Tether the damn tablet to another connection and be done with it. It's not difficult.
People with iPads do the same thing. Personally I like those mobile MyFi type devices like Virgin Mobile sells. This way I can just purchase 3G access when I really need it and not have a data plan stuck on my phone.
Maybe that's because the Galaxy S has a superset of currently available features - but as far as my experience with a user goes, I don't care. All I know is I haven't seen personal evidence of the much talked about fragmentation and incompatibility.
Congratulations you are a proud owner of a brand new phone! You have close to the latest version of Android and should enjoy most if not all of the current apps on Google market.
Too bad you have a two year contract and within that two year period you will either be dependent on your carrier to send out updates (Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.. *ahem*) or you can get a Cyangenmod Firmware after "rooting" your phone. I use Cyangenmod on my MT3G and I just now got a "stable" froyo version. It's sluggish (to be expected) and it has problems with WiFi (won't connect or stay connected to WPA).
Go on not caring... You'll learn like the rest of us Android adopters...
Carrier software upgrades.. Ha! Whew, I laughed myself hoarse on that one.
"I'm for an open government, but only if they want to be."
Really? You've seemed to confuse open government with the disclosure of field reports. We all know war is hell, but how do these cables disclose governance? Strategy yes... Governance no.
Yes. The problem being that the people have a severe case of apathy, or think watching the "Daily Show" is enough. We need more people to step up to the plate and run against the incumbents.
The only people who endanger the troops are those who sent them to Afghanistan and those who will not get them out of there now.
You've confused Afghanistan with Iraq. Afghanistan got itself in this situation when the Taliban aligned themselves with Al-Qaeda and allowed them to operate freely within their borders. This ultimately led to the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The US could not afford for that situation to continue.
because you believe congressional leaders would act on such information? how do you get re-elected when your constituents never know what you're doing, and why?
You lost me. Maybe I need another cup of coffee but my point is not that congressional leaders would act on the information, rather that the constituents would see what their elected politicians were really doing. Hence the "disclose documents between congressional leaders and these contractors" comment.
Of course, I don't think it would really matter. The elections seems to be nothing more than pick the lesser of two evils. Even New York city mayor Bloomberg proved that you can not only buy an election but also a third-term in a city with a two-term limit.
This is a war not monday-night football. We don't need arm chair commanders making political hay over day-to-day operations.
I'm for an open government, but I don't see how knowing intimate details about operations will make the government more open about the war. Sure you can point to the effectiveness of the ground forces, but your totally disregarding the defense contractors who are really raking in the money. In fact I believe these documents will serve to focus our attention on old field reports and distract us from Haliburton, Blackwater (Z), and others who are profiting from the war. Worse these documents are really just increasing Wikileaks visibility at the risk of endangering US troops and worse the Afghans that helped.
Now if wikileaks could disclose documents between congressional leaders and these contractors, then I would be very impressed.
Sorry. I didn't realize there were qualifications to your unqualified free speech.
Sure. There is a difference between "Call me for paid sex" and "I believe prostitution should be legal". One is solicitation, the other is a political opinion protected by the first admendment.
As for Wikileaks, it's no use arguing the difference between "free speech" vs. "treason under the guise of free speech" when Wikileaks isn't even covered by the constitution. Noticed that Wikileaks was targeted but not the many news organizations that reported the contents of the report?
But I love the pro-EU reasoning in this argument" Sure you can freely protest anything in the US, but I can give obscure examples that may or may not apply to free speech therefore you must be wrong." While completely disregarding that the level of freedoms is still higher than those in some EU countries cited in my original post.
You have the right to associate. Why should the association have free speech rights? You already do, as do the persons who you are associating with. If the association is deprived a voice, who is being silenced?
So I guess those posters from PETA, Unions, Greenpeace, ActUp are paid for individually by their members instead of coming from the group's treasury.
Why should you be allowed to invent fictional persons who promote your interests? The whole thing bears an uncanny similarity to sock puppets on Internet forums, with all the same problems.
See above. Besides I don't think people would confuse the NRA, AFL-CIO, or Greenpeace with internet sock puppets.
It doesn't need to, since it's allowed to bribe the electees.
Bribing an elected official is a crime. Selling political power is also a crime.
You may wish to argue that contributions should not be restricted - to which I would disagree strongly - but do not conflate them with speech, something they resemble in no way whatsoever.
Really? Last time I checked PACs used money for advertising and to fund campaign stops. Not to mention the ruling of SCOTUS concerning "Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission":
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act. - Wikipedia.
They have, apparently, done enough to make you aware of their criticism.
Yet not enough to be of much use...
...Your only choice is between right-wing evil (Republicans) and right-centrist evil (Democrats)...
Democrats are right-centrists? Have you seen the party? The only thing they have common are that they are not republicans. The democrats have majority of both houses and the executive branch and still can't pass a bill.
The US has a two-party system: Republicans and Not-Republicans.
Sadly, corporations now have the rights of people.
Hyperbole! I think you meant to say that the corporations are now entitled to one of the same rights as the people.
Sure the supreme court recently reaffirmed a corporation's right to contribute to political campaigns or PACs, but we have the freedom to associate and nothing should limit that association's free speech which includes funding political campaigns.
Thankfully a corporation still can not cast a vote in an election.
That's one hell of a lot more than I can say about the USA and the "land of the free".
I don't equate the ability to counterfeit or violate copyright with freedom or even a basic human right.
The EU "supports" freedom of expression, but it doesn't make any real requirements for any of its member nations.
Unlike France, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Ireland, Poland and Sweden, the USA does not qualify its definition of free speech. A US citizen can make a fool out of themselves without fear of prosecution, and we all know that is taken advantaged of a lot. A redneck pastor in Florida can burn the Kuran and there is nothing the US government can do about it. There is no laws against "hate speech", "denying the holocaust", "blasphemy", "promoting immoral activities", or "seditious speech".
A US citizen can practice any religion, own firearms, enjoy freedoms of the press, and freedom of association.
Sure there are political groups out there that try to impose their beliefs on others (definition of marriage as an example), but over all the court system sides with the constitution and nothing prevents us from voting the politicians out of office. Incumbents have a definite advantage when it comes to elections, but most of that is from an apathetic electorate.
If you're a US citizen and you don't like the status quo, then do something about it. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from organizing for political change. The left leaning citizens complain that the "Tea Party" folks are exercising their rights and getting results yet they do nothing in return.... argh!
Now what really concerns me is that the US was the only party in the negotiations that wanted to keep the contents of ACTA secret. This is to make it easier to rubber stamp though congress, and get the treaty signed before any of the pesky US citizens can exercise their rights to stop it.
Unused ports die when their time is up. Seen a gameport off an audio board lately? Nope. Why? USB.
Why did USB become viable? Firewire/400. It wasn't until USB2 when peripherals beyond a mouse and keyboard became viable. USB2 was created as a competitive answer to Firewire/400.
Seen a firewire port lately, despite all that Apple did to try to hype it up over USB? Nope. GUESS WHY.
I guess because you haven't bothered to look. Firewire is used to transfer video from HD digital camcorders (called iLink by the Sony folks). Firewire was also built in to a couple of ASUS motherboards I purchased for work lately. Not to mention the Firewire ports that Apple still uses on their machines. Firewire actually has higher data throughput and less CPU load then USB2. USB3 and Firewire/800 may be replaced when Intel introduces LightPeak with Apple reportedly signing on as its earliest adopter.
No computer uses floppies any more because they don't have enough capacity. Heck, most computers have a DVD burner rather than CD-only for the same reason. If you really need to use a floppy, you can get a USB floppy drive for $5.
The PC always came with a floppy drive despite the size limitation. We needed them because a particular version of a Windows OS needed the floppy to boot for installation. Also, the corporate suits liked the concept of the floppy for legacy reasons.
The floppy removal was a cost saving move after Windows 2000 and the ability to boot from CD-ROM. Dell gradually removed the floppy from their computers by charging $15 extra instead of making it standard.
Just because your PC compatible doesn't have a floppy attached doesn't necessarily mean that the motherboard no longer has the floppy I/O connector or the BIOS settings.
Apple doesn't "lead" the market. They produce a proprietary, closed-scale system that has a small enough market share that virus writers don't give a crap about infecting it and then claim it's "secure." And they sell it to people who have too much money and not enough common sense to compare prices on similar hardware.
Why should you care who leads? I never quite understand the Apple haters and their insistence of spewing stereotypes and the myth of overpriced computers. Can you by a PC machine for less price? Yes. Will it have the same features? Maybe. Will have the quality and support of an Apple computer? No.
I find it especially funny when people who dump on Apple computers over the price, drive to work in a BMW, Lexus, Acura, etc. You can drive to work in a Hyundai Sonata for much less money.
I don't know who wrote TrueType but MS using FreeType must burn them up. I know it would tick me off.
From Wikipedia: "TrueType is an outline font standard originally developed by Apple Computer in the late 1980s as a competitor to Adobe's Type 1 fonts used in PostScript. TrueType has become the most common format for fonts on both the Mac OS and Microsoft Windows operating systems."
There was a story on Slashdot back in July talking about FreeType celebrating the expiration of the Apple's TrueType patent.
But then you say "Sounds like a tenet." But wait. Where's the link? You defined tenet. But you never defined religion.
what about the following that is quoted from the same comment you pulled tenet.
One of the definitions of religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". Atheist appear to ascribe to the fact that there is no god with supreme importance.
I think I posted enough to the two other replies to address the rest of your comment.
Logic dictates that you can never prove a negative. It is therefore impossible to prove a lack of God;
But you're looking for logic where none exists!;)
Unfortunately people who argue either outcome to "is there a god?" base their decision on faith. I could substitute "gut feeling" for faith to make it more palatable to the atheists. Both sides assume they are right, and that is all they have. There is no absolute proof.
Despite the inability to prove a negative, atheist still assume there is no god. They do this without proof.
I can look inside my thermos and know there is no soup. You can't do the same with religion.
Again I fall back to the "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck" argument for atheism as a religion. Even if it is not technically correct to state that atheism is a religion, it is practically close enough for all intents and purpose to qualify as one.
No one is asking them to judge what is meant rather than what is said. What we're asking is for them to listen to what is said. If I say "America is not a "Christian Nation", but rather a nation of many people with many faiths (and sometimes none at all)" I am in no way saying anything bad about Christians.
You are absolutely correct, and we aren't talking about the same thing. The confusion is my fault.
When you say "The US is not a Christian Nation" you are absolutely correct and I don't think many people will be upset with your assertion except for maybe the right-wingers (hence my point #1). They try to promote the falsehood of a christian nation to cajole fellow christians to their cause.
What I meant by point #2 is when people use the term "christian nation" sarcastically. They also create the falsehood of a "christian nation" to use as an effigy to burn in order to make a point (I know it sounds corny - but I'm tired). Some would point to "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. It's just an example that I Googled, and I have no opinion about the book because I haven't read it and I would not want to slight Sam Harris without giving his book a fair reading. I do know it caused quite a stir and here is an excerpt from good ol' wikipedia:
Writing in an editorial in The Seattle Times, David Klinghoffer said that Letter to a Christian Nation and Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion were the top two bestselling religious books. However, he went on to say that ". . . Dawkins and Harris seem unfamiliar with religious tradition as biblical monotheists know it from personal experience and deep study. Frankly, the success of the new atheist faith would be hard to imagine without today's soaring levels of societal religious illiteracy."[8]
Writing in The Observer, Stephanie Merritt described Harris as providing "concise anti-religious apologetics," but said that "[h]e does not seem to comprehend the mindset of those he addresses."
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."
Good one. Except a more appropriate analogy would be:
Black is a color despite the lack of light, Zero is a number despite the null quantity, and Atheism is a religion despite no faith in a god. (yes I'm recycling what I said in another comment)
There was no reason to include the word "religious" in your definition, as tenets exist outside of religions.
Well that was a copy and paste definition from a Google lookup. Another handy one from the Apple dictionary is "a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism"
While there are some atheists who seem to be on a crusade of some sort (Dawkins comes to mind), to most, atheism is merely an attribute like many others. I am a brown-haired atheist. Neither my lack of belief in any gods, nor my brown hair, is my religion. They are both simple attributes, and I am irreligious.
First of all I mean no offense to any atheist except maybe the angry ones I described in my OP. Just kidding...
Anyway, you'll find that within pretty much any religion. I consider myself a christian yet I'm not a "practicing" one. I don't attend church, I don't do mission work, and I most definitely don't preach the gospel. Yet I do believe in a higher being. So I must admit that like you my faith is simply an attribute just like my hair color.
With respect to those like Dawkins who are on an atheist crusade, I would argue that anything can be made to be a religion (at least, to that individual), but that doesn't make that thing inherently a religion. Linux is an OS. Some people treat it as a religion. That doesn't mean Linux is a religion, just that those individuals have made a religion out of it.
I agree. However unlike Linux, atheism is in the domain of the traditional definition of religion since it deals directly with the belief that there is no god (as opposed to GPL versus BSD).
What college football isn't a religion? Tell that to the SEC fans.;)
The only problem I see with your Sport, Linux, and Politics examples is that they aren't within the same domain as religion in the traditional sense.
The basis of Atheism is that there is no god, not the New Orleans Saints ability to have another successful season, Ubuntu's user friendliness, or Democrats idea of social engineering (thought give equal time to the other party).
Black is a color despite the lack of light, Zero is a number despite the null quantity, and Atheism is a religion despite no faith in a god.
BTW, I don't mean to offend anybody just having a discussion.
1) Atheism is not a Religion. It has no tenants, and the lack of belief in something cannot be considered a "tenant". It's a state of belief.
A tenet is a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof. Atheism proclaims that there is no god yet does not offer any proof. Sounds like a tenet.
One of the definitions of religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". Atheist appear to ascribe to the fact that there is no god with supreme importance.
People who are offended by others mocking the "Christian Nation" concept are either: (a) In the first group you describe above, and therefore among those being mocked, or (b) not comprehending what is being mocked.
Unfortunately, you can not tell a segment of the population to judge what is meant instead of what is being said. It doesn't help that some of those people take things literally (and I do mean literally).
You can't expect to accomplish your goal if you give potential supporters a reason to feel slighted, or worse give your opposition something to galvanize their political base against you.
...doesn't help your feeble argument. Anyone with an ounce of sense could stop reading at "atheism is just yet another form of religion."
We're splitting hairs here but the existence or lack thereof of a higher power does not define a religion. How people choose to live their lives based on their belief that the higher power does or does not exist defines a religion.
Sure purists will say that to be truly a religion then a higher power must be worshiped, but I prefer the "if it looks like a religion and acts like a religion then it therefore must be a religion" test. Atheists have been known to congregate, they mock other belief systems, they take any comments about their beliefs personally, and they like to preach their gospel (take the movie 'Invention of lying" for example or just google "magic man in the sky" ). Looks like a religion to me... hurts to find out that you're human and therefore like everybody else doesn't it?
Sure, Skippy - the absence of something is another form of that thing. And black is just a darker shade of white.
Even though black is the absence of reflected or transmitted light it like While is still considered a color. By the same token, even though atheism is the belief that a higher power does not exist, it can still be considered a religion.
I cringe when I hear "christian nation". I consider myself a spiritual person, and believe that religion serves an important purpose in our daily lives. For the atheists out there that are tempted to comment that religion doesn't play any role in their lives, I hate to be the one to break it to you but atheism is just yet another form of religion.
Phrases like "christian nation" and such are used by the following types of people:
1) Politicians and "patriotic grass roots" special interest groups that use it to hide the fact that what they are actually doing is promoting bigotry and/or to insinuate that if you don't believe in their brand of politics then you aren't what they consider very christian. Yes I am saying that the "christian" politicians are using their religion base to extort fellow christians who may not fully understand or agree with their politics into being supporters.
2) People who don't agree with the politics of these right-wingers and use "christian nation" to be snarky. What they don't realize is that they not only insult the right-wingers but basically most people of the christian faith. Therefore shooting themselves in the foot by alienating people who may otherwise be sympathetic to their cause.
3) Angry atheists (as opposed to 'social' atheists) who also use the term "christian nation" sarcastically but not for any real political motivation but rather for their obsession to rebel against people who have faith in a higher power. They consider themselves intellectually superior to everyone else and reduce everybody else's faith into "imaginary man in the sky" religion. Even though they refuse to admit it, they not only actually believe in a higher power but also angry with it. They actively attack other individual's faith believing that this will ultimately hurt the higher power that they are fighting against.
3a) I need to explain what I consider a 'social' atheist. Of course I meant social as opposed to angry, and this type of atheist don't agree with the dogma promoted by organized religion and tend to believe in scientific facts. They are respectful of others, but don't mind sharing their beliefs when asked. Most of my atheist friends fall into this category. They don't take issue with the use of God references in our customs, because they consider them customs. They tend to be some of the nicest people you could ever know and cringe at the thought of forcing their values onto others as much as they hate it being done to them by others.
3b) Believing in scientific facts is not a prerequisite for being an atheist, nor prevents you from being a spiritual individual. Like I mentioned earlier I'm a spiritual person who works in the scientific field. I am fascinated by science and look forward to the next big discovery. I do get irritated by the thought that some of the discoveries I help make can and will be used against my faith by an angry athiest.
3c) I think I covered my ass enough for this controversial topic.. Of course this is slashdot so someone will get offended.
4) Jihadists use it as part of their speech to incite violence against the US.
Slashdot Mirror
People with iPads do the same thing. Personally I like those mobile MyFi type devices like Virgin Mobile sells. This way I can just purchase 3G access when I really need it and not have a data plan stuck on my phone.
Congratulations you are a proud owner of a brand new phone! You have close to the latest version of Android and should enjoy most if not all of the current apps on Google market.
Too bad you have a two year contract and within that two year period you will either be dependent on your carrier to send out updates (Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.. *ahem*) or you can get a Cyangenmod Firmware after "rooting" your phone. I use Cyangenmod on my MT3G and I just now got a "stable" froyo version. It's sluggish (to be expected) and it has problems with WiFi (won't connect or stay connected to WPA).
Go on not caring... You'll learn like the rest of us Android adopters...
Carrier software upgrades.. Ha! Whew, I laughed myself hoarse on that one.
Really? You've seemed to confuse open government with the disclosure of field reports. We all know war is hell, but how do these cables disclose governance? Strategy yes... Governance no.
Yes. The problem being that the people have a severe case of apathy, or think watching the "Daily Show" is enough. We need more people to step up to the plate and run against the incumbents.
You've confused Afghanistan with Iraq. Afghanistan got itself in this situation when the Taliban aligned themselves with Al-Qaeda and allowed them to operate freely within their borders. This ultimately led to the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The US could not afford for that situation to continue.
Iraq is a whole different story...
You lost me. Maybe I need another cup of coffee but my point is not that congressional leaders would act on the information, rather that the constituents would see what their elected politicians were really doing. Hence the "disclose documents between congressional leaders and these contractors" comment.
Of course, I don't think it would really matter. The elections seems to be nothing more than pick the lesser of two evils. Even New York city mayor Bloomberg proved that you can not only buy an election but also a third-term in a city with a two-term limit.
This is a war not monday-night football. We don't need arm chair commanders making political hay over day-to-day operations.
I'm for an open government, but I don't see how knowing intimate details about operations will make the government more open about the war. Sure you can point to the effectiveness of the ground forces, but your totally disregarding the defense contractors who are really raking in the money. In fact I believe these documents will serve to focus our attention on old field reports and distract us from Haliburton, Blackwater (Z), and others who are profiting from the war. Worse these documents are really just increasing Wikileaks visibility at the risk of endangering US troops and worse the Afghans that helped.
Now if wikileaks could disclose documents between congressional leaders and these contractors, then I would be very impressed.
Sure. There is a difference between "Call me for paid sex" and "I believe prostitution should be legal". One is solicitation, the other is a political opinion protected by the first admendment.
As for Wikileaks, it's no use arguing the difference between "free speech" vs. "treason under the guise of free speech" when Wikileaks isn't even covered by the constitution. Noticed that Wikileaks was targeted but not the many news organizations that reported the contents of the report?
But I love the pro-EU reasoning in this argument" Sure you can freely protest anything in the US, but I can give obscure examples that may or may not apply to free speech therefore you must be wrong." While completely disregarding that the level of freedoms is still higher than those in some EU countries cited in my original post.
Worse. The article you linked shows 3 learning centers in the LA area that costs a total of $1.187 Billion.
So I guess those posters from PETA, Unions, Greenpeace, ActUp are paid for individually by their members instead of coming from the group's treasury.
See above. Besides I don't think people would confuse the NRA, AFL-CIO, or Greenpeace with internet sock puppets.
Bribing an elected official is a crime. Selling political power is also a crime.
Really? Last time I checked PACs used money for advertising and to fund campaign stops. Not to mention the ruling of SCOTUS concerning "Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission":
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act. - Wikipedia.
Yet not enough to be of much use...
Democrats are right-centrists? Have you seen the party? The only thing they have common are that they are not republicans. The democrats have majority of both houses and the executive branch and still can't pass a bill.
The US has a two-party system: Republicans and Not-Republicans.
Yes really.
Soliciting sex is illegal in most (if not all) US states. Soliciting sex not equal to free speech.
Wikileaks is not a US entity and enjoy no constitutional protections.
Hyperbole! I think you meant to say that the corporations are now entitled to one of the same rights as the people.
Sure the supreme court recently reaffirmed a corporation's right to contribute to political campaigns or PACs, but we have the freedom to associate and nothing should limit that association's free speech which includes funding political campaigns.
Thankfully a corporation still can not cast a vote in an election.
I don't equate the ability to counterfeit or violate copyright with freedom or even a basic human right.
The EU "supports" freedom of expression, but it doesn't make any real requirements for any of its member nations.
Unlike France, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Ireland, Poland and Sweden, the USA does not qualify its definition of free speech. A US citizen can make a fool out of themselves without fear of prosecution, and we all know that is taken advantaged of a lot. A redneck pastor in Florida can burn the Kuran and there is nothing the US government can do about it. There is no laws against "hate speech", "denying the holocaust", "blasphemy", "promoting immoral activities", or "seditious speech".
A US citizen can practice any religion, own firearms, enjoy freedoms of the press, and freedom of association.
Sure there are political groups out there that try to impose their beliefs on others (definition of marriage as an example), but over all the court system sides with the constitution and nothing prevents us from voting the politicians out of office. Incumbents have a definite advantage when it comes to elections, but most of that is from an apathetic electorate.
If you're a US citizen and you don't like the status quo, then do something about it. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from organizing for political change. The left leaning citizens complain that the "Tea Party" folks are exercising their rights and getting results yet they do nothing in return.... argh!
Now what really concerns me is that the US was the only party in the negotiations that wanted to keep the contents of ACTA secret. This is to make it easier to rubber stamp though congress, and get the treaty signed before any of the pesky US citizens can exercise their rights to stop it.
Maybe the fact that someone would apply for a patent on how to shutdown is non-obvious enough... ;)
Why did USB become viable? Firewire/400. It wasn't until USB2 when peripherals beyond a mouse and keyboard became viable. USB2 was created as a competitive answer to Firewire/400.
I guess because you haven't bothered to look. Firewire is used to transfer video from HD digital camcorders (called iLink by the Sony folks). Firewire was also built in to a couple of ASUS motherboards I purchased for work lately. Not to mention the Firewire ports that Apple still uses on their machines. Firewire actually has higher data throughput and less CPU load then USB2. USB3 and Firewire/800 may be replaced when Intel introduces LightPeak with Apple reportedly signing on as its earliest adopter.
The PC always came with a floppy drive despite the size limitation. We needed them because a particular version of a Windows OS needed the floppy to boot for installation. Also, the corporate suits liked the concept of the floppy for legacy reasons.
The floppy removal was a cost saving move after Windows 2000 and the ability to boot from CD-ROM. Dell gradually removed the floppy from their computers by charging $15 extra instead of making it standard.
Just because your PC compatible doesn't have a floppy attached doesn't necessarily mean that the motherboard no longer has the floppy I/O connector or the BIOS settings.
Why should you care who leads? I never quite understand the Apple haters and their insistence of spewing stereotypes and the myth of overpriced computers. Can you by a PC machine for less price? Yes. Will it have the same features? Maybe. Will have the quality and support of an Apple computer? No.
I find it especially funny when people who dump on Apple computers over the price, drive to work in a BMW, Lexus, Acura, etc. You can drive to work in a Hyundai Sonata for much less money.
From Wikipedia: "TrueType is an outline font standard originally developed by Apple Computer in the late 1980s as a competitor to Adobe's Type 1 fonts used in PostScript. TrueType has become the most common format for fonts on both the Mac OS and Microsoft Windows operating systems."
There was a story on Slashdot back in July talking about FreeType celebrating the expiration of the Apple's TrueType patent.
what about the following that is quoted from the same comment you pulled tenet.
I think I posted enough to the two other replies to address the rest of your comment.
I mean no disrespect.. just tired.
But you're looking for logic where none exists! ;)
Unfortunately people who argue either outcome to "is there a god?" base their decision on faith. I could substitute "gut feeling" for faith to make it more palatable to the atheists. Both sides assume they are right, and that is all they have. There is no absolute proof.
Despite the inability to prove a negative, atheist still assume there is no god. They do this without proof.
I can look inside my thermos and know there is no soup. You can't do the same with religion.
Again I fall back to the "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck" argument for atheism as a religion. Even if it is not technically correct to state that atheism is a religion, it is practically close enough for all intents and purpose to qualify as one.
You are absolutely correct, and we aren't talking about the same thing. The confusion is my fault.
When you say "The US is not a Christian Nation" you are absolutely correct and I don't think many people will be upset with your assertion except for maybe the right-wingers (hence my point #1). They try to promote the falsehood of a christian nation to cajole fellow christians to their cause.
What I meant by point #2 is when people use the term "christian nation" sarcastically. They also create the falsehood of a "christian nation" to use as an effigy to burn in order to make a point (I know it sounds corny - but I'm tired). Some would point to "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. It's just an example that I Googled, and I have no opinion about the book because I haven't read it and I would not want to slight Sam Harris without giving his book a fair reading. I do know it caused quite a stir and here is an excerpt from good ol' wikipedia:
Writing in an editorial in The Seattle Times, David Klinghoffer said that Letter to a Christian Nation and Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion were the top two bestselling religious books. However, he went on to say that ". . . Dawkins and Harris seem unfamiliar with religious tradition as biblical monotheists know it from personal experience and deep study. Frankly, the success of the new atheist faith would be hard to imagine without today's soaring levels of societal religious illiteracy."[8]
Writing in The Observer, Stephanie Merritt described Harris as providing "concise anti-religious apologetics," but said that "[h]e does not seem to comprehend the mindset of those he addresses."
Good one. Except a more appropriate analogy would be:
Black is a color despite the lack of light, Zero is a number despite the null quantity, and Atheism is a religion despite no faith in a god. (yes I'm recycling what I said in another comment)
Well that was a copy and paste definition from a Google lookup. Another handy one from the Apple dictionary is "a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism"
First of all I mean no offense to any atheist except maybe the angry ones I described in my OP. Just kidding...
Anyway, you'll find that within pretty much any religion. I consider myself a christian yet I'm not a "practicing" one. I don't attend church, I don't do mission work, and I most definitely don't preach the gospel. Yet I do believe in a higher being. So I must admit that like you my faith is simply an attribute just like my hair color.
I agree. However unlike Linux, atheism is in the domain of the traditional definition of religion since it deals directly with the belief that there is no god (as opposed to GPL versus BSD).
What college football isn't a religion? Tell that to the SEC fans. ;)
The only problem I see with your Sport, Linux, and Politics examples is that they aren't within the same domain as religion in the traditional sense.
The basis of Atheism is that there is no god, not the New Orleans Saints ability to have another successful season, Ubuntu's user friendliness, or Democrats idea of social engineering (thought give equal time to the other party).
Black is a color despite the lack of light, Zero is a number despite the null quantity, and Atheism is a religion despite no faith in a god.
BTW, I don't mean to offend anybody just having a discussion.
A tenet is a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof. Atheism proclaims that there is no god yet does not offer any proof. Sounds like a tenet.
One of the definitions of religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". Atheist appear to ascribe to the fact that there is no god with supreme importance.
Unfortunately, you can not tell a segment of the population to judge what is meant instead of what is being said. It doesn't help that some of those people take things literally (and I do mean literally).
You can't expect to accomplish your goal if you give potential supporters a reason to feel slighted, or worse give your opposition something to galvanize their political base against you.
We're splitting hairs here but the existence or lack thereof of a higher power does not define a religion. How people choose to live their lives based on their belief that the higher power does or does not exist defines a religion.
Sure purists will say that to be truly a religion then a higher power must be worshiped, but I prefer the "if it looks like a religion and acts like a religion then it therefore must be a religion" test. Atheists have been known to congregate, they mock other belief systems, they take any comments about their beliefs personally, and they like to preach their gospel (take the movie 'Invention of lying" for example or just google "magic man in the sky" ). Looks like a religion to me... hurts to find out that you're human and therefore like everybody else doesn't it?
Even though black is the absence of reflected or transmitted light it like While is still considered a color. By the same token, even though atheism is the belief that a higher power does not exist, it can still be considered a religion.
So I can count you as an angry atheist then?
I cringe when I hear "christian nation". I consider myself a spiritual person, and believe that religion serves an important purpose in our daily lives. For the atheists out there that are tempted to comment that religion doesn't play any role in their lives, I hate to be the one to break it to you but atheism is just yet another form of religion.
Phrases like "christian nation" and such are used by the following types of people:
1) Politicians and "patriotic grass roots" special interest groups that use it to hide the fact that what they are actually doing is promoting bigotry and/or to insinuate that if you don't believe in their brand of politics then you aren't what they consider very christian. Yes I am saying that the "christian" politicians are using their religion base to extort fellow christians who may not fully understand or agree with their politics into being supporters.
2) People who don't agree with the politics of these right-wingers and use "christian nation" to be snarky. What they don't realize is that they not only insult the right-wingers but basically most people of the christian faith. Therefore shooting themselves in the foot by alienating people who may otherwise be sympathetic to their cause.
3) Angry atheists (as opposed to 'social' atheists) who also use the term "christian nation" sarcastically but not for any real political motivation but rather for their obsession to rebel against people who have faith in a higher power. They consider themselves intellectually superior to everyone else and reduce everybody else's faith into "imaginary man in the sky" religion. Even though they refuse to admit it, they not only actually believe in a higher power but also angry with it. They actively attack other individual's faith believing that this will ultimately hurt the higher power that they are fighting against.
3a) I need to explain what I consider a 'social' atheist. Of course I meant social as opposed to angry, and this type of atheist don't agree with the dogma promoted by organized religion and tend to believe in scientific facts. They are respectful of others, but don't mind sharing their beliefs when asked. Most of my atheist friends fall into this category. They don't take issue with the use of God references in our customs, because they consider them customs. They tend to be some of the nicest people you could ever know and cringe at the thought of forcing their values onto others as much as they hate it being done to them by others.
3b) Believing in scientific facts is not a prerequisite for being an atheist, nor prevents you from being a spiritual individual. Like I mentioned earlier I'm a spiritual person who works in the scientific field. I am fascinated by science and look forward to the next big discovery. I do get irritated by the thought that some of the discoveries I help make can and will be used against my faith by an angry athiest.
3c) I think I covered my ass enough for this controversial topic.. Of course this is slashdot so someone will get offended.
4) Jihadists use it as part of their speech to incite violence against the US.