saying how much they particularly love the feature, I doubt Apple will force it on everybody. Then again, Steve is dead.
The hell are you talking about? Android apps only run on one kind of cpu? There are android tablets and phones running all sorts of CPUs, including intel. Apps are written in java and run inside a tweaked out virtual machine. I can run the same .apk on an arm based tablet and an intel based phone. The only disadvantage to this approach is speed, but JIT helps this, as have other tweaks.
You can download an iso straight from ms and then use the key. You can also upgrade to Win 8 Pro with an OEM key. Both of these things are legal.
Not really true anymore. You can legitimately download Windows 7 and 8 images straight from MS. They used to be dicks about it but have gotten a lot better. All you need then is a legit license key, which you should have on a sticker somewhere. Plus with Windows 8, they're allowing you to upgrade from OEM license keys. You enter the number off the bottom of that old laptop, for example, and voila! Windows 8 Pro license key. The installer then downloads an images and makes you a usb key or whatever. I'm hardly a MS fan, but they've gotten a lot better, mostly due to competition.
Personally, i'm running a multi-gpu setup with a raid array. I've never done the math but i'd rather have wattage to spare than power problems. Plus. It's not going to actually draw 700w unless it's needed, and i'd rather have the room to grow than power problems, of which i've had enough to last a lifetime.
Not sure if I agree with you on needing to have the top-of-the line GPUs. My partner's box has twin GTX 460s in SLI and it can play most anything in 1080p with everything cranked up to the max. It's only very recently with some games using tessellation and displacements that it's dropping a few frames, but we're still talking about 50+ FPS, which is very playable. I'd still call it a gaming rig. I'm also not sure i'd agree about needing a top-of-the line processor. A fast i5 will suffice for most anything as very few, if any, games really utilize the extra features of the i7. Totally agree with you about the PSU, though. Why not, indeed. Better to have room to grow.
You're right. We're all social animals seeking to belong to some group. I'd go a lot further than half in that respect. I'd say half admit realize it, and half are in denial. Some people join a knitting circle. Some people play an MMO. Some people post on slashdot and call themselves Nerds. Some people are democrats. Some are republicans. Some are fundamentalist protestants. Some are Jews. Some are Muslims.
Each of these groups, many of which overlap, follow different belief systems (ok, maybe not the knitting circle). Each of these belief systems bestow their followers with certain characteristics that generally make their behavior fairly predictable. I'm more likely to offend a fundamentalist protestant by kissing my partner in public than I am to offend a Democrat, for instance. This is because fundamentalist protestants often believe that the Bible is the immutable word of god and when it says homosexuality is bad, it's not figurative and god really does mean it. The same exact principle applies to every other group with a defined ideology, especially if it's considered the immutable word of god.
Now suppose this protestant is not offended or even argues homosexuality is permissible. I only have to point them to the scriptures that say very clearly it's not and voila... they are stuck in a situation where they either reject (or choose to figuratively interpret) god's word, or accept the text for what it means. Obviously this is not a great example as there are arguments to be made on the matter, but suffice it to say, if I was wanting to recruit homophobes, I would start from a religious community, not a secular one, and build from there. Imagine my trouble trying to convince a liberal, Obama-voting democrat, to hold up a "god hates fats" placard. I could feasibly do it, but it would likely require conversion to religion first. To try and convince an atheist would likely be impossible.
The same applies to Muslims. It's not very hard, especially if you look at the classical islamic interpretations of their core texts, to make a case for terrorism. They already believe the texts are the word of god (or sayings of the prophet as is the case with the Sunnah). They're already fertile ground. Those who take the religion seriously (not all Muslims by any stretch) are gasoline waiting for a match. This is why they must be monitored and those who are already leaning towards extremism need to be tested.
What i'm getting at is you don't have to be perfectly rational, which I don't think actually exists anyway (at least not how you'd define it). You simply have to be rational enough not to blow yourself up.
I asked for a specific example. You did not provide one. Give me an example of a contradiction that was tolerated, not some broad "sometime in this very broad period of time in this very large location". If such examples exist, if such specific contradictions exist, then it should be easy. For example: in such and such a year, such and such a scientist made such and such a discovery that contradicted such and such a passage in the Qur'an and was not persecuted for it. If you're telling the truth, it shouldn't be hard, but it's not the truth, now is it?
It's not surprising since you lie about tolerance of science, you would also lie about my posts, quoting stuff out of context to completely change, and in some cases invert meaning. I won't bother to explain away all of what I wrote as that would be a waste of my time and others are free to read my words in context. I'll just explain the third, about profiling as it's an easy one. If you quoted the following sentence it completely changes the meaning. I wrote: "The problem is you can't tell a Muslim by looking at one and the ones likely to blow shit up are not going to show it if there is any such profiling system in place." In other words I was speaking against profiling because it's ineffective.
You can call me racist or whatever but the fact is Islam is not a race, and I made that very clear, even going so far as to correct others when they conflate the two. I'm not a fan of religion. I don't deny that. That doesn't make me a racist any more than judging people based on what they claim to believe or makes me a bigot. Religion is a choice. I see no problem whatsoever judging people based on the choices they make and they ideologies they voluntarily and openly claim to follow.
That's not what I asked for. Can you cite an actual example. For example: in such and such a year, and such and such a Muslim country, contradicting the Qur'an and Hadith was considered ok. If what you're saying is true and well supported, it shouldn't be hard to find an example.