>MSFT shares are up 3% today after another strong rise yesterday, after announcing their financial results and outlook.
Not any more. Stock only up slightly, erasing morning gains.
I think the US owes the general populace $1K per person. It will be gambling money not gained (and thus lost) because we were unable to do offshore online gambling. Instead of sending OUR money to the WTO (bullies!), they should give that $100b to us. I know that's only $.33 a person in the US, but you can make it $1,000 per person if you just tell the Fed to cut Interest Rates to 0% and devalue the dollar so it's close to Zimbabwe currency. Then, I can invest my worthless paper money in Party Gaming company (and other stocks), make a ton of money, and use that money to buy...a loaf of bread. OK, forget it! And tell WTO to take a hike. And stop gambling with our futures...
>*sarcasm* It'll probably be the same dozen or so guys who have been spamming all the web polls & Digg for Ron Paul. I >wonder how they managed to scrape up $5.1 million though? */sarcasm*
Botnets? Identity theft? Hax0rs? Generally a tech-savvy crowd and libertarians go hand in hand. *ducks*
A young person who isn't a liberal has no heart. An old person who is has no brain.
So could it be that the mental flexibility of youth makes them more susceptible to liberalism (in the modern usage of the word) than the more experienced minds of the older generations?
Well, we know few young people have a well-developed brain. Zeal without knowledge. And of course the other young people will the wise conservatives as heartless, because they won't understand. And, you did say...an old liberal is brainless.
Well, is that what you were trying to say?!? Now, as a side note, it might have been nice to have other colleges besides NYU and UCLA in the study as well. Because as you well know...they form a good representative sample of both liberal and conservative professors/researchers/students. Or...well I guess not.
This is quite true! I speak from personal experience - I've never been home-schooled but some of my sisters have for a few years and I know friends who have through their young lives. When great parents home-school kids with average to above average results, the results are quite good. One friend, in college focused on politics/law, has amazingly good social skills and would fool many people who only think of the stereotypical "sheltered" homeschooler. But I know his parents, and they are both outgoing and invest a lot in their children's lives and education. And it shows... I know others who were homeschooled who are quite shy and seem rather sheltered, but they are intelligent. Their parents...are both quite shy as well. Hmm, there seems to be a pattern.
So...my own family. My dad used to teach science, English, and was a principal in a small private school. My mom is rather outgoing and has had nursing background. So, not a lack of education - so there was always a stress on doing our best (no matter what the grade) and learning. Our avg family SAT score was quite high, and we've all gotten scholarships to college (my sisters who were home-schooled managed to get full scholarships to their colleges). Their home-schooling netted them a head-start of one year ahead of their class in high school, and my sister at age 20 has her 4-yr teaching degree. And she's a very social person as well. Another sister at 18 is in yr 2 of college doing a degree in social work (home-schoolers do that?!?). And so there you have it...I'd say it's 90% the parents and 10% the school you attend that ultimately determines the level of education.
Dude, just keep it straight - Apple is not APPL, but AAPL. My broker screwed me over with that mistake...:( Unfortunately that was last July, when I was attempting to buy the stock at 53. grrr
poking a hole in the Big Bang theory as we know it.:)
The quote seemed a little strong... "What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe," said Williams, also of the University of Minnesota. I seem to think from the theory that there ought to be much more uniformity on a grand scale (a scattering into galaxies and such like) and thus no major hole with nothing if all began at one focal point.
For those who believe in a heaven/hell, perhaps a hole in the universe is how one would get there? I have no idea what theological/philosophical types would say to something like that. Other than that most nowadays probably deny the actual existence of either or both places...
Well, the only reason I'm aware of is in the Old Testament that circumcision was prescribed for the Israelites. Many Christians have continued this practice because it was said to be more sanitary and was originally prescribed by God and thus intrinsically not a harmful practice.
>Honestly, I think you are quite out of touch with reality. Not surprising if you're spending your time listening to radio talk show hosts.
>When you go out and talk to actual people, the vast majority of them just don't care. They'd rather see immigrants in the system, rather than >operating illegally. As such they support paths to citizenship. That's what the polling shows, and it's what the 2006 election showed where >candidates who campaigned strongly on anti-immigration got their asses handed to them.
>There's a vocal fourth of the country that complains about letting all them brown people become citizens. They're the ones who got a good portion >of the senators to vote against this. That move is going to have political implications for a generation, and it won't be in their benefit.
With all due respect, you are the one who was out of touch. Ah yes, taking down the Capitol Hill phone switchboard yesterday really was about "brown people becoming citizens"? And which people, out of curiosity, are not some shade of brown/tan? A "white" person next to a white sheet of paper is not white, and a "black" person next to a sheet of black construction paper is not black. We are essentially all "brown people" and share a common ancestor anyway. Furthermore, Lou Dobbs, whether you like him or not, has a wife who's a Mexican American legal immigrant and yet they both focus a lot on illegal immigration issues. I rarely listen to talk radio as a general rule, but lately I did listen in for a few minutes in the car and did hear people calling who had Latin American origins who were incensed that the hurdles they had to pass through enroute to the citizenship could be so easily bypassed by illegal immigrants. Oh, and let's create new rules because we aren't planning to enforce existing ones...that'll really teach them!
And, there's the coworker who was ticked off about the bill mucking up the current legal immigration setup. He's trying to sponsor his mother to come here from India, and this family sponsorship which (I feel) is a key way for immigrants to bootstrap themselves in our society was in jeopardy. He even told me he would probably leave and go back to India...he's a very talented guy who's doing in NYU for grad work. Why create disincentive for myriads of people like him who want to reunite with family here? Many illegal immigrants, on the other hand, often have no vested interest in putting their stakes down here, but send money back home and enrich their family's standard of living back home.
Oh, and was I the only one who found it despicable that they mash together such a massive bill that makes changes to legal immigration, deals with border security, works in an amnesty provision, and who knows what else? Split them up into pieces and vote on them individually, so you can't hide behind the old BS excuse - "I didn't vote for that part of the bill...I signed on because of this other thing." I discovered that conservatives and liberals strongly disliked it, and moderates/independents either didn't care or probably shared some reservations about the massive size of this bill.
I've looked into this technology earlier, and I'm not against the article being submitted, but I think disclosure as to holdings (or lack thereof) in the underlying company would be helpful for the submitter to do. It's just the irony (potentially) of paid bloggers for Microsoft's new people-ready campaign. I mean this is a form of a "people-ready" slashvertisement as well perhaps?
Disclosure: I've advised my bro to get into this company and he has a small number of shares (~3k) in these guys at avg px of 1.70 for what it's worth...
Unintential stuff from his review caught on the WSJ video:
1) Smudges are definitely visible on the iPhone screen. See at location - unfortunately, we would need to read stuff on that same screen. Location 4:38
2) He mentions that on third day he was going to chuck it out the window because of the keyboard. Then, on the 5th day, it worked as good as his Treo. Ah, it's great being a reviewer...because normal people would have likely returned it on Day 3. Or maybe thrown it out the window, in which case Day 5 maybe would involve convincing the Apple Store person that this occurred during "normal usage" of the iPhone.
3) He seems to indicate that the coolest features of the phone (Internet browsing on a "real browser", email, etc.) require high-speed Internet, but the phone itself has no high-speed capabilities, and apparently is not upgradeable at all.
My thoughts:
1) Cost just doesn't seem justifiable. I'm not a Crackberry fan, and so anything bigger than a RAZR (which I use) still seems painfully big and unwieldy, and overly tied to work-related stuff 24/7.
2) Huge lock-in period with AT&T. I've never heard about AT&T having a great network in NYC metro (many use Verizon and a decent number use Sprint).
3) I'm not sure how fast EDGE is, but tethering from the laptop to a basic cell phone is cheaper and perhaps just as good.
4) I've not really seen that a phone that raises the bar instantly becomes a phone that I need or really really want. I still haven't seen the whole point of browsing through Album art and this quick music selection. I must have chosen the wrong iPod (shuffle) and still think "simple is good."
5) Ah, the phone should last a day or so? To me, I'm not so happy if the RAZR needs to be recharged before 3 days of use. I've taken it on a weekend trip with rather low battery and got decent use out of it until the next Monday. A $500+ convergence device should really last 2 days or more, I would think.
6) You have to remember one thing - these reviewers probably paid nothing for this device. When you've been selected to review a device as hyped as the iPhone, it is seen as an honor and a privilege, and because you didn't sink $500, your expectations are surely lower than the average customer. So, take these reviews with a grain of salt.
7) Finally, my own experience. I've gotten into the Apple mix with an iPod shuffle, which I really do enjoy on the whole. However, I did have a problem with faulty headphones, so they sent me a new pair. Well, they sent their in-Ear phones by mistake, which I discovered is great audio quality if I attach the Koss foam earbuds instead of those crappy gray rubber caps that come with the headphones. Not that bad, I guess. Also, I own a Macbook, and I seem to break the usual mold of minimal repairs on the thing. I'm a power user, having owned this white Macbook since last July (so Rev 2 or 3?), and my HD crashed and burned (nonrecoverable) and so that was replaced. No data recovery, and I couldn't have my old dead HD back to attempt my own data recovery. Then, I've had the outer shell casing begin to crack on the molding near the wrist wrest, and so my keyboard and the shell was replaced. I've also had an area of dead pixels in the middle of my screen which apparently is "normal wear and tear" and not covered. And, when I recently had an issue with iMovie HD losing its themes, I discovered the Apple Store Genius Bar is not stocked with all geniuses as the Apple Ads would make me think. The solution proposed by this dude...wipe your system and run system restore. His helpful advice after I told him all the crap I have installed, "Make a day of it!" Yeah, what day and who's got the time? I put the Recovery DVD in my computer and reran the installation of ONLY the pre-installed programs (iLife, etc.) and magically all the Themes came back! I'm not a genius by any stretch, but this is disconcerting. Oh, and they don't have a blue screen of death...it's a black one that appears in 3 languages...and I've seen it on a few occasions. Post crash analysis seems well-nigh impossible to do as well. All in all still happy, but I hope their quality doesn't go the way of the dodo bird.
I live home, and our rather large family used 768 (or basic DSL) initially, but it was too little. We've seen a bit of a "sweet spot" though with one step up at 1.5 or so. We use VOIP phone (Sunrocket), I have a number of siblings (we have probably 6 computers on a wifi network) and there's a bit of Youtube, Internet radio, Facebook, email, etc. Not really online gaming or massive downloading, and the phone gets decent use. 768 didn't work with increased internet use ALONG WITH the VOIP, and although VOIP technically doesn't take up much bandwidth, it was starved to the point where voices were garbled. But, that said, 768K is great for most families (esp. those without VOIP or the number of simultaneous users).
Am I the only one who thinks these ads are ridiculous and rather sad? Sure, we could use this amazing chip to help get clean air/food/water so other people without it can get it. Ah, screw them...they can die. Let's play games and forget about their problems.
I understand the market for gaming, but the "screw the world" mentality is just disturbing...
I think this is BS. Tried running Safari at work and with a simple proxy, every time I enter anything and press OK, the program crashes. Then I press Cancel and cannot browse. By going to Edit => Preferences, the ability to change Proxy Settings has been disabled.
I give the Safari Browser a 0/10 for now. There's also the annoying issue of closing the application behind it when clicking in the corner of the screen when it's maximized. It doesn't close Safari, but whatever window was behind it. I've done this 2-3X.
I have a Macbook, so I'm not Apple, but I'm saying Safari is a POS from my perspective right now.
I've only heard of some theories that have hypothesized that during the 6-day creation, the speed of light very early on was sped up but then at the end of creation was fixed to be the speed of light as it is today. But you do realize, light does travel at different speeds through different substances, so your concept of a single "speed of light" is arbitrarily fixed without the substance it is traveling through taken into consideration. I'm not a physicist, but I believe this is more accurate than your seemingly simplistic view that speed of light doesnt' change...and if it did, a PC wouldn't work.
Others have mentioned that in a similar way that God created Adam and Eve as adult human beings, He would also have created light in a "mature" form, meaning traveling at the speed we know it but already fully traversing its path of billions of light years away. Otherwise, Adam would never have seen the starlight from a single star, which would be pointless to create. Of course, obviously if God could create a man out of dust, is it really so difficult for Him to create many light sources with the light already visible from earth?
Creationists would bring out some evidence of marine biology appearing fossilized at tops of mountains in North America or Greenland (and other arctic locations). There is another theory that mentions that there is no evidence of rain, but only a mist in Genesis before the Flood, and Genesis mentions that the fountains of the deep were opened up. So, we see a cataclysm with an entire layer of water vapor in the atmosphere collapsing, and the water table and underground springs breaking up violently, and volcanic activity related to the massive shift in the earth's plates. The likelihood would be that the tallest mountains would be shoved out of the ground amidst this upheaval and massive cracks ala Grand Canyon at the same time. Yeah, and there was also rain...but yes, not by any stretch your average downpour.
Isn't it strange, though, that the same museum which is an insult to those involved in science today would probably have been virtually in agreement with Galileo and Isaac Newton and others who were brilliant and logical scientists from yesteryear? Apparently, you haven't met the people I've met...who've attended Princeton and are in every other way brilliant individuals (including one who's ironically a logic teacher in my Christian high school whose logic text and class for 7th graders far outstripped my 400-level college textbook and class). I hope you had fun with the ad hominem attack, because you achieved little else with your cutting attack on some very smart people who also happen to believe in a 6-day creation.
It is an interesting question, and one that has been asked before...I refer to things that could be based upon the Bible (I could quote references if desired). Of course if you throw out bits and pieces, it will become a tad difficult to argue.
Men (and women) were made in God's image. Mankind was created with knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. And a free will, even as God Himself. All creation was good, as God had said. Mankind was also perfectly good. So, God presented the choice, which was not a malicious one. One tree, the "Knowledge of Good and Evil", was where Adam and Eve could (as the tree is self-described) know about evil as well as good. They had perfectly good trees throughout that garden to eat from, and thus the choice was not difficult really. Should they listen to the God they walked with every day? Or trust someone or something else...
So, why would God, who knows all, allow this possibility? Because He wanted mankind to freely serve Him. Robots can be trained, people or animals can be "beaten into submission", but that is not the willing and free service of the Creator by the creature. And Luke's geneology refers to Adam as God's son, as he was created in God's image. So, as a parent, would you force your kid to always listen and totally protect them from every having any possibility of disobedience? Wouldn't that make you a tyrant?
But why would God allow this, especially as a Father who knew His children would rebel in such a way? Because He had a plan for this that would bring even more glory to Himself (no matter if His children remained in their sin or returned to His loving arms), as well as bringing greater glory to the creatures who repent and return to Him than even if they never fell.
God has chosen to have creatures made in His image (mankind) serve Him freely and willingly and perfectly. It was done before the fall, and can be done only in heaven for those who return to His loving arms and embrace His son Jesus Christ.
I can't say that people naturally will like this concept of God much, who designs mankind in His image in order to serve Him freely and joyfully. People also hate the concept that those who do not do so but rebel against His fatherly care realize the miserable consequences here (to some degree) and in the afterlife.
I guess if you've ever been a parent, and believe you should have some authority in molding your child in a moral and right way, you will understand a little what God the Father is like. If you have been a parent, and see the seeds of rebellion being sown and your good counsel being openly flaunted, you will realize in a very small way what it felt like to God. Some may wish their children to turn into little robots who always say "Yes sir" and "No sir" to their demands, and are never given the freedom to choose any wrong thing, and never are harmed or experience any negative consequences for anything. But then, to expect a spontaneous and free declaration of love from those children is impossible...
You know...I don't like to bash the major media (TV, radio, etc.) - I just ignore them generally. I hop on Drudge on and off for the up-to-date news, but take it with a grain of salt. And I do like the "local Baghdad" coverage of "ChatThePlanet" on YouTube (some guys living in Baghdad)...
Ironically, I thought "security by obscurity" wasn't a viable option. If we hide all the dangerous stuff, then you will be truly safe (TM).
Some people refuse to admit they see evil when it is staring them in the face. God knows his true motive, and our attempts to shove Cho's blame on any who touched his life in fact downplays the insanity and cruelty of his actions.
A few comments I read in the techPresident blog that sum up my sentiments well (from RickRussellTX)...
Guys, step back and read the actual text
This whole "Anthony is a greedy schmuck" and "the Obama campaign tripped up" debate is a bunch of malarky. Read what was actually written:
(1) Campaign staffers had become concerned about the currency and accuracy of information on the site.
(2) Anthony was overworked and suggested that they should make him a consultant.
(3) They said they would rather have a one-time transfer, and he should name a price.
(4) He picked a number. They said no and went to MySpace management for resolution.
(5) MySpace came up with an eminently equitable solution. Mr. Anthony has been given the opportunity to build the site again with a different URL and full transfer of his friends list.
It's as simple as that. He's not a greedy bastard. They asked him to pick a number. Obama staffers are not bumbling idiots; they tried a couple of approaches, things weren't working out, and ultimately they decided to run the site themselves.
MySpacegate, indeed. Surely we can focus on the actual issues, and not this cyber-distraction?
There's Rhapsody for that...I've been able to use the 25 free songs streaming per month through them. Listen to pretty much the whole album if you wish...
The movie he and others worked on is viewable on Google Video in its completion (warning...around 1 hr long):
Link (Google Video)
Interestingly, I just finished watching it. The hardest part to watch was the issue being faced in Africa with those without electricity...it hit close to home as I've done volunteer work in Mexico just at the beginning of this year and saw how difficult life without electricity can be! I'd say watch it fully, and feel free to comment...
Slashdot Mirror
now what do I TAKE to help me cope?
>MSFT shares are up 3% today after another strong rise yesterday, after announcing their financial results and outlook. Not any more. Stock only up slightly, erasing morning gains.
yes you are right...ok makes sense. And now inflation numbers look more realistic too :)
I think the US owes the general populace $1K per person. It will be gambling money not gained (and thus lost) because we were unable to do offshore online gambling. Instead of sending OUR money to the WTO (bullies!), they should give that $100b to us. I know that's only $.33 a person in the US, but you can make it $1,000 per person if you just tell the Fed to cut Interest Rates to 0% and devalue the dollar so it's close to Zimbabwe currency. Then, I can invest my worthless paper money in Party Gaming company (and other stocks), make a ton of money, and use that money to buy...a loaf of bread. OK, forget it! And tell WTO to take a hike. And stop gambling with our futures...
>*sarcasm* It'll probably be the same dozen or so guys who have been spamming all the web polls & Digg for Ron Paul. I >wonder how they managed to scrape up $5.1 million though? */sarcasm*
Botnets? Identity theft? Hax0rs? Generally a tech-savvy crowd and libertarians go hand in hand. *ducks*
So could it be that the mental flexibility of youth makes them more susceptible to liberalism (in the modern usage of the word) than the more experienced minds of the older generations?
Well, we know few young people have a well-developed brain. Zeal without knowledge. And of course the other young people will the wise conservatives as heartless, because they won't understand. And, you did say...an old liberal is brainless.
Well, is that what you were trying to say?!? Now, as a side note, it might have been nice to have other colleges besides NYU and UCLA in the study as well. Because as you well know...they form a good representative sample of both liberal and conservative professors/researchers/students. Or...well I guess not.
This is quite true! I speak from personal experience - I've never been home-schooled but some of my sisters have for a few years and I know friends who have through their young lives. When great parents home-school kids with average to above average results, the results are quite good. One friend, in college focused on politics/law, has amazingly good social skills and would fool many people who only think of the stereotypical "sheltered" homeschooler. But I know his parents, and they are both outgoing and invest a lot in their children's lives and education. And it shows... I know others who were homeschooled who are quite shy and seem rather sheltered, but they are intelligent. Their parents...are both quite shy as well. Hmm, there seems to be a pattern.
So...my own family. My dad used to teach science, English, and was a principal in a small private school. My mom is rather outgoing and has had nursing background. So, not a lack of education - so there was always a stress on doing our best (no matter what the grade) and learning. Our avg family SAT score was quite high, and we've all gotten scholarships to college (my sisters who were home-schooled managed to get full scholarships to their colleges). Their home-schooling netted them a head-start of one year ahead of their class in high school, and my sister at age 20 has her 4-yr teaching degree. And she's a very social person as well. Another sister at 18 is in yr 2 of college doing a degree in social work (home-schoolers do that?!?). And so there you have it...I'd say it's 90% the parents and 10% the school you attend that ultimately determines the level of education.
Dude, just keep it straight - Apple is not APPL, but AAPL. My broker screwed me over with that mistake... :( Unfortunately that was last July, when I was attempting to buy the stock at 53. grrr
poking a hole in the Big Bang theory as we know it. :)
The quote seemed a little strong... "What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe," said Williams, also of the University of Minnesota. I seem to think from the theory that there ought to be much more uniformity on a grand scale (a scattering into galaxies and such like) and thus no major hole with nothing if all began at one focal point.
For those who believe in a heaven/hell, perhaps a hole in the universe is how one would get there? I have no idea what theological/philosophical types would say to something like that. Other than that most nowadays probably deny the actual existence of either or both places...
As far as research into circumcision, there has been an article from the BBC that showed that circumcision helped to cut HIV risk.f ings/aids/434880.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_brie
Well, the only reason I'm aware of is in the Old Testament that circumcision was prescribed for the Israelites. Many Christians have continued this practice because it was said to be more sanitary and was originally prescribed by God and thus intrinsically not a harmful practice.
>Honestly, I think you are quite out of touch with reality. Not surprising if you're spending your time listening to radio talk show hosts.
>When you go out and talk to actual people, the vast majority of them just don't care. They'd rather see immigrants in the system, rather than >operating illegally. As such they support paths to citizenship. That's what the polling shows, and it's what the 2006 election showed where >candidates who campaigned strongly on anti-immigration got their asses handed to them.
>There's a vocal fourth of the country that complains about letting all them brown people become citizens. They're the ones who got a good portion >of the senators to vote against this. That move is going to have political implications for a generation, and it won't be in their benefit.
With all due respect, you are the one who was out of touch. Ah yes, taking down the Capitol Hill phone switchboard yesterday really was about "brown people becoming citizens"? And which people, out of curiosity, are not some shade of brown/tan? A "white" person next to a white sheet of paper is not white, and a "black" person next to a sheet of black construction paper is not black. We are essentially all "brown people" and share a common ancestor anyway. Furthermore, Lou Dobbs, whether you like him or not, has a wife who's a Mexican American legal immigrant and yet they both focus a lot on illegal immigration issues. I rarely listen to talk radio as a general rule, but lately I did listen in for a few minutes in the car and did hear people calling who had Latin American origins who were incensed that the hurdles they had to pass through enroute to the citizenship could be so easily bypassed by illegal immigrants. Oh, and let's create new rules because we aren't planning to enforce existing ones...that'll really teach them!
And, there's the coworker who was ticked off about the bill mucking up the current legal immigration setup. He's trying to sponsor his mother to come here from India, and this family sponsorship which (I feel) is a key way for immigrants to bootstrap themselves in our society was in jeopardy. He even told me he would probably leave and go back to India...he's a very talented guy who's doing in NYU for grad work. Why create disincentive for myriads of people like him who want to reunite with family here? Many illegal immigrants, on the other hand, often have no vested interest in putting their stakes down here, but send money back home and enrich their family's standard of living back home.
Oh, and was I the only one who found it despicable that they mash together such a massive bill that makes changes to legal immigration, deals with border security, works in an amnesty provision, and who knows what else? Split them up into pieces and vote on them individually, so you can't hide behind the old BS excuse - "I didn't vote for that part of the bill...I signed on because of this other thing." I discovered that conservatives and liberals strongly disliked it, and moderates/independents either didn't care or probably shared some reservations about the massive size of this bill.
Perhaps, Anonymous should disclose whether s/he owns any stock of these guys at GRC:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GBRC.PK
I've looked into this technology earlier, and I'm not against the article being submitted, but I think disclosure as to holdings (or lack thereof) in the underlying company would be helpful for the submitter to do. It's just the irony (potentially) of paid bloggers for Microsoft's new people-ready campaign. I mean this is a form of a "people-ready" slashvertisement as well perhaps?
Disclosure: I've advised my bro to get into this company and he has a small number of shares (~3k) in these guys at avg px of 1.70 for what it's worth...
Unintential stuff from his review caught on the WSJ video:
1) Smudges are definitely visible on the iPhone screen. See at location - unfortunately, we would need to read stuff on that same screen. Location 4:38
2) He mentions that on third day he was going to chuck it out the window because of the keyboard. Then, on the 5th day, it worked as good as his Treo. Ah, it's great being a reviewer...because normal people would have likely returned it on Day 3. Or maybe thrown it out the window, in which case Day 5 maybe would involve convincing the Apple Store person that this occurred during "normal usage" of the iPhone.
3) He seems to indicate that the coolest features of the phone (Internet browsing on a "real browser", email, etc.) require high-speed Internet, but the phone itself has no high-speed capabilities, and apparently is not upgradeable at all.
My thoughts:
1) Cost just doesn't seem justifiable. I'm not a Crackberry fan, and so anything bigger than a RAZR (which I use) still seems painfully big and unwieldy, and overly tied to work-related stuff 24/7.
2) Huge lock-in period with AT&T. I've never heard about AT&T having a great network in NYC metro (many use Verizon and a decent number use Sprint).
3) I'm not sure how fast EDGE is, but tethering from the laptop to a basic cell phone is cheaper and perhaps just as good.
4) I've not really seen that a phone that raises the bar instantly becomes a phone that I need or really really want. I still haven't seen the whole point of browsing through Album art and this quick music selection. I must have chosen the wrong iPod (shuffle) and still think "simple is good."
5) Ah, the phone should last a day or so? To me, I'm not so happy if the RAZR needs to be recharged before 3 days of use. I've taken it on a weekend trip with rather low battery and got decent use out of it until the next Monday. A $500+ convergence device should really last 2 days or more, I would think.
6) You have to remember one thing - these reviewers probably paid nothing for this device. When you've been selected to review a device as hyped as the iPhone, it is seen as an honor and a privilege, and because you didn't sink $500, your expectations are surely lower than the average customer. So, take these reviews with a grain of salt.
7) Finally, my own experience. I've gotten into the Apple mix with an iPod shuffle, which I really do enjoy on the whole. However, I did have a problem with faulty headphones, so they sent me a new pair. Well, they sent their in-Ear phones by mistake, which I discovered is great audio quality if I attach the Koss foam earbuds instead of those crappy gray rubber caps that come with the headphones. Not that bad, I guess. Also, I own a Macbook, and I seem to break the usual mold of minimal repairs on the thing. I'm a power user, having owned this white Macbook since last July (so Rev 2 or 3?), and my HD crashed and burned (nonrecoverable) and so that was replaced. No data recovery, and I couldn't have my old dead HD back to attempt my own data recovery. Then, I've had the outer shell casing begin to crack on the molding near the wrist wrest, and so my keyboard and the shell was replaced. I've also had an area of dead pixels in the middle of my screen which apparently is "normal wear and tear" and not covered. And, when I recently had an issue with iMovie HD losing its themes, I discovered the Apple Store Genius Bar is not stocked with all geniuses as the Apple Ads would make me think. The solution proposed by this dude...wipe your system and run system restore. His helpful advice after I told him all the crap I have installed, "Make a day of it!" Yeah, what day and who's got the time? I put the Recovery DVD in my computer and reran the installation of ONLY the pre-installed programs (iLife, etc.) and magically all the Themes came back! I'm not a genius by any stretch, but this is disconcerting. Oh, and they don't have a blue screen of death...it's a black one that appears in 3 languages...and I've seen it on a few occasions. Post crash analysis seems well-nigh impossible to do as well. All in all still happy, but I hope their quality doesn't go the way of the dodo bird.
I live home, and our rather large family used 768 (or basic DSL) initially, but it was too little. We've seen a bit of a "sweet spot" though with one step up at 1.5 or so. We use VOIP phone (Sunrocket), I have a number of siblings (we have probably 6 computers on a wifi network) and there's a bit of Youtube, Internet radio, Facebook, email, etc. Not really online gaming or massive downloading, and the phone gets decent use. 768 didn't work with increased internet use ALONG WITH the VOIP, and although VOIP technically doesn't take up much bandwidth, it was starved to the point where voices were garbled. But, that said, 768K is great for most families (esp. those without VOIP or the number of simultaneous users).
Am I the only one who thinks these ads are ridiculous and rather sad? Sure, we could use this amazing chip to help get clean air/food/water so other people without it can get it. Ah, screw them...they can die. Let's play games and forget about their problems.
I understand the market for gaming, but the "screw the world" mentality is just disturbing...
I think this is BS. Tried running Safari at work and with a simple proxy, every time I enter anything and press OK, the program crashes. Then I press Cancel and cannot browse. By going to Edit => Preferences, the ability to change Proxy Settings has been disabled.
I give the Safari Browser a 0/10 for now. There's also the annoying issue of closing the application behind it when clicking in the corner of the screen when it's maximized. It doesn't close Safari, but whatever window was behind it. I've done this 2-3X.
I have a Macbook, so I'm not Apple, but I'm saying Safari is a POS from my perspective right now.
I've only heard of some theories that have hypothesized that during the 6-day creation, the speed of light very early on was sped up but then at the end of creation was fixed to be the speed of light as it is today. But you do realize, light does travel at different speeds through different substances, so your concept of a single "speed of light" is arbitrarily fixed without the substance it is traveling through taken into consideration. I'm not a physicist, but I believe this is more accurate than your seemingly simplistic view that speed of light doesnt' change...and if it did, a PC wouldn't work.
Others have mentioned that in a similar way that God created Adam and Eve as adult human beings, He would also have created light in a "mature" form, meaning traveling at the speed we know it but already fully traversing its path of billions of light years away. Otherwise, Adam would never have seen the starlight from a single star, which would be pointless to create. Of course, obviously if God could create a man out of dust, is it really so difficult for Him to create many light sources with the light already visible from earth?
Creationists would bring out some evidence of marine biology appearing fossilized at tops of mountains in North America or Greenland (and other arctic locations). There is another theory that mentions that there is no evidence of rain, but only a mist in Genesis before the Flood, and Genesis mentions that the fountains of the deep were opened up. So, we see a cataclysm with an entire layer of water vapor in the atmosphere collapsing, and the water table and underground springs breaking up violently, and volcanic activity related to the massive shift in the earth's plates. The likelihood would be that the tallest mountains would be shoved out of the ground amidst this upheaval and massive cracks ala Grand Canyon at the same time. Yeah, and there was also rain...but yes, not by any stretch your average downpour.
Isn't it strange, though, that the same museum which is an insult to those involved in science today would probably have been virtually in agreement with Galileo and Isaac Newton and others who were brilliant and logical scientists from yesteryear? Apparently, you haven't met the people I've met...who've attended Princeton and are in every other way brilliant individuals (including one who's ironically a logic teacher in my Christian high school whose logic text and class for 7th graders far outstripped my 400-level college textbook and class). I hope you had fun with the ad hominem attack, because you achieved little else with your cutting attack on some very smart people who also happen to believe in a 6-day creation.
Which lends itself to a great ad slogan:
Our "smart phones" are smart, even when you are not!
It is an interesting question, and one that has been asked before...I refer to things that could be based upon the Bible (I could quote references if desired). Of course if you throw out bits and pieces, it will become a tad difficult to argue.
Men (and women) were made in God's image. Mankind was created with knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. And a free will, even as God Himself. All creation was good, as God had said. Mankind was also perfectly good. So, God presented the choice, which was not a malicious one. One tree, the "Knowledge of Good and Evil", was where Adam and Eve could (as the tree is self-described) know about evil as well as good. They had perfectly good trees throughout that garden to eat from, and thus the choice was not difficult really. Should they listen to the God they walked with every day? Or trust someone or something else...
So, why would God, who knows all, allow this possibility? Because He wanted mankind to freely serve Him. Robots can be trained, people or animals can be "beaten into submission", but that is not the willing and free service of the Creator by the creature. And Luke's geneology refers to Adam as God's son, as he was created in God's image. So, as a parent, would you force your kid to always listen and totally protect them from every having any possibility of disobedience? Wouldn't that make you a tyrant?
But why would God allow this, especially as a Father who knew His children would rebel in such a way? Because He had a plan for this that would bring even more glory to Himself (no matter if His children remained in their sin or returned to His loving arms), as well as bringing greater glory to the creatures who repent and return to Him than even if they never fell.
God has chosen to have creatures made in His image (mankind) serve Him freely and willingly and perfectly. It was done before the fall, and can be done only in heaven for those who return to His loving arms and embrace His son Jesus Christ.
I can't say that people naturally will like this concept of God much, who designs mankind in His image in order to serve Him freely and joyfully. People also hate the concept that those who do not do so but rebel against His fatherly care realize the miserable consequences here (to some degree) and in the afterlife.
I guess if you've ever been a parent, and believe you should have some authority in molding your child in a moral and right way, you will understand a little what God the Father is like. If you have been a parent, and see the seeds of rebellion being sown and your good counsel being openly flaunted, you will realize in a very small way what it felt like to God. Some may wish their children to turn into little robots who always say "Yes sir" and "No sir" to their demands, and are never given the freedom to choose any wrong thing, and never are harmed or experience any negative consequences for anything. But then, to expect a spontaneous and free declaration of love from those children is impossible...
You know...I don't like to bash the major media (TV, radio, etc.) - I just ignore them generally. I hop on Drudge on and off for the up-to-date news, but take it with a grain of salt. And I do like the "local Baghdad" coverage of "ChatThePlanet" on YouTube (some guys living in Baghdad)...
Life from a local POV
OK, ladies and gents, I made it real simple! One eBay Search should cover everything! Searching for (gun,knife,fertilizer,holster,hammer,pen,freedom,l etterOpener,sword,GTA,2ndAmmendment,sarcasm) yields only 148,000 results. Let the delisting begin!
Ironically, I thought "security by obscurity" wasn't a viable option. If we hide all the dangerous stuff, then you will be truly safe (TM).
Some people refuse to admit they see evil when it is staring them in the face. God knows his true motive, and our attempts to shove Cho's blame on any who touched his life in fact downplays the insanity and cruelty of his actions.
A few comments I read in the techPresident blog that sum up my sentiments well (from RickRussellTX)...
Guys, step back and read the actual text
This whole "Anthony is a greedy schmuck" and "the Obama campaign tripped up" debate is a bunch of malarky. Read what was actually written:
(1) Campaign staffers had become concerned about the currency and accuracy of information on the site.
(2) Anthony was overworked and suggested that they should make him a consultant.
(3) They said they would rather have a one-time transfer, and he should name a price.
(4) He picked a number. They said no and went to MySpace management for resolution.
(5) MySpace came up with an eminently equitable solution. Mr. Anthony has been given the opportunity to build the site again with a different URL and full transfer of his friends list.
It's as simple as that. He's not a greedy bastard. They asked him to pick a number. Obama staffers are not bumbling idiots; they tried a couple of approaches, things weren't working out, and ultimately they decided to run the site themselves.
MySpacegate, indeed. Surely we can focus on the actual issues, and not this cyber-distraction?
There's Rhapsody for that...I've been able to use the 25 free songs streaming per month through them. Listen to pretty much the whole album if you wish...
f illmore
Here's your link:
http://www.rhapsody.com/lucindawilliams/liveatthe
The movie he and others worked on is viewable on Google Video in its completion (warning...around 1 hr long):
Link (Google Video)
Interestingly, I just finished watching it. The hardest part to watch was the issue being faced in Africa with those without electricity...it hit close to home as I've done volunteer work in Mexico just at the beginning of this year and saw how difficult life without electricity can be! I'd say watch it fully, and feel free to comment...
Never overestimate the human intellect not getting theoretical or subliminal enterprising Elbonians hiding ephemeral ridiculous epistles.
Moreover only very efficient altruistic living organisms never grovel!