That's what I don't understand. Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie. At his Nobel Prize announcement, he basically justified going to war with anyone who gave USA the stink eye. He has been more aggressive (albeit more subtle) than George W. Bush and will probably cause problems for Romney who wants to paint him as an indecisive leader that let Libya and Syria happen [nytimes.com]. But the funny thing is that for all everyone sees him as a harbinger of peace, he sure hasn't been acting like it. And it's probably going to be obvious come this next election when people start looking at his track record...
And all those Code Pink, ANSWER, and other that were "protesting the war" are now silent, proving that they were not really protesting war, just the last letter of the word. They were offended that someone with that letter after their name was "occupying" the White House.
I'd guess non-negligable damage to economic interests, or more likely physical damage to material assets... like say using a virus to cause physical damage to a nuclear weapons production facil...oh shit.
Yes, but there are no nuclear weapons production facilities, according to Iran. It's hard to go to war over damage to facilities that don't exist.
It is, however, a good paraphrase of how he characterized climate scientists, and specifically Hansen, in the past. A bit of hyperbole, sure, but close enough.
Glad to see I'm remembered, but I don't recall saying anything close to that about James Hansen, ever, in any post. I believe the worst thing I've ever said about him or any climate scientist is that exaggerate the dangers of AGW to receive more funding. Hansen, working for NASA is simply trying to ensure more funding for NASA. I support him on that, even though I don't agree with him making grand claims about AGW, even though he prefaces them, with, "OK, I know I was wrong last time, but this time, I'm right. Trust me." (Of course, I am paraphrasing)
And of course, we all know that no credible scientists disagrees with global warming. If a scientist disagrees with the dangers posed by AGW, he obviously loses all credibility.
Lets completely ignore how that isn't true in any country that has single payer health care. There is decades of data around single payer government systems, but lets keep ignoring it and make decision based on logical fallacies shoved down your throat by the republican party.
Since your Gestapo mod buddies modded my comment down because it proved that you were full of shit, I'll make my point again...
How can you call it a logical fallacy when this very article is about a city government banning something because it is deemed unhealthy? Sounds to me like it's more FACT than FALLACY! Your decade of data didn't take into account the incompetence of the American public.
Lets completely ignore how that isn't true in any country that has single payer health care. There is decades of data around single payer government systems, but lets keep ignoring it and make decision based on logical fallacies shoved down your throat by the republican party.
Really? I ask because I just read a story about how NY is trying to ban sugary drinks because of health care costs. HERE is a link.
What asshole modded this "OffTopic"? I was responding to a post that said governments don't limit freedom based on unhealthy behaviors. Bullshit! This very article is about governments limiting freedom of choice because that choice might be deemed unhealthy.
I even provided a fucking link to this very article. How can I be off topic when I'm talking about the very topic TFA is about?
If you disagree with my post, take it up with the submitter.
An actual law to prevent looking forward. For North Carolina Republicans, the entire world is in the rear view mirror.
The law doesn't prevent looking forward. The law prevents the prohibition of building in areas that may be in danger based on the wildest of predictions that may have been exagerated or simply wrong.
Believe it or not, sometimes, the models are wrong. You will notice, however, that the scientists always say, "we were wrong in our last model, but this time, we are correct!" For example:
We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be 1.6 ± 0.3 W m2, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change. We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era is readily accounted for by ice melt and ocean thermal expansion, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration of the rate of sea level rise this decade..
-- J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann
In other words, we can't accurately predict heat distribution because we don't understand the effect aerosols have on the climate, but we still predict an acceleration of sea level rise.
Lets completely ignore how that isn't true in any country that has single payer health care. There is decades of data around single payer government systems, but lets keep ignoring it and make decision based on logical fallacies shoved down your throat by the republican party.
Really? I ask because I just read a story about how NY is trying to ban sugary drinks because of health care costs. HERE is a link.
It rarely merits a thought. In the US as I understand it, lack of health cover is a real impediment to starting your own business or changing a job. Particularly if you have an existing chronic condition.
Employer provided health insurance policies may not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
I'm not saying you don't have a point about who makes the rules, but ultimatley the rules in the UK are made by a government that has to be re-elected, how much say do you have over your rules?
It has already been suggested here in the US that smokers should be denied health care funding for smoking related conditions. It hasn't happened, but wait until Nightline or 60-minutes runs a special about how much it costs the taxpayer to provide health insurance for people that do unhealthy activity X. A prime example would NY banning sugary beverages.
It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!! We have a winner!
That's problem with government funded health care. Whoever pays the bills gets to make the rules! If you let government take over your health care, you are giving the government control over your health.
The databases and the analytics are easy, the licensing for the transforms are not. Nor is getting all those music samples to make them from.
My comment was a joke, so let me agree with some of what you said and disagree with some.
Actually, I think the music part would be easy if we are talking about someone posting an entire song. Have the screening app take a snippet from a random time block of the "video" and feed it into the app that recognizes what song it is. A block license from Shazam could easily be obtained at a price Google could afford that Shazam couldn't refuse.
The hard part is when you start looking for songs that are only in a portion of the video or looking for copy written video itself. The raw video may be easy to find. The same video being playing through a TV set would be much more difficult. A song being played as credits or in the background of a video would also be hard to detect.
Modern day Muslim extremists who receive the full support and backing of modern day Muslim leadership.
Much like the extremists giving Christians the reputation they have for enforcing biblical inerrancy. The extremists in all groups are giving their respective camps the image of being batshit insane
Examples? Can you tell me of a single example of a beheading in the name of Christ by a group sanctioned by the Pope, Billy Graham, or other Christian leader?
No? Then your argument doesn't really hold water does it?
OK, so you've stated that there are bad people that are not Muslims. Are any of these groups Christian based and supported by Christians world wide? Do they receive the approval from Christian leaders like Billy Graham or the Pope?
Didn't think so. Try again. This time provide a list of CHRISTIAN terrorists who have perpetrated acts in the name of Christ that are comparable to 9-11 or even the hanging of homosexuals in Iran.
Until then, I'll gladly accept the truth when you provide it.
Well the software is pretty trivial, the huge database of songs to analyze and the results to compare to are not.
If only Google were good at databases and analytics. Think they could hire a company that is good at such things?
Actually, I don't think it's Google's responsibility at all. If Sony thinks they own a claim to a video posted on YouTube, then it's up to Sony to find it and report it to Google.
When was the last time Christians hijacked a plane full of Jews or Muslims and flew them into buildings full of innocent people of all religions? That's right! Never.
Strawman. Are you going to deny that Christians have ever killed innocent people of all religions?
Not in several centuries. The Inquisition, maybe? The Crusades?
Congratulations. That makes moder day Muslims on par with 12th century Christians.
Death for homosexuals. death to adulterers. death to those that eat shellfish. death to all who wear polyester pants with a cotton shirt. death to those that might build a muslim mosk in tennessee. death to those that believe climate change could be caused by pollution. death to those that believe in evolution.
See, up until this point, I was about to type up a diatribe explaining that very few Christians are batshit crazy. I've never heard any church say that women were below or must be behind women. The closest I've heard is that women and men serve different roles, but even that's not all that bad, and frankly, it's true. Don't believe me? How many women play for the Dallas Cowboys? OK then.
Either way, it's frustrating to read how many people truly believe that all Christians don't believe in evolution, think that the earth is 6000 years old, think that the Bible should be taught in public school, are anti-science, or that some other nonsense. Fact is, these are the extreme and do not represent the vast majority of Christians. Even the Vatican itself does not see evolution or science as a threat at all. I hear they have quite the observatory.
Every church I've been to has preached love and forgiveness, not death. I'm Southern Baptists, by the way, but I've been to Pentecostal Churches so strict that don't allow make up or pants on women (it's funny watching my cousins buy makeup with sunscreen... sunscreen is legal). I've been to a church where the preacher's wife had her children, all four of them in the home with nothing to kill the pain whatsoever because that is supposed to be Eve's punishment for original sin. Of course, this was her choice and was against the preacher's wishes... she did it anyway... because, like I said, women are not below or behind men. My point is that I live in the very crotch of the Bible belt. I know what I'm talking about. I've met no one as batshit crazy as you believe we ALL are.
But then you made it to the point I quoted you on. Once I read that I realized that it was not the Christians who are batshit crazy, but you. Even the craziest of the Phelps gang doesn't believe the "death to..." crap you believe all Christians teach. Rick Santorum is pretty hard core, but I've never heard him call for death to anyone. See, the Bible teaches that only God may punish for violations of God's law. But I can tell you Rick Santorum is no worse than Mike Huckabee, who was a governor of a state. Mike Huckabee killed no one for sinning.
It doesn't matter what I tell you though. You are going to believe what you believe. You harbor the exact same hatred towards Christians, or all religious people that racists harbor against whatever race they hate. You are the same. Your feed your own hatred with the lies you tell yourself, which makes you hate more, which makes you believe more lies, which makes you hate more and so on.
Proof? You think Christians are just as bad as Muslims, right? When was the last time Christians hijacked a plane full of Jews or Muslims and flew them into buildings full of innocent people of all religions? That's right! Never. That's FACT, but even FACTs won't change your mind or make you hate any less.
or this...
I believe it should be death to those who believe in make believe.
Congratulations! The qualities in Christians that make you hate them so much that you want them to die are also in yourself, except Christians don't really have those qualities... just you.
I really hope it doesn't have that tablet interface. There were no desktop screenshots in the videos I saw. The last thing I need is to work in an office administered by an sysadmin that needs a touchscreen to do his job.
This is what happens when too many people believe too literally in 1000 year old witch craft.
And this is exactly where the US could be heading if the current 50% of the population gets any stronger. Rick Santorum was as scary to the US as Hitler was to Germany. If we let nutcases like that become president, which a large number of people supported, this will be common in the US as well.
Let's break down your logic:
Islamists poison schoolgirls, therefor, if Santorum were elected, he'd be like Hitler and lead the US to a 1938 style of Fascism.
Did I get it right?
The hatred is strong in this one. It has clouded his logic.
Tell you what: the "cloud" hype will come crashing down the minute some big company that invested massively in off-site services and storage loses internet connection for a few hours...
For some reason, I'm not seeing Windows8 to be oriented towards business. I'm sure MS will try to force it, but I just don't see that tablet interface running on a typical workstation and certainly not a server.
False. See this is the problem. You have no idea what you are talking about, it just seems right.
You no NOTHING about budgets, nothing about maintenance, nothing about the need for a school system anyone can attend.
YOU benefit from those taxes even though your child doesn't attend*. The more people that are educated, the safer, and more productive the social system you participate is. Less crime, more business. you problem the same kind of nincompoop that doesn't understand why government spend can actual make money for the government
Sure, society benefits from a public education system. Society would benefit MORE if parents had a choice as to where their kids go. Most parents don't have that choice. For wealthy parent's, it's a no-brainer. For poor parents, it's a no-choice. Why should wealthy kids get that advantage over kids with poorer parents? Shouldn't our kids get equal opportunity?
BTW the vast majority of private schools are no better then public school.
Really? I've heard the opposite. BTW, 20% of public schools are better than four out of five public schools. What if the public school in your area sucks? And yes, some public schools suck. What can a parent do? They have no choice but to send their kids to a failure of a school. Yes, parents can help and teach their kids and make sure their kids learn at home, but if they do that, why send them to the school at all? Successful students are ignored in public schools. If you are smart enough to pass the tests, the teachers move on to those that can't.
And why would you pay to send your kid to a private school that is no better than a public one? If a school that costs money is no better than the free one, that school will fail. Remember, that's how free markets work. The problem is that public schools may never fail. No matter how bad the school is, it will continue to receive thousands of dollars per student. They'll even get paid for students that don't go to that school. Sure, there is the possibility that the elected officials in charge of the school system will get voted out, but in many communities, that never happens and failure multiplies. Ignorance breeds more ignorance. The more ignorant a voting public is, the more likely a failed politician is to be reelected. Public schools are becoming breeding grounds for ignorance every day. HERE is a teacher telling students that they can be arrested for saying bad things about the president. When asked about Bush, she said it was OK to bash him because he was "shitty". A teacher a private school would be fired for both complete ignorance as well as blatant bias. This teacher was suspended, only because there was an uproar over this video. How many teachers get away with this? And again, if I could not afford to send my child to private school, this is where I'd have to send my kids BY LAW! How many other parents are forced to send their kids to schools to "learn" from teachers like this?
Most articles I've seen indicate that rotational storage (and existing flash-based SSDs) will be replaced within 2 years by memristor-based storage or similar non-rotational, non-flash storage. It makes no sense for hard drive manufacturers to "race to the bottom" when they've already consolidated into 2 major manufacturers and sales have such a short term outlook.
Disk drives may be replaced, but they won't be going anywhere. What we are starting to see is SSDs replacing HDDs as the primary, boot, OS and application drive. HDD's are kept around for mass storage for photos, videos, music, documents, and even some larger applications. I see HDDs replacing tape drives in the future for readily accessible backups.
There is something warm and fuzzy about a free market economy, where everything "just works" because everyone is making decisions that are optimal for themselves. Back in cold, hard reality, that is a load of shit, because people are nincompoops who make retarded decisions, which collectively results in a massive clusterfuck.
Actually, this is exactly why a free market works. See, the smart, hard working, and let's face it, lucky people tend to win. They are successful and they multiply. Google creates a search engine. It is successful, more search engines emerge. Some may be better. The better ones will survive. The crappy ones will fail. The "nincompoops" almost always fail. Others see their mistakes and make it a point to not repeat them. The nincompoops usually end up working for the successful ones, benefiting both. It's natural, really. See Darwinism. The strong survive and the weak must multiply fast enough to feed the strong. They are dependent on each other.
The problem is when an external entity, like government, steps in to and starts meddling with things. A politician will point at a successful person and say to the nincompoops, "What has he done to deserve the things he has?" Of course, the answer is, work hard, be smart, take chances and eventually you'll get lucky. The nincompoops hear, "luck" and think it's not fair. This is when the politician, in exchange for votes, vows to punish those that have more and reward those with less.
How do you fix this problem? Education. Why is that not working? The nincompoops have taken over education. For example, I pay to send my child to private school. In pre-K, she learned to read, add, subtract and other things that public school kids don't learn until the 1st grade. She learned this in PRE-K! Next year, in kindergarten, she'll be doing stuff on that public school kids do in the second and third grades. Now I bust my ass to pay for that school, but at the same time, I'm also paying to send my kid to public school, even though she doesn't attend (not that pre-K is even offered). Now in a free-market world, I would get whatever money the school would spend to educate my kid to spend it on the school of my choice. Nothing would be lost from the school as they are NOT TEACHING MY KID. An added benefit would be that those that can't afford to send their kids to the same school my child is going to would be able to do so and give their kids the same opportunity my child is getting. It's better for the kids and takes nothing away from the public schools. Why is this not allowed? Because the nincompoops don't like the competition. They feel that they deserve to get paid for doing lower quality work. The nincompoops are running education and have convinced the voting nincompoops that allowing them to choose where they send their own kids would ruin the eduction their kids receive.
Perhaps a moon base specifically is not a great objective (I don't know, I'm not an expert, I want the experts to decide). But I sure as fuck do know that NASA, engineering and hard sciences research, fusion research etc should get a lot more money than they currently do.
Agreed.
invest more in these things that benefited mankind and made USA the most respected and envied country in the world.
Yeah... that would be the free market. The thing that allowed us to go to the moon and fund a space program was a strong economy. We have had the strongest economy because we have a free market. Yes, natural monopolies should be regulated and unnatural monopolies should be broken up. Yes, environmental regulations are needed to ensure responsibility. But for the most part, the market should remain free. People should be allowed to keep what they earn. People should be free. People should be allowed to fail.
You can't succeed when there is no chance of failure. You can not be free until you are responsible for you own actions./rant off.
I got a similar call to the guy in the article. So I hung up.
They called back, and I hung up again except the phone didn't hang up. I even held down the "on hook" button but the call would not terminate. Any ideas how the scammers accomplished this?
Yeah, they initiated the call. When someone calls you and hangs up, it disconects right away. But when you try to disconnect, it takes something like 10-15 seconds to disconnect. I don't know why that's the way it is, but that's the way it is.
Of course, I'm talking about an old POTS line. Not VOIP or cell.
When you declare pre-emptive war on a country which has not attacked you
They fired on US personnel monitoring compliance with UN resolutions. They tried to assassinate a former US head of state. They attacked our allies. They filled mass graves with the bodies of women and children.
You know, come to think of it, Germany never attacked us either. What business did we have entering WWII?
Bullshit. We know there is going to be "collateral damage" going in, and we go ahead and do it anyway. That's not "truly by accident".
No, when the US kills civilians it knows exactly what it is doing. The powers that be have made a calculation that the benefits outweigh the costs, that's all. The only real question is who actually benefits and who pays the costs.
Bullshit! We attack building late at night as to limit those causalities. We spend TRILLIONS to develop weapons that will only destroy the designated target with as little collateral damage as possible. We have literally passed on targets because of the risk of civilian casualties.
Fact is, we hold back. We hold back A LOT! Could you imagine what the casualties if we truly didn't care like you say? For starters, there would be zero American casualties. Next, we would save a fortune in transportation and maintenance of equipment, plus the long term health care costs from soldiers injured. All it would take is for the president to punch in some codes and give the go ahead for a full scale nuclear attack. BAM! Problem solved. Even if the leadership survived in a bunker, it will be about 10000 years before they can safely come up for air. Even if we were to resist a nuclear strike, there would be nothing Iraq could do to keep us from carpet bombing any city with 2000 pound bombs from one end of the city to the other until nothing was left standing.
Instead, we gave our blood and treasure to go out of our way to NOT kill civilians. And you still believe we are the same as Al Qaeda, who hijacked a plane full of men, women and children and flew them into civilian buildings, no matter how much evidence you run across that proves you are wrong. Was Al Qaeda worried about collateral damage? Actually, "collateral damage" is the wrong term BECAUSE CIVILIANS WERE THE TARGETS!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I don't understand. Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie. At his Nobel Prize announcement, he basically justified going to war with anyone who gave USA the stink eye. He has been more aggressive (albeit more subtle) than George W. Bush and will probably cause problems for Romney who wants to paint him as an indecisive leader that let Libya and Syria happen [nytimes.com]. But the funny thing is that for all everyone sees him as a harbinger of peace, he sure hasn't been acting like it. And it's probably going to be obvious come this next election when people start looking at his track record ...
And all those Code Pink, ANSWER, and other that were "protesting the war" are now silent, proving that they were not really protesting war, just the last letter of the word. They were offended that someone with that letter after their name was "occupying" the White House.
I'd guess non-negligable damage to economic interests, or more likely physical damage to material assets... like say using a virus to cause physical damage to a nuclear weapons production facil...oh shit.
Yes, but there are no nuclear weapons production facilities, according to Iran. It's hard to go to war over damage to facilities that don't exist.
It is, however, a good paraphrase of how he characterized climate scientists, and specifically Hansen, in the past. A bit of hyperbole, sure, but close enough.
Glad to see I'm remembered, but I don't recall saying anything close to that about James Hansen, ever, in any post. I believe the worst thing I've ever said about him or any climate scientist is that exaggerate the dangers of AGW to receive more funding. Hansen, working for NASA is simply trying to ensure more funding for NASA. I support him on that, even though I don't agree with him making grand claims about AGW, even though he prefaces them, with, "OK, I know I was wrong last time, but this time, I'm right. Trust me." (Of course, I am paraphrasing)
And of course, we all know that no credible scientists disagrees with global warming. If a scientist disagrees with the dangers posed by AGW, he obviously loses all credibility.
Lets completely ignore how that isn't true in any country that has single payer health care.
There is decades of data around single payer government systems, but lets keep ignoring it and make decision based on logical fallacies shoved down your throat by the republican party.
Since your Gestapo mod buddies modded my comment down because it proved that you were full of shit, I'll make my point again...
How can you call it a logical fallacy when this very article is about a city government banning something because it is deemed unhealthy? Sounds to me like it's more FACT than FALLACY! Your decade of data didn't take into account the incompetence of the American public.
Lets completely ignore how that isn't true in any country that has single payer health care.
There is decades of data around single payer government systems, but lets keep ignoring it and make decision based on logical fallacies shoved down your throat by the republican party.
Really? I ask because I just read a story about how NY is trying to ban sugary drinks because of health care costs. HERE is a link.
What asshole modded this "OffTopic"? I was responding to a post that said governments don't limit freedom based on unhealthy behaviors. Bullshit! This very article is about governments limiting freedom of choice because that choice might be deemed unhealthy.
I even provided a fucking link to this very article. How can I be off topic when I'm talking about the very topic TFA is about?
If you disagree with my post, take it up with the submitter.
An actual law to prevent looking forward. For North Carolina Republicans, the entire world is in the rear view mirror.
The law doesn't prevent looking forward. The law prevents the prohibition of building in areas that may be in danger based on the wildest of predictions that may have been exagerated or simply wrong.
Believe it or not, sometimes, the models are wrong. You will notice, however, that the scientists always say, "we were wrong in our last model, but this time, we are correct!" For example:
We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be 1.6 ± 0.3 W m2, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change. We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era is readily accounted for by ice melt and ocean thermal expansion, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration of the rate of sea level rise this decade..
-- J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann
In other words, we can't accurately predict heat distribution because we don't understand the effect aerosols have on the climate, but we still predict an acceleration of sea level rise.
Lets completely ignore how that isn't true in any country that has single payer health care.
There is decades of data around single payer government systems, but lets keep ignoring it and make decision based on logical fallacies shoved down your throat by the republican party.
Really? I ask because I just read a story about how NY is trying to ban sugary drinks because of health care costs. HERE is a link.
It rarely merits a thought. In the US as I understand it, lack of health cover is a real impediment to starting your own business or changing a job. Particularly if you have an existing chronic condition.
Employer provided health insurance policies may not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
I'm not saying you don't have a point about who makes the rules, but ultimatley the rules in the UK are made by a government that has to be re-elected, how much say do you have over your rules?
It has already been suggested here in the US that smokers should be denied health care funding for smoking related conditions. It hasn't happened, but wait until Nightline or 60-minutes runs a special about how much it costs the taxpayer to provide health insurance for people that do unhealthy activity X. A prime example would NY banning sugary beverages.
Why would the government get to decide how fat I get to be?
Seems like that should be my choice.
If the government is paying for your health care, that choice is no longer yours.
It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!! We have a winner!
That's problem with government funded health care. Whoever pays the bills gets to make the rules! If you let government take over your health care, you are giving the government control over your health.
The databases and the analytics are easy, the licensing for the transforms are not. Nor is getting all those music samples to make them from.
My comment was a joke, so let me agree with some of what you said and disagree with some.
Actually, I think the music part would be easy if we are talking about someone posting an entire song. Have the screening app take a snippet from a random time block of the "video" and feed it into the app that recognizes what song it is. A block license from Shazam could easily be obtained at a price Google could afford that Shazam couldn't refuse.
The hard part is when you start looking for songs that are only in a portion of the video or looking for copy written video itself. The raw video may be easy to find. The same video being playing through a TV set would be much more difficult. A song being played as credits or in the background of a video would also be hard to detect.
This is why it should be Sony's job.
Modern day Muslim extremists. .
Modern day Muslim extremists who receive the full support and backing of modern day Muslim leadership.
Much like the extremists giving Christians the reputation they have for enforcing biblical inerrancy. The extremists in all groups are giving their respective camps the image of being batshit insane
Examples? Can you tell me of a single example of a beheading in the name of Christ by a group sanctioned by the Pope, Billy Graham, or other Christian leader?
No? Then your argument doesn't really hold water does it?
Serbian war criminals.
I could go on.
But you will never accept the truth.
ironic captcha: airtight
OK, so you've stated that there are bad people that are not Muslims. Are any of these groups Christian based and supported by Christians world wide? Do they receive the approval from Christian leaders like Billy Graham or the Pope?
Didn't think so. Try again. This time provide a list of CHRISTIAN terrorists who have perpetrated acts in the name of Christ that are comparable to 9-11 or even the hanging of homosexuals in Iran.
Until then, I'll gladly accept the truth when you provide it.
Well the software is pretty trivial, the huge database of songs to analyze and the results to compare to are not.
If only Google were good at databases and analytics. Think they could hire a company that is good at such things?
Actually, I don't think it's Google's responsibility at all. If Sony thinks they own a claim to a video posted on YouTube, then it's up to Sony to find it and report it to Google.
When was the last time Christians hijacked a plane full of Jews or Muslims and flew them into buildings full of innocent people of all religions? That's right! Never.
Strawman. Are you going to deny that Christians have ever killed innocent people of all religions?
Not in several centuries. The Inquisition, maybe? The Crusades?
Congratulations. That makes moder day Muslims on par with 12th century Christians.
Death for homosexuals. death to adulterers. death to those that eat shellfish. death to all who wear polyester pants with a cotton shirt. death to those that might build a muslim mosk in tennessee. death to those that believe climate change could be caused by pollution. death to those that believe in evolution.
See, up until this point, I was about to type up a diatribe explaining that very few Christians are batshit crazy. I've never heard any church say that women were below or must be behind women. The closest I've heard is that women and men serve different roles, but even that's not all that bad, and frankly, it's true. Don't believe me? How many women play for the Dallas Cowboys? OK then.
Either way, it's frustrating to read how many people truly believe that all Christians don't believe in evolution, think that the earth is 6000 years old, think that the Bible should be taught in public school, are anti-science, or that some other nonsense. Fact is, these are the extreme and do not represent the vast majority of Christians. Even the Vatican itself does not see evolution or science as a threat at all. I hear they have quite the observatory.
Every church I've been to has preached love and forgiveness, not death. I'm Southern Baptists, by the way, but I've been to Pentecostal Churches so strict that don't allow make up or pants on women (it's funny watching my cousins buy makeup with sunscreen... sunscreen is legal). I've been to a church where the preacher's wife had her children, all four of them in the home with nothing to kill the pain whatsoever because that is supposed to be Eve's punishment for original sin. Of course, this was her choice and was against the preacher's wishes... she did it anyway... because, like I said, women are not below or behind men. My point is that I live in the very crotch of the Bible belt. I know what I'm talking about. I've met no one as batshit crazy as you believe we ALL are.
But then you made it to the point I quoted you on. Once I read that I realized that it was not the Christians who are batshit crazy, but you. Even the craziest of the Phelps gang doesn't believe the "death to..." crap you believe all Christians teach. Rick Santorum is pretty hard core, but I've never heard him call for death to anyone. See, the Bible teaches that only God may punish for violations of God's law. But I can tell you Rick Santorum is no worse than Mike Huckabee, who was a governor of a state. Mike Huckabee killed no one for sinning.
It doesn't matter what I tell you though. You are going to believe what you believe. You harbor the exact same hatred towards Christians, or all religious people that racists harbor against whatever race they hate. You are the same. Your feed your own hatred with the lies you tell yourself, which makes you hate more, which makes you believe more lies, which makes you hate more and so on.
Proof? You think Christians are just as bad as Muslims, right? When was the last time Christians hijacked a plane full of Jews or Muslims and flew them into buildings full of innocent people of all religions? That's right! Never. That's FACT, but even FACTs won't change your mind or make you hate any less.
or this...
I believe it should be death to those who believe in make believe.
Congratulations! The qualities in Christians that make you hate them so much that you want them to die are also in yourself, except Christians don't really have those qualities... just you.
I give you Windows 8 Server.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/windows-server/v8-default.aspx
I really hope it doesn't have that tablet interface. There were no desktop screenshots in the videos I saw. The last thing I need is to work in an office administered by an sysadmin that needs a touchscreen to do his job.
This is what happens when too many people believe too literally in 1000 year old witch craft.
And this is exactly where the US could be heading if the current 50% of the population gets any stronger. Rick Santorum was as scary to the US as Hitler was to Germany. If we let nutcases like that become president, which a large number of people supported, this will be common in the US as well.
Let's break down your logic:
Islamists poison schoolgirls, therefor, if Santorum were elected, he'd be like Hitler and lead the US to a 1938 style of Fascism.
Did I get it right?
The hatred is strong in this one. It has clouded his logic.
Sounds like bullshit world to me...
Tell you what: the "cloud" hype will come crashing down the minute some big company that invested massively in off-site services and storage loses internet connection for a few hours...
For some reason, I'm not seeing Windows8 to be oriented towards business. I'm sure MS will try to force it, but I just don't see that tablet interface running on a typical workstation and certainly not a server.
False. See this is the problem. You have no idea what you are talking about, it just seems right.
You no NOTHING about budgets, nothing about maintenance, nothing about the need for a school system anyone can attend.
YOU benefit from those taxes even though your child doesn't attend*. The more people that are educated, the safer, and more productive the social system you participate is. Less crime, more business.
you problem the same kind of nincompoop that doesn't understand why government spend can actual make money for the government
Sure, society benefits from a public education system. Society would benefit MORE if parents had a choice as to where their kids go. Most parents don't have that choice. For wealthy parent's, it's a no-brainer. For poor parents, it's a no-choice. Why should wealthy kids get that advantage over kids with poorer parents? Shouldn't our kids get equal opportunity?
BTW the vast majority of private schools are no better then public school.
Really? I've heard the opposite. BTW, 20% of public schools are better than four out of five public schools. What if the public school in your area sucks? And yes, some public schools suck. What can a parent do? They have no choice but to send their kids to a failure of a school. Yes, parents can help and teach their kids and make sure their kids learn at home, but if they do that, why send them to the school at all? Successful students are ignored in public schools. If you are smart enough to pass the tests, the teachers move on to those that can't.
And why would you pay to send your kid to a private school that is no better than a public one? If a school that costs money is no better than the free one, that school will fail. Remember, that's how free markets work. The problem is that public schools may never fail. No matter how bad the school is, it will continue to receive thousands of dollars per student. They'll even get paid for students that don't go to that school. Sure, there is the possibility that the elected officials in charge of the school system will get voted out, but in many communities, that never happens and failure multiplies. Ignorance breeds more ignorance. The more ignorant a voting public is, the more likely a failed politician is to be reelected. Public schools are becoming breeding grounds for ignorance every day. HERE is a teacher telling students that they can be arrested for saying bad things about the president. When asked about Bush, she said it was OK to bash him because he was "shitty". A teacher a private school would be fired for both complete ignorance as well as blatant bias. This teacher was suspended, only because there was an uproar over this video. How many teachers get away with this? And again, if I could not afford to send my child to private school, this is where I'd have to send my kids BY LAW! How many other parents are forced to send their kids to schools to "learn" from teachers like this?
Stop thinking everything is like your life.
So, whose life should I be living?
Most articles I've seen indicate that rotational storage (and existing flash-based SSDs) will be replaced within 2 years by memristor-based storage or similar non-rotational, non-flash storage. It makes no sense for hard drive manufacturers to "race to the bottom" when they've already consolidated into 2 major manufacturers and sales have such a short term outlook.
Disk drives may be replaced, but they won't be going anywhere. What we are starting to see is SSDs replacing HDDs as the primary, boot, OS and application drive. HDD's are kept around for mass storage for photos, videos, music, documents, and even some larger applications. I see HDDs replacing tape drives in the future for readily accessible backups.
There is something warm and fuzzy about a free market economy, where everything "just works" because everyone is making decisions that are optimal for themselves. Back in cold, hard reality, that is a load of shit, because people are nincompoops who make retarded decisions, which collectively results in a massive clusterfuck.
Actually, this is exactly why a free market works. See, the smart, hard working, and let's face it, lucky people tend to win. They are successful and they multiply. Google creates a search engine. It is successful, more search engines emerge. Some may be better. The better ones will survive. The crappy ones will fail. The "nincompoops" almost always fail. Others see their mistakes and make it a point to not repeat them. The nincompoops usually end up working for the successful ones, benefiting both. It's natural, really. See Darwinism. The strong survive and the weak must multiply fast enough to feed the strong. They are dependent on each other.
The problem is when an external entity, like government, steps in to and starts meddling with things. A politician will point at a successful person and say to the nincompoops, "What has he done to deserve the things he has?" Of course, the answer is, work hard, be smart, take chances and eventually you'll get lucky. The nincompoops hear, "luck" and think it's not fair. This is when the politician, in exchange for votes, vows to punish those that have more and reward those with less.
How do you fix this problem? Education. Why is that not working? The nincompoops have taken over education. For example, I pay to send my child to private school. In pre-K, she learned to read, add, subtract and other things that public school kids don't learn until the 1st grade. She learned this in PRE-K! Next year, in kindergarten, she'll be doing stuff on that public school kids do in the second and third grades. Now I bust my ass to pay for that school, but at the same time, I'm also paying to send my kid to public school, even though she doesn't attend (not that pre-K is even offered). Now in a free-market world, I would get whatever money the school would spend to educate my kid to spend it on the school of my choice. Nothing would be lost from the school as they are NOT TEACHING MY KID. An added benefit would be that those that can't afford to send their kids to the same school my child is going to would be able to do so and give their kids the same opportunity my child is getting. It's better for the kids and takes nothing away from the public schools. Why is this not allowed? Because the nincompoops don't like the competition. They feel that they deserve to get paid for doing lower quality work. The nincompoops are running education and have convinced the voting nincompoops that allowing them to choose where they send their own kids would ruin the eduction their kids receive.
Perhaps a moon base specifically is not a great objective (I don't know, I'm not an expert, I want the experts to decide). But I sure as fuck do know that NASA, engineering and hard sciences research, fusion research etc should get a lot more money than they currently do.
Agreed.
invest more in these things that benefited mankind and made USA the most respected and envied country in the world.
Yeah... that would be the free market. The thing that allowed us to go to the moon and fund a space program was a strong economy. We have had the strongest economy because we have a free market. Yes, natural monopolies should be regulated and unnatural monopolies should be broken up. Yes, environmental regulations are needed to ensure responsibility. But for the most part, the market should remain free. People should be allowed to keep what they earn. People should be free. People should be allowed to fail.
You can't succeed when there is no chance of failure. You can not be free until you are responsible for you own actions. /rant off.
I got a similar call to the guy in the article. So I hung up.
They called back, and I hung up again except the phone didn't hang up. I even held down the "on hook" button but the call would not terminate. Any ideas how the scammers accomplished this?
Yeah, they initiated the call. When someone calls you and hangs up, it disconects right away. But when you try to disconnect, it takes something like 10-15 seconds to disconnect. I don't know why that's the way it is, but that's the way it is.
Of course, I'm talking about an old POTS line. Not VOIP or cell.
When you declare pre-emptive war on a country which has not attacked you
They fired on US personnel monitoring compliance with UN resolutions. They tried to assassinate a former US head of state. They attacked our allies. They filled mass graves with the bodies of women and children.
You know, come to think of it, Germany never attacked us either. What business did we have entering WWII?
When we kill civilians, it's truly by accident.
Bullshit. We know there is going to be "collateral damage" going in, and we go ahead and do it anyway. That's not "truly by accident".
No, when the US kills civilians it knows exactly what it is doing. The powers that be have made a calculation that the benefits outweigh the costs, that's all. The only real question is who actually benefits and who pays the costs.
Bullshit! We attack building late at night as to limit those causalities. We spend TRILLIONS to develop weapons that will only destroy the designated target with as little collateral damage as possible. We have literally passed on targets because of the risk of civilian casualties.
Fact is, we hold back. We hold back A LOT! Could you imagine what the casualties if we truly didn't care like you say? For starters, there would be zero American casualties. Next, we would save a fortune in transportation and maintenance of equipment, plus the long term health care costs from soldiers injured. All it would take is for the president to punch in some codes and give the go ahead for a full scale nuclear attack. BAM! Problem solved. Even if the leadership survived in a bunker, it will be about 10000 years before they can safely come up for air. Even if we were to resist a nuclear strike, there would be nothing Iraq could do to keep us from carpet bombing any city with 2000 pound bombs from one end of the city to the other until nothing was left standing.
Instead, we gave our blood and treasure to go out of our way to NOT kill civilians. And you still believe we are the same as Al Qaeda, who hijacked a plane full of men, women and children and flew them into civilian buildings, no matter how much evidence you run across that proves you are wrong. Was Al Qaeda worried about collateral damage? Actually, "collateral damage" is the wrong term BECAUSE CIVILIANS WERE THE TARGETS!!!!