. How can one talk about being pro-atheist if atheism means you believe in no Creator? Exactly what are they supposed to talk about? Nothing? Because essentially thats what they believe in as a Creator, nothing.
What are they supposed to talk about? Everything else of course.
The urge to advertise your personal beliefs about God and insert them into unrelated discussions about jury selection is what is difficult to trust.
what? it's entirely a related issue to the discussion...because it's true. A person self identified as an atheist is VERY likely to be excused from jury duty. I'm not sure why you have such a long winded reaction to that fact.
most Atheists I have personally met weren't terribly pro-Atheism. They were anti-religion.
I suspect you weren't paying very close attention to what they were actually saying. Most atheists aren't in the slightest anti-religion, most are very much anti having religion pushed onto others...coincidentally in much the same way a religious person is about OTHER religions. There's a very large difference. People who go about their lives, quietly enjoying their faith without attempting to interject their beliefs in other peoples lives aren't going to get much attention from atheists. They may get attention from assholes, but at that point the atheism is just trivia.
Depends. At the office, I've replaced my laptop with an iPad, and I'm quite happy with the results.
Yeah, I need to type a lot sometimes, so I have a bluetooth keyboard. This lets me enter text as quickly on my iPad as I would on a laptop
While that wouldn't work for me, as I have all too many PC specific apps I have to rely on, I wouldn't begrudge anyone an iPad centric solution that works for them. Personally, while I get the "anti apple" mindset, I don't get the anti-tablet-formfactor mindset, especially since it's obviously and demonstrably a very useful format. Is it ideal for all uses? No...but neither is a laptop. It fills a very real hole in my computing needs, and frankly I suspect a lot of the naysayers are a little jealous about not being able to afford one.
My iPad never leaves my coffee table. I've seen people using them at work, but honestly unless you're planning on doing stuff while walking around, a laptop/netbook will serve better.
That being said though, the tablet format is the ideal couch computing device. Sure, I could use my EVO, and frequently do while my girlfriend has the ipad, but screen real estate really does have value. Hell, try to use an RDP client on the EVO, it's an exercise in masochism, while on the ipad it works great.
I'm not sure what the motivation to ask the question "are they too expensive" comes from, when tablets (in generalities) are one of the hottest selling segments of the computing market right now. Can you imagine how long a marketing guy at Apple would have a job if he stood up in a board meeting and suggested that the iPad was too expensive...all while they're selling them by the millions.
Now if the question were different, like "is tablet 'x' too expensive", then it might be an interesting conversation. I've seen several new tablets poised for sale at costs HIGHER than the ipad...which seems like a ridiculously short sighted move. You don't enter a market with a "me too" product priced higher than the established leader (unless you're Apple), unless you have something markedly better to offer. And frankly, "it's android" doesn't rise to that level.
My understanding was that Job's form of pancreatic cancer is not the almost-guaranteed-to-be-fatal kind that Patrick Swayze had.
You mean in Ghost? You mean getting stabbed in it by a pretend mugger? You mean that kind?
I thought I was making a funny but I googled it and found out that Patrick Swayze died (no Ghost jokes please, this is a solemn subject). I did not know that. I am an insensitive clod.
How solemn.
So you made an insensitive joke, realized it was insensitive...but still posted it, and then criticized yourself?
I challenge anyone to find my MicroSD card. I've conducted extensive security audits to verify that no attacker, even one with inside information, can gain electronic or physical access to the disc.
Translation: "I lost the tiny little bastard and can't fucking find it!"
Is there no clinical use for the experience the doctors gain by doing an implant of this type? I mean obviously they learn what it would take if we ever got an optic implant that restored vision to the blind? Whatever the "part" was that got rejected, seems like valuable information to me.
The "part" that got rejected was a simple dermal anchor he had put in at a tattoo/piercing shop...and it wasn't "rejected", he just got an infection. Even though the news has reported otherwise, the camera was NOT implanted in anything, it was simply hanging from hooks he had stuck under his skin, just like the skate punks you see at the bus stop have.
$50,000 a year is "overpaid"? I make 3 times that (almost) and my job's a hell of a lot easier (and less important) than a teacher's job.
Do you work an average of 190 days a year too? The idea that teachers are underpaid is a fallacy whose time has come to and end. The worst you can say is that teachers make less per year of education than most professions, but not all and it is something you know going in.
If nothing else, having 3 months a year off sure helps take the sting out of that measly $50K paycheck. I may make 2.5 times as much, but teachers get almost 10x as many days off a year.
All phones can suffer from some attenuation if you wrap enough flesh around it, but apple is the only phone designer stupid enough to make a phone intended to be held BY THE ANTENNA. I get a little sick of the disingenuous fanboi defense of Apple by parroting the tu quoque fallacy "everyone does it". The iphone 4 has a VERY real problem when you hold it not in some magical "death grip", but in the way a normal person holds a normal cell phone.
If you ask me, the MOST likely reason that the Verizon iphone is having less of an issue is because it's Verizon and not AT&T. Their network is already more reliable.
a real invisibility cloak..and all it took was redefining the terms "invisibility", and "cloak". Hell if I knew it was that easy, I'd have invented one years ago.
yes we can. the fact that there's disagreement on what it consisted of doesn't mean that we're unable to make every single one of the argued varieties.
The military still uses paper tape in some limited capacity. It has the advantage of being electromagnetic pulse proof, and in a hermetically sealed container it has an almost unlimited lifespan.
Wait, so this jackhole is telling us that a company using one mans ego and personal prejudices to make technology decisions, instead of examining and evaluating the market on its own merit, will lead to poor marketplace performance?
He sure has a unique insight. Someone should give him a blog.
Plus he had the vision to create the sleek, easy-to-use iPod..
He had the vision to create a "Me too" product AFTER the market was already saturated with competing MP3 player. There was nothing special about early ipods...even the "easy to use" interface was almost exactly a copy of every OTHER MP3 player...there's only so many ways to traverse a list of artists/album/song after all.
Where Jobs deserves credit is the marrying of the ipod to the itunes music store, THAT was revolutionary. Too many people seem to think Apple invented the MP3 player and miss the real innovation.
Obama? At least he isn't making millions traveling the world in polluting vehicles solely to spread the word of how bad it is to travel in polluting vehicles. Al Gore is the biggest environmental hypocrite of our time. He COULD be leading the world in delivering his speeches and lectures by telepresence, but instead he insists on traveling and taking his huge entourage with him.
That's not even getting into his ludicrously oversided and energy guzzling mansion.
Provide me w/ a chance to fold the solar cell garage into a home improvement loan and it becomes a lot more affordable, and having the solar cells eases the strain which charging so many electric vehicles would add to the electric grid.
William
Primarily because photovoltaic solar panels cost more to implement than the electricity they can be expected to produce over their entire lifespan in many, if not most, parts of the country. People tend to VASTLY overestimate the efficiency of solar power systems, in the real world they're very expensive and produce very little electricity.
Because hydrogen as a fuel does not inherently pollute nor is it inherently carbon positive. It has a lower potential energy than most forms of petroleum so the fact that they were able to make a plane that flies 4 hours on a tank of fuel is important.
The only problem with that statement is there is no such thing as "hydrogen fuel".
Hydrogen is non-polluting only if you ignore all the processing that goes into producing the hydrogen. It's like using a 2-stroke gasoline generator to charge up your electric car, and then declaring it a non-polluting vehicle. The hydrogen has to come from somewhere...and it's not just buried in the ground like petroleum, it has to be produced...and that process is at a net energy loss.
People who are overly excited about the "hydrogen economy" are woefully underinformed on things like the laws of thermodynamics. Hydrogen is never going to be a efficiency gain, it can't be. It can be a practical energy STORAGE medium, but it's going to require a cheap/nearly unlimited energy source to start with...like nuclear power. But of course, once you have cheap plentiful electricity, the hydrogen doesn't make much sense.
You may not be aware of this, but bootlegging alcohol is a problem to this very day, and considering how draconian my states liquor laws/taxes are if I knew where to find one, I WOULD buy from a bootlegger.
Shake off your pothead-nirvana dreams for a minute and this this through. Is the entire underground pot industry going to disappear? Why would it? If pot is legalized and taxed, bootleg pot will cost less...that's a certainty because there's no way market for it to cost more. The market just shifts from expensive illegal pot, to cheap illegal pot competing with expensive legal pot.
Sure, people who aren't plugged into the illegal pot market would buy from legal sources, but there's already sufficient market for the illegal stuff to keep that industry thriving...and we'd expect people to migrate to the cheaper source.
I just don't get the logic behind people thinking that legalizing pot is going to make the hundred year industry of illegal pot evaporate.
Slashdot Mirror
. How can one talk about being pro-atheist if atheism means you believe in no Creator? Exactly what are they supposed to talk about? Nothing? Because essentially thats what they believe in as a Creator, nothing.
What are they supposed to talk about? Everything else of course.
The urge to advertise your personal beliefs about God and insert them into unrelated discussions about jury selection is what is difficult to trust.
what? it's entirely a related issue to the discussion...because it's true. A person self identified as an atheist is VERY likely to be excused from jury duty. I'm not sure why you have such a long winded reaction to that fact.
most Atheists I have personally met weren't terribly pro-Atheism. They were anti-religion.
I suspect you weren't paying very close attention to what they were actually saying. Most atheists aren't in the slightest anti-religion, most are very much anti having religion pushed onto others...coincidentally in much the same way a religious person is about OTHER religions. There's a very large difference. People who go about their lives, quietly enjoying their faith without attempting to interject their beliefs in other peoples lives aren't going to get much attention from atheists. They may get attention from assholes, but at that point the atheism is just trivia.
While that wouldn't work for me, as I have all too many PC specific apps I have to rely on, I wouldn't begrudge anyone an iPad centric solution that works for them. Personally, while I get the "anti apple" mindset, I don't get the anti-tablet-formfactor mindset, especially since it's obviously and demonstrably a very useful format. Is it ideal for all uses? No...but neither is a laptop. It fills a very real hole in my computing needs, and frankly I suspect a lot of the naysayers are a little jealous about not being able to afford one.
My iPad never leaves my coffee table. I've seen people using them at work, but honestly unless you're planning on doing stuff while walking around, a laptop/netbook will serve better.
That being said though, the tablet format is the ideal couch computing device. Sure, I could use my EVO, and frequently do while my girlfriend has the ipad, but screen real estate really does have value. Hell, try to use an RDP client on the EVO, it's an exercise in masochism, while on the ipad it works great.
I'm not sure what the motivation to ask the question "are they too expensive" comes from, when tablets (in generalities) are one of the hottest selling segments of the computing market right now. Can you imagine how long a marketing guy at Apple would have a job if he stood up in a board meeting and suggested that the iPad was too expensive...all while they're selling them by the millions.
Now if the question were different, like "is tablet 'x' too expensive", then it might be an interesting conversation. I've seen several new tablets poised for sale at costs HIGHER than the ipad...which seems like a ridiculously short sighted move. You don't enter a market with a "me too" product priced higher than the established leader (unless you're Apple), unless you have something markedly better to offer. And frankly, "it's android" doesn't rise to that level.
You know how when you got your EVO, you were like "OMG, this bigger screen is awesome!". well, you can figure the rest out.
My understanding was that Job's form of pancreatic cancer is not the almost-guaranteed-to-be-fatal kind that Patrick Swayze had.
You mean in Ghost? You mean getting stabbed in it by a pretend mugger? You mean that kind?
I thought I was making a funny but I googled it and found out that Patrick Swayze died (no Ghost jokes please, this is a solemn subject). I did not know that. I am an insensitive clod.
How solemn.
So you made an insensitive joke, realized it was insensitive...but still posted it, and then criticized yourself?
Oh good, the crazy bus is here...
I challenge anyone to find my MicroSD card. I've conducted extensive security audits to verify that no attacker, even one with inside information, can gain electronic or physical access to the disc.
Translation: "I lost the tiny little bastard and can't fucking find it!"
Is there no clinical use for the experience the doctors gain by doing an implant of this type? I mean obviously they learn what it would take if we ever got an optic implant that restored vision to the blind? Whatever the "part" was that got rejected, seems like valuable information to me.
The "part" that got rejected was a simple dermal anchor he had put in at a tattoo/piercing shop...and it wasn't "rejected", he just got an infection. Even though the news has reported otherwise, the camera was NOT implanted in anything, it was simply hanging from hooks he had stuck under his skin, just like the skate punks you see at the bus stop have.
$50,000 a year is "overpaid"? I make 3 times that (almost) and my job's a hell of a lot easier (and less important) than a teacher's job.
Do you work an average of 190 days a year too? The idea that teachers are underpaid is a fallacy whose time has come to and end. The worst you can say is that teachers make less per year of education than most professions, but not all and it is something you know going in.
If nothing else, having 3 months a year off sure helps take the sting out of that measly $50K paycheck. I may make 2.5 times as much, but teachers get almost 10x as many days off a year.
Look up the word 'sensationalism'
Ok, but only if you look up the word "repeatable".
I have heard of people getting hit with destruction of evidence charges for engaging in this sort of behavior...
You mean you've heard of people being charged with destruction of evidence for destroying evidence? spooky...
All phones can suffer from some attenuation if you wrap enough flesh around it, but apple is the only phone designer stupid enough to make a phone intended to be held BY THE ANTENNA. I get a little sick of the disingenuous fanboi defense of Apple by parroting the tu quoque fallacy "everyone does it". The iphone 4 has a VERY real problem when you hold it not in some magical "death grip", but in the way a normal person holds a normal cell phone.
If you ask me, the MOST likely reason that the Verizon iphone is having less of an issue is because it's Verizon and not AT&T. Their network is already more reliable.
a real invisibility cloak..and all it took was redefining the terms "invisibility", and "cloak". Hell if I knew it was that easy, I'd have invented one years ago.
we cant make it...
yes we can. the fact that there's disagreement on what it consisted of doesn't mean that we're unable to make every single one of the argued varieties.
I have not seen paper tape used in a long time.
The military still uses paper tape in some limited capacity. It has the advantage of being electromagnetic pulse proof, and in a hermetically sealed container it has an almost unlimited lifespan.
Wait, so this jackhole is telling us that a company using one mans ego and personal prejudices to make technology decisions, instead of examining and evaluating the market on its own merit, will lead to poor marketplace performance?
He sure has a unique insight. Someone should give him a blog.
Plus he had the vision to create the sleek, easy-to-use iPod..
He had the vision to create a "Me too" product AFTER the market was already saturated with competing MP3 player. There was nothing special about early ipods...even the "easy to use" interface was almost exactly a copy of every OTHER MP3 player...there's only so many ways to traverse a list of artists/album/song after all.
Where Jobs deserves credit is the marrying of the ipod to the itunes music store, THAT was revolutionary. Too many people seem to think Apple invented the MP3 player and miss the real innovation.
Obama? At least he isn't making millions traveling the world in polluting vehicles solely to spread the word of how bad it is to travel in polluting vehicles. Al Gore is the biggest environmental hypocrite of our time. He COULD be leading the world in delivering his speeches and lectures by telepresence, but instead he insists on traveling and taking his huge entourage with him.
That's not even getting into his ludicrously oversided and energy guzzling mansion.
Protocol is not set by the incumbent.
True. Except that it's not true. The incumbent most certainly does set protocol.
to match?
Provide me w/ a chance to fold the solar cell garage into a home improvement loan and it becomes a lot more affordable, and having the solar cells eases the strain which charging so many electric vehicles would add to the electric grid.
William
Primarily because photovoltaic solar panels cost more to implement than the electricity they can be expected to produce over their entire lifespan in many, if not most, parts of the country. People tend to VASTLY overestimate the efficiency of solar power systems, in the real world they're very expensive and produce very little electricity.
I think you meant "rise of the triad". awesome game. hit people with a rocket launcher and it rains body parts and eyeballs.
Because hydrogen as a fuel does not inherently pollute nor is it inherently carbon positive. It has a lower potential energy than most forms of petroleum so the fact that they were able to make a plane that flies 4 hours on a tank of fuel is important.
The only problem with that statement is there is no such thing as "hydrogen fuel".
Hydrogen is non-polluting only if you ignore all the processing that goes into producing the hydrogen. It's like using a 2-stroke gasoline generator to charge up your electric car, and then declaring it a non-polluting vehicle. The hydrogen has to come from somewhere...and it's not just buried in the ground like petroleum, it has to be produced...and that process is at a net energy loss.
People who are overly excited about the "hydrogen economy" are woefully underinformed on things like the laws of thermodynamics. Hydrogen is never going to be a efficiency gain, it can't be. It can be a practical energy STORAGE medium, but it's going to require a cheap/nearly unlimited energy source to start with...like nuclear power. But of course, once you have cheap plentiful electricity, the hydrogen doesn't make much sense.
You may not be aware of this, but bootlegging alcohol is a problem to this very day, and considering how draconian my states liquor laws/taxes are if I knew where to find one, I WOULD buy from a bootlegger.
Shake off your pothead-nirvana dreams for a minute and this this through. Is the entire underground pot industry going to disappear? Why would it? If pot is legalized and taxed, bootleg pot will cost less...that's a certainty because there's no way market for it to cost more. The market just shifts from expensive illegal pot, to cheap illegal pot competing with expensive legal pot.
Sure, people who aren't plugged into the illegal pot market would buy from legal sources, but there's already sufficient market for the illegal stuff to keep that industry thriving...and we'd expect people to migrate to the cheaper source.
I just don't get the logic behind people thinking that legalizing pot is going to make the hundred year industry of illegal pot evaporate.