But with Intel you always have the option of going with an untra cheap Intel branded board (DH61WW currently I think), which will support the basic features needed for a low cost computer and be reliable without needing to put too much research into it
I did that for my core2 Duo system. Ultra cheap, onboard video, sound, NIC, the works. The system still works OK and acts as my personal server, but the NIC died two days after first power up. The sound card died a few weeks later (not that it was needed) and the video never really worked right at all. Not that it mattered because I had an old nVidia sitting around I just plugged into it. It's mostly headless, but when I upgrade the OS or change distro's, it needs a monitor.
My point is that, yeah, it works, but all the secondary components failed right away and had to be replaced with add in cards. I would have been better off going AMD, spending an extra $30 on the board and doubling the RAM I put in it and stuck rest of the money saved in my pocket.
AMD might have made okay CPU's but their partners made junk. You simply can't buy quality motherboards for AMD. All of it seems to be low-end crap with weird flaws. Every AMD system I have put together I wound up regretting. Things would crash randomly, freeze randomly, or just act downright strange. With Intel-based systems, I rarely have this problem (though I always pair it with a boring, plain-vanilla intel motherboard).
Bottom line, I simply cannot recommend AMD-based systems. Sure it costs less, but you pay for it in frustration.
Strange. I was able to find a quality board for an AMD processor from several choices. I've used AMD for years and never EVER have hardware based crashes. I think the trick is to do your research, buy a name brand board and spend more than $80 for it. Yeah, I could have gone with the $30 board, but then I'd be in the same boat you're in.
My last system was a dual core Opteron 175. Something in the system finally died after years of abuse. I don't know if it was the processor, RAM, MB or even the power supply. Frankly, I didn't care as the system had outlasted its usefulness and it was way past time for an upgrade. My current system is a Phenom II 965 with a Gigabyte board and 12 GB of name brand, PC1666 RAM. No problems whatsoever. Sure, it's not as fast as the 7-series, but I saved hundreds by going with AMD and frankly, I never wait on anything. It's still much faster than what I need.
The processor is really not the bottleneck any more for the vast majority of people.
Right! You've posted that one link all over this site. Sorry, but that single link doesn't stand up to the dozens of links from multiple sources that report this as a true story. Also, MARK THOMPSON is less of an authority than Hoke County Assistant Superintendent Bob Barnes, who confirms the story.
From your link:
These facts are critical because the “state agent” in this story turns out to be nothing more than a researcher from a program that grades the performance of pre-schools and operates out of the FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It also does not appear that this institute has any actual authority other than to provide assessments, which the state then uses in making licensing decisions and in setting the fees it will pay the day care provider for subsidized care.
No authority? Well, he had enough authority to make a child buy a school lunch of mystery meat nuggets without the parent's permission.
The only other points of your link are that 1) The lady signed up for the program (so?), and 2) She's upset that she might get charged the buck and a quarter. Again, so? I don't care if the lady gets charged or not. The fact remains that a person entered a school and said to a child, "Hey! You must eat this other thing over here!" And the school went along with it. Your site said the person wasn't authorized to do it and was only there doing research. OK. If true, THAT'S EVEN WORSE! Someone with no power went into a school and started barking orders and the teachers jumped!??! That's scary as hell! It doesn't matter if the parent is poor and signed up for a school lunch program or that she's upset about something different than what really matters. What matters is what happened and your link does not dispute the fact that a school gave a kid food against the parent's wishes because the school thought their way was better.
And still, the school district officials prove your link to be false anyway:
The student also brought home a bill for the cost of the school lunch she had to eat instead. School district officials say the agent was conducting a required visit that included checking to see if students had healthy meals. The Hoke County Assistant Superintendent Bob Barnes agreed that the lunch was healthy, but says it was missing milk, a key part of what is considered to be a healthy meal under state guidelines. "We are not the lunch bag police. But if we observe that a child who has brought their lunch is missing one of the key components of the healthy meal, we simply say, if it's milk, here's some milk, you may have it or not," said Barnes.
The Agent? Didn't your link say that it wasn't an agent? Who would know better: school officials or some dude you linked? And if the meal was just missing milk ( it did have cheese), then why was she given an entire meal?
Oh, and it happened to more than one child.
However, if you were smart, you would have known that this is a STATE program, not a federal one. That means that Obama has nothing to do with it. This is a good old, 10th Amendment allowed, locally controlled STATE program from top to bottom. If anything I believe that this is a state program trying to squeeze out more federal lunch program money by buying more lunches for the poor kids. But I have no evidence to back that up. It just makes more sense than anything else I've read about why a school would be this stupid!
. . . start with 2000 known customers who started buying diapers and formula on a certain date. Now what did they start buying seven months before that?
Well, they weren't buying condoms, I'd imagine . ..
Or they were buying condoms, just they were getting the cheap kind or the ones on clearance.
Just like TFA, two months ago gmail started serving me nothing but breast pump, neonatal vitamin, and baby bottle ads. I'm a guy, but I am married so maybe they're trying to send a hint "why don't you have kids yet? Here we'll give you discount mail-order vitamins if you get busy!" But they also send me dating site ads. So if they do know I'm married, they don't have a high opinion of my marriage! Maybe that's why they want me to knock my wife up?;)
Google's ads are based on the email you are reading or other things on your screen. For example, I see ads for the delicious meat-like product Spam when I'm on the Spam page (then again, Google does have a sense of humor). So for a fun exercise, try to find out what it is in your email is triggering the ad you are receiving.
The mother was NOT charged. She received a form letter, sent to all parents, that the school might start charging for extra food given to students at some point in the future. However, since she is voluntarily enrolled in a program for poor parents, she would be exempted from paying regardless.
Please stop repeating these right-wing, scaremongering lies.
Um, stop calling the truth "right-wing, scaremongering lies."
The story is legit. It really happened. Do a little research before you go off the handle accusing others of lying or else you might find out that you are one lying.
Oh, and those chicken nuggets were provided because the meal was missing milk. That's right! All it was missing was milk. There is no milk in chicken nuggets. The is milk in cheese, however, which was one of the primary ingredients in the child's turkey and CHEESE sandwich.
However did the parent actually say this? So far the school has said no one is being charged for the food. Original pseudo-journalist probably just making a bunch of stuff up, the mother is angry and shouting about having to pay (there is a hint in the rules of the voluntary program that they might have to pay for extra food the child takes).
The story has been corroborated by the Hoke County Assistant Superintendent.
.... not so much the fact that this may have happened, but the fact that slashdot put it on the front page. This story has set the conservative blogosphere alight over "obama's nanny state" and what have you while overlooking one huge glaring problem here...
They are taking the word of a four year old kid to be god's-own-truth. I'm not saying she's intentionally lying, but how many reliable four year olds have you met in your life time? There could well be a very large gap between what she was told and what she thought she heard, and yet another between what she did and what she told her parents.
Would you take the word of the Hoke County Assistant Superintendent Bob Barnes?
School district officials say the agent was conducting a required visit that included checking to see if students had healthy meals. The Hoke County Assistant Superintendent Bob Barnes agreed that the lunch was healthy, but says it was missing milk, a key part of what is considered to be a healthy meal under state guidelines.
Now say you are sorry! Turns out those over reactionary conservative bloggers got one right, and it's the one you called them on.
Oh, and what did they give the child that was missing milk? Chicken Nuggets! It should also be noted that the girl's sandwich was made of turkey and cheese. Can anyone tell me what cheese is made of?
as an aside, euthanasia and predetermined lifespans are recurring themes in sci-fi. Usually it's a story where people are only allowed to live x years and the protagonist rebels reaffirming that people want to live! It's a good story because it's true about humanity. I don't think i've ever seen a story where society has decided not that it will kill you after x years, but instead that after x years, it becomes your duty to humanity to start doing more and more dangerous things for the benefit of the race. Youd do stuff like going to habitable worlds and other grand adventures where you'll likely be killed by alien monsters.
Or they break out of their dome and live in Washington DC with some old guy.
Uh, yeah, thanks for that. I always look to religion for the correct answer to question science already has the answer for, Remind me again, which which hand should I throw stones when I'm murdering women for having been raped?
Well, according the Christian religion, you don't throw stones at all unless you are without sin yourself.
The AC mentioned nothing about lesbians, democrats, or mayors. All of that came out of your own biases and prejudices. The only group the AC mentioned were the religious (those who depend on "faith"), particularly those that are turning their backs on current schooling practices. Furthermore, the only thing he said about them is that they are a large proportion of the state.
No, he mentioned the state of Texas, said "large proportion of the state depends on "faith" for their resource planning needs" and then mentioned Houston specifically. Assuming that the OP meant religion when he said faith listing Houston as an example disproves his entire point. See, the mayor of Houston is an open lesbian, and Democrat, which is exactly the group that the OP was NOT trying to blame. That's not my "own biases and prejudices". That's from CNN.
I know what the OP meant. The mistake that the OP made was assuming that the red state of Texas was an all red state. Of course, all reds (conservatives) are religious too, right (yet another stereotype)? He was trying to blame the problems of Texas on the "reds" and listed a blue portion of the state as an example. I was pointing out that the OP has a "bias and prejudice" against conservatives and the religious and I used the his own evidence to disprove his case entirely and point out that he is a bigot. I guess that description includes you as well since you are so willing to blame religion for issues that religion has nothing to do with. It's kinda like the old days, when racists would blame all their problems on those damn (insert racial slur here), except you are blaming religion. If you place "Christians" in the place of "racial slur", the argument doesn't change. The level of bigotry doesn't change either.
nah, they're used to it and have known it from childhood. Texas is a much more interesting example, as the town & city population density is much larger, and a large proportion of the state depends on "faith" for their resource planning needs and actively lobby against educating their own children.
Are you talking about the lesbian, Democrat mayor of Houston?
a big city like Houston running out of water is quite interesting to watch. (as has happened)
I guess you are.
I'm sorry, but I am offended by your comment. Saying that all Democrats and lesbians " actively lobby against educating their own children" is not just a stereotype, but like so many other stereotypes, is bigoted and is only separated from racism because it doesn't mention the color of anyone's skin.
Mission control several thousand miles away from the launch site is Pork. Other that it being a convenient pestilential swamp, there was no reason to put the Manned^HLyndon B. Johnson Spacecraft Center where they did. It just happened to be in Texas which needed a few bones to be thrown in their direction.
Blame whoever was president at the time. I believe it was Kennedy or Johnson.
Johnson was from Texas btw, so you may have something. But there is a benefit to not having mission control at the launch site, and it had to go somewhere. Clear Lake is as good of place as any. And if something has to be built somewhere, I don't know if I'd call the target site, "pork". Otherwise, every government building, no matter where it is located is pork.
So the parent was correct, it's just that conservatives think they are entitled to their pork.
I'm not going to say that conservatives are not guilty of pork barrel projects, but there seems to be some confusion about what should be considered pork. The GP was saying that conservatives are ALWAYS against spending of any kind and that private industry should ALWAYS do the job and it was hypocritical for them to want the federal government to spend money anywhere for anything. I think he has conservatives confused with anarchists... or Ron Paul, who loads bills with pork that he knows will pass and then votes against him so he can say that he always votes against pork.
Maybe the problem is with the definition of "pork". How is this:
There are certain jobs the federal government must perform, according to the Constitution. The military and border security are examples of this. It gets a bit fuzzy when you start to consider other things that might fit under the guise of military for example, such as the Interstate Highway system or NASA, which both serve dual rolls. Conservatives want the federal government to do those jobs and do them well. The rest should fall to the states, per the 10th Amendment.
Conservatives tend to get a little pissed when the government cuts functions that it is bound to do per the Constitution, like the military, and extends things that are not spelled out in the Constitution as a federal power, such as education spending or welfare programs.
So when we are talking about federal powers mandated by the Constitution, conservatives do not consider those programs as "pork". Pork would be programs that are not necessary, and only benefit those states receiving it. The Big Dig in Boston or farm subsidies would be examples of pork. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to rename an airport or highway after the very Senator currently sitting in the Senate is an example of pork. Upgrading that small airport, which no one uses with federal dollars is another example of pork. Trying to have the federal government to spend federal dollars in your home state or district for a job that it should be doing anyway, and will be doing somewhere is not pork. Expanding a military base, NASA, opening an FBI office are examples of NOT pork.
It is hypocritical coming from the party that say government is not good at *anything*, and that privatization is *always* the best route.
Republicans say "smaller" government, not "no" government. They also say that government is "inefficient", not "never" the best route.
If you don't want conservatives to say that liberals *always* do this that or the other or that all liberals are X, then don't do the same or else YOU are the one being hypocritical.
So, please, allow me, as a conservative to FTFY:
Government is usually inefficient compared to the private sector, but there are some things that private industries should not control. NASA and the military are two good examples.
Do you consider NASA to be pork? I mean, sure, if rocket parts is made in six different states and assembled in a seventh, then we are talking about pork. But that's not what we are talking about here. Do you think Mission Control is pork?
Then he did nothing to get the country straightened out. He did nothing to create a job or even control spending. He did what he'd always done: giveaway to the rich, grab from everyone else, and interfere with Democrats regardless of the damage to the country.
Did you read the part about how he was MINORITY leader? See, that's the party that is NOT in power. They can't really do anything at all except block bills from passing. Well, unless the other party has a super majority, but that almost never... Oh wait... the Democrats DID have a super majority. So all those things you mentioned were done by... wait for it.... DEMOCRATS because they held the House, the White House, and a Super Majority of the Senate! And part where you said they wanted to interfere with Democrats... see, that couldn't have happened because of the whole super majority thing.
So the shit hole we are in right now? 100% Democrat. Don't even try to pin this on Republicans because they didn't get any power back until about a year ago, and that's just the House.
McConnell's a liar. Your citing his more detailed lie makes nothing clear except that you're willing to repeat his lies.
Well, if you could read, you'd know that there are two contradicting quotes here. Was he lying when he disagreed with you or when he agreed with you? You can't have it both ways.
The only reason there is a link between Rick and anal sex is is desire to enforce a lifestyle.
So, the response is to force a lifestyle on me? See, Rick can't change the gay lifestyle. All he can do is speak out against it. He does that, by the way, in a PG manner. So I'm going to assume that when you say "enforce a lifestyle", you mean "give information".
Now, the problem is, if I'm looking for information on anal sex, I don't expect to find Rick Santorum's position anywhere. Matter of fact, I bet Santorum is not included in any of the Google results when the term "ass fucking" is typed in. That would be complete and utter bullshit. Just as it's complete and utter bullshit for someone to force information about ass fucking when I'm looking for information on Santorum.
Understand?
Also, I'd be pretty surprised if a 12 year old hasn't searched for the term anal sex yet, somebody in class has been talking about it (probably as an eww gross type thing). Just speaking from my pre-internet, but existence of people with older siblings experience.
How about a 7 year old? 10 year old? At what point do I give up control of my kids? The correct answer is "depends". It depends on when I fucking decide. Not you. Not society. Not the Internet. I make that decision.
How do I fight back? Well, understand that I think that Internet should be a free and open place. Anything you want to find, should be found... ANYTHING other than child porn that was created by willing participants. But see, when that stuff starts getting shoved in my face when I'm looking for something else entirely, then I might start saying, "Gee! Maybe this Internet thing really does need a gate keeper." In the mean time, I might start pushing for such an idea and the more people I show this to site to as a prime example, the more "free Internet" thinking people might change their minds. Of course, I'll be happy if all porn sites are limited to.xxx domains, but once this ball gets rolling, who knows what will happen. See, freedom requires responsibility. The second people stop acting responsible, they start losing their freedoms.
Why? Because some asshole thought it was funny to put a page about butt fucking for people who were looking for information on Rick Santorum.
OK, just so we are straight here... You think it's OK for the Internet to be censored because you're incapable of protecting your own children from what may be found with a simple Google search of terms that do not normally have a sexual connotation?
No! That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you can have all the porn, sex, gay sex, animal sex, group sex, bukake, whatever you want to have on the Internet. Dammit, if it's not child porn, all the participants are willing, and no animals were harmed in the making of it, then it should be allowed. I'M ALL FOR IT.
However, I do not want to see when I'm searching for something totally non related to porn. When I want porn, I'll look for porn, and I expect to find it, and I don't want recipes for tuna casserole fucking it all up. And when I'm searching for a recipe on tuna casserole, I don't expect to find information on how to change my oil.
Everything in it's place. When you start forcing porn into areas where it's not expected, you will attract the attention of the people who truly do want it regulated.
I'm also amazed that you consider anal sex to be a "gay sex act". Women take it up the ass from men too, and believe it or not some men take it up the ass from women as well. It's just a sex act, plain and simple; the fact that you attach gay to it says something about you.
I guess it says something about Wikipedia too. Here is the first sentence on the Wiki page for sodomy:
Sodomy (play/sdmi/) refers to anal sex or other non-penile/vaginal copulation-like acts, especially between male persons or between a person and an animal.[1]
So tell me, what does this say about me and Wikipedia?
No one is forcing a lifestyle on your children. No one is coming into your home and reading the definition of anal sex aloud during dinner. No one is holding up posters with the definition in front of your house.
Actually, they kinda are. See, no one looking for information on anal sex is going to expect to find in on a "Santorum" site. So, why is it there? It was forced on me because I was not looking for it, yet it was put on my screen for me to read anyway.
It's your job to protect your kids, not mine, not Google's, and not the federal government's.
DING DING DING DING!!!!!! Here is this all started: Me: Please do not dictate how I should raise my children. TiggertheMad: (after an anti-Santorum rant) Don't like the content? Don't use the Internet. Nobody is forcing you to. Also, is it that horrible to learn what anal sex is? Some people like putting their penis in other people's anus, oh no! Get over it.
I say I want to raise my own kids, and the response is to "get over it". See my concern here?
It's basically, live without computers and smart phones or have anal sex thrust in my face at random times throughout the day? Is that what you are saying? I have to put up with my children reading about ass fucking if they want to research anything at all on their ipod, phone, personal computer or even the computers at the school library? Is there anything I can do to keep people from teaching my kids about ass fucking before I think they are ready, other than keeping them locked in the 1970's?
Oh, I know. When someone is searching for Ass Fucking, make sure they find information on Ass Fucking and when people are searching for Politician X, they should find information on Politician X. Seriously, what's wrong with that?
If you had kids of your own, you would understand.
No one is forcing anyone to look at the search result in question.
True, but nothing told me that a search on Santorum would bring up information on anal sex either. So my options are: 1) Don't use the Internet 2) Have porn forced into my face!!!????!!!
No. I choose a third option can call out dickwads that put porn without so much as a warning disguised as a legitimate, educational site.
If you want to be a total prude and protect your kids from everything out there in the big bad world, then that is not only your prerogative, but it is your job and yours alone.
If you had kids, you would understand why you don't take your kids cruising down Montrose Ave at 2:30 am. You would understand that it not appropriate to take kids into bars and night clubs late at night. You would not be taking your little girl to a strip club on "take your daughter to work" day.
Or... is all that OK with you? Are you a prude? Don't you think that 7 year olds should now what happens in the Champaign room? If so, let me know. I'll call bullshit and meet you there.
Quit trying to censor what is legitimate speech just because it offends your delicate sensibilities. It's not my job to not offend you.
Ah, but see, that is the rub. I was not looking for information on anal sex. I was looking for information on Santorum. The link in question is disguised a legitimate Santorum link, but instead gives information on anal sex.
Of course, anyone is free to their opinion, and if this guy thinks that "spreading santorum" should refer to post-anal sex discharge, then he is free to believe that and tell whoever WANTS to listen. And that's the rub. He's not telling whoever WANTS to listen. He is actually providing a definition for an anal sex discharge to people who probably don't give a fuck. That's why this does not fall under free speech rights. If I were looking for such a thing, then it could be considered free speech. Since I neither asked for nor searched out this definition, it is not appropriate for it to be presented to me. Think of it as putting a Rated G on the cover of a porn film... Oh wait, you would be OK with that since you agree with NAMBLA that little boys and girls should be familiar with anal sex.
That's funny, I put my (straight) dick in my wife's (straight) anus on a fairly regular basis...
Don't fucking lie, nerd, no one would marry you. I doubt you are out of Jr High. See, when you become a big boy, you'll understand why it's not OK for children to know about certain subjects, like gay porn (unless, like I said, you are NAMBLA). But as a 7th grader, you think you can handle anything.
You merely cited one of many cases in which elected Republicans betray the values of the Republicans (and anyone else) who voted them into power.
With "Doc" in your name, you'd think you'd be more literate. Guess it's a nick-name, like "What's up Doc?. Do you watch a lot of Looney Toons until mommy comes home? I showed a link that shows that it's not just Republicans who want Creationism taught in school. For that matter, a majority of Democrats wanted it taught. Here, let me point it out for you:
...but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection.
That help Doc? Be sure to tell your reading teacher tomorrow that a nice man helped you with your comprehension (I know it's a big word, but I bet you can sound it out). Also be sure to tell her that I think you have shown marked improvement in your reading skills since I first saw you on here.
I guess there is the possibility that you can read. You could just be an asshole who can't accept facts that disprove what he thought to to be true. Sorry Doc, but unlike Santa Clause facts are still facts whether you believe in them or not. Maybe your lib colored glasses actually block facts that make you butt hurt. Whatever it is, it sure makes you look like an asshole when someone says "A majority of Democrats think X" and our response is "You merely cited one of many cases in which elected Republicans betray the values of the Republicans (and anyone else) who voted them into power."
For laughs, do you think schools should teach that any random unprovable assertion about the creation of the universe is wrong? Like say it was sneezed out of the nose of a Great Green Arkleseizure?
If you can find me a credible religion that teaches such tripe then it's not a teacher's place to disprove or negate. See, if a state funded teacher says that a certain religion is wrong, then the state is taking a side on the religious debate, which as you liberals like to point out, is against the Bill of Rights. A teacher can no more teach religion than they may teach against it.
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
That help? You're right. It was a fun read!
Also note that, as a conservative myself, I do not favor the teaching of Creationism in school, as part of the official curriculum. However, I don't feel that schools should have the right to say that creationism is wrong.
How do you sleep at night when we've seen this exact policy from the GOP for the last 4-6 years.
Clearly stated by Senate Minority Leader McConnell (KY):
"Our number one priority is to make Obama a one term President."
It really doesn't get much clearer than that.
Actually, it does get clearer than that:
“Well that is true, [making Obama a one-term President is] my single most important political goal along with every active Republican in the country. But that’s in 2012. Our biggest goal for this year is to get this country straightened out, and you can’t get this country straightened out if we don’t do something about spending, about deficit, about debt and get this economy moving again. So, our goal is to have a robust vibrant economy that will benefit all Americans, and that’s why I think this debate that we’re having right now is so important to our country’s future.” -- Senate Minority Leader McConnell (KY)
Slashdot Mirror
But with Intel you always have the option of going with an untra cheap Intel branded board (DH61WW currently I think), which will support the basic features needed for a low cost computer and be reliable without needing to put too much research into it
I did that for my core2 Duo system. Ultra cheap, onboard video, sound, NIC, the works. The system still works OK and acts as my personal server, but the NIC died two days after first power up. The sound card died a few weeks later (not that it was needed) and the video never really worked right at all. Not that it mattered because I had an old nVidia sitting around I just plugged into it. It's mostly headless, but when I upgrade the OS or change distro's, it needs a monitor.
My point is that, yeah, it works, but all the secondary components failed right away and had to be replaced with add in cards. I would have been better off going AMD, spending an extra $30 on the board and doubling the RAM I put in it and stuck rest of the money saved in my pocket.
AMD might have made okay CPU's but their partners made junk. You simply can't buy quality motherboards for AMD. All of it seems to be low-end crap with weird flaws. Every AMD system I have put together I wound up regretting. Things would crash randomly, freeze randomly, or just act downright strange. With Intel-based systems, I rarely have this problem (though I always pair it with a boring, plain-vanilla intel motherboard).
Bottom line, I simply cannot recommend AMD-based systems. Sure it costs less, but you pay for it in frustration.
Strange. I was able to find a quality board for an AMD processor from several choices. I've used AMD for years and never EVER have hardware based crashes. I think the trick is to do your research, buy a name brand board and spend more than $80 for it. Yeah, I could have gone with the $30 board, but then I'd be in the same boat you're in.
My last system was a dual core Opteron 175. Something in the system finally died after years of abuse. I don't know if it was the processor, RAM, MB or even the power supply. Frankly, I didn't care as the system had outlasted its usefulness and it was way past time for an upgrade. My current system is a Phenom II 965 with a Gigabyte board and 12 GB of name brand, PC1666 RAM. No problems whatsoever. Sure, it's not as fast as the 7-series, but I saved hundreds by going with AMD and frankly, I never wait on anything. It's still much faster than what I need.
The processor is really not the bottleneck any more for the vast majority of people.
"Right-wing, scaremongering lies" is exactly what it is.
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/02/15/a-north-carolina-non-troversy/
Right! You've posted that one link all over this site. Sorry, but that single link doesn't stand up to the dozens of links from multiple sources that report this as a true story. Also, MARK THOMPSON is less of an authority than Hoke County Assistant Superintendent Bob Barnes, who confirms the story.
From your link:
These facts are critical because the “state agent” in this story turns out to be nothing more than a researcher from a program that grades the performance of pre-schools and operates out of the FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It also does not appear that this institute has any actual authority other than to provide assessments, which the state then uses in making licensing decisions and in setting the fees it will pay the day care provider for subsidized care.
No authority? Well, he had enough authority to make a child buy a school lunch of mystery meat nuggets without the parent's permission.
The only other points of your link are that 1) The lady signed up for the program (so?), and 2) She's upset that she might get charged the buck and a quarter. Again, so? I don't care if the lady gets charged or not. The fact remains that a person entered a school and said to a child, "Hey! You must eat this other thing over here!" And the school went along with it. Your site said the person wasn't authorized to do it and was only there doing research. OK. If true, THAT'S EVEN WORSE! Someone with no power went into a school and started barking orders and the teachers jumped!??! That's scary as hell! It doesn't matter if the parent is poor and signed up for a school lunch program or that she's upset about something different than what really matters. What matters is what happened and your link does not dispute the fact that a school gave a kid food against the parent's wishes because the school thought their way was better.
And still, the school district officials prove your link to be false anyway:
The student also brought home a bill for the cost of the school lunch she had to eat instead.
School district officials say the agent was conducting a required visit that included checking to see if students had healthy meals.
The Hoke County Assistant Superintendent Bob Barnes agreed that the lunch was healthy, but says it was missing milk, a key part of what is considered to be a healthy meal under state guidelines.
"We are not the lunch bag police. But if we observe that a child who has brought their lunch is missing one of the key components of the healthy meal, we simply say, if it's milk, here's some milk, you may have it or not," said Barnes.
The Agent? Didn't your link say that it wasn't an agent? Who would know better: school officials or some dude you linked?
And if the meal was just missing milk ( it did have cheese), then why was she given an entire meal?
Oh, and it happened to more than one child.
However, if you were smart, you would have known that this is a STATE program, not a federal one. That means that Obama has nothing to do with it. This is a good old, 10th Amendment allowed, locally controlled STATE program from top to bottom. If anything I believe that this is a state program trying to squeeze out more federal lunch program money by buying more lunches for the poor kids. But I have no evidence to back that up. It just makes more sense than anything else I've read about why a school would be this stupid!
. . . start with 2000 known customers who started buying diapers and formula on a certain date. Now what did they start buying seven months before that?
Well, they weren't buying condoms, I'd imagine . . .
Or they were buying condoms, just they were getting the cheap kind or the ones on clearance.
Just like TFA, two months ago gmail started serving me nothing but breast pump, neonatal vitamin, and baby bottle ads. I'm a guy, but I am married so maybe they're trying to send a hint "why don't you have kids yet? Here we'll give you discount mail-order vitamins if you get busy!" But they also send me dating site ads. So if they do know I'm married, they don't have a high opinion of my marriage! Maybe that's why they want me to knock my wife up? ;)
Google's ads are based on the email you are reading or other things on your screen. For example, I see ads for the delicious meat-like product Spam when I'm on the Spam page (then again, Google does have a sense of humor). So for a fun exercise, try to find out what it is in your email is triggering the ad you are receiving.
The mother was NOT charged. She received a form letter, sent to all parents, that the school might start charging for extra food given to students at some point in the future. However, since she is voluntarily enrolled in a program for poor parents, she would be exempted from paying regardless.
Please stop repeating these right-wing, scaremongering lies.
Um, stop calling the truth "right-wing, scaremongering lies."
The story is legit. It really happened. Do a little research before you go off the handle accusing others of lying or else you might find out that you are one lying.
http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/childs-lunch-allegedly-taken-by-teacher-told-it-wasnt-healthy-enough
Oh, and those chicken nuggets were provided because the meal was missing milk. That's right! All it was missing was milk. There is no milk in chicken nuggets. The is milk in cheese, however, which was one of the primary ingredients in the child's turkey and CHEESE sandwich.
However did the parent actually say this? So far the school has said no one is being charged for the food. Original pseudo-journalist probably just making a bunch of stuff up, the mother is angry and shouting about having to pay (there is a hint in the rules of the voluntary program that they might have to pay for extra food the child takes).
The story has been corroborated by the Hoke County Assistant Superintendent.
http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/childs-lunch-allegedly-taken-by-teacher-told-it-wasnt-healthy-enough
It appears that it wasn't the "pseudo-journalist" just making a bunch of stuff up. I can't say the same for you.
.... not so much the fact that this may have happened, but the fact that slashdot put it on the front page. This story has set the conservative blogosphere alight over "obama's nanny state" and what have you while overlooking one huge glaring problem here...
They are taking the word of a four year old kid to be god's-own-truth. I'm not saying she's intentionally lying, but how many reliable four year olds have you met in your life time? There could well be a very large gap between what she was told and what she thought she heard, and yet another between what she did and what she told her parents.
Would you take the word of the Hoke County Assistant Superintendent Bob Barnes?
School district officials say the agent was conducting a required visit that included checking to see if students had healthy meals.
The Hoke County Assistant Superintendent Bob Barnes agreed that the lunch was healthy, but says it was missing milk, a key part of what is considered to be a healthy meal under state guidelines.
Now say you are sorry! Turns out those over reactionary conservative bloggers got one right, and it's the one you called them on.
Oh, and what did they give the child that was missing milk? Chicken Nuggets! It should also be noted that the girl's sandwich was made of turkey and cheese. Can anyone tell me what cheese is made of?
as an aside, euthanasia and predetermined lifespans are recurring themes in sci-fi. Usually it's a story where people are only allowed to live x years and the protagonist rebels reaffirming that people want to live! It's a good story because it's true about humanity. I don't think i've ever seen a story where society has decided not that it will kill you after x years, but instead that after x years, it becomes your duty to humanity to start doing more and more dangerous things for the benefit of the race. Youd do stuff like going to habitable worlds and other grand adventures where you'll likely be killed by alien monsters.
Or they break out of their dome and live in Washington DC with some old guy.
Uh, yeah, thanks for that. I always look to religion for the correct answer to question science already has the answer for, Remind me again, which which hand should I throw stones when I'm murdering women for having been raped?
Well, according the Christian religion, you don't throw stones at all unless you are without sin yourself.
The AC mentioned nothing about lesbians, democrats, or mayors. All of that came out of your own biases and prejudices. The only group the AC mentioned were the religious (those who depend on "faith"), particularly those that are turning their backs on current schooling practices. Furthermore, the only thing he said about them is that they are a large proportion of the state.
No, he mentioned the state of Texas, said "large proportion of the state depends on "faith" for their resource planning needs" and then mentioned Houston specifically. Assuming that the OP meant religion when he said faith listing Houston as an example disproves his entire point. See, the mayor of Houston is an open lesbian, and Democrat, which is exactly the group that the OP was NOT trying to blame. That's not my "own biases and prejudices". That's from CNN.
I know what the OP meant. The mistake that the OP made was assuming that the red state of Texas was an all red state. Of course, all reds (conservatives) are religious too, right (yet another stereotype)? He was trying to blame the problems of Texas on the "reds" and listed a blue portion of the state as an example. I was pointing out that the OP has a "bias and prejudice" against conservatives and the religious and I used the his own evidence to disprove his case entirely and point out that he is a bigot. I guess that description includes you as well since you are so willing to blame religion for issues that religion has nothing to do with. It's kinda like the old days, when racists would blame all their problems on those damn (insert racial slur here), except you are blaming religion. If you place "Christians" in the place of "racial slur", the argument doesn't change. The level of bigotry doesn't change either.
nah, they're used to it and have known it from childhood. Texas is a much more interesting example, as the town & city population density is much larger, and a large proportion of the state depends on "faith" for their resource planning needs and actively lobby against educating their own children.
Are you talking about the lesbian, Democrat mayor of Houston?
a big city like Houston running out of water is quite interesting to watch. (as has happened)
I guess you are.
I'm sorry, but I am offended by your comment. Saying that all Democrats and lesbians " actively lobby against educating their own children" is not just a stereotype, but like so many other stereotypes, is bigoted and is only separated from racism because it doesn't mention the color of anyone's skin.
Mission control several thousand miles away from the launch site is Pork. Other that it being a convenient pestilential swamp, there was no reason to put the Manned^HLyndon B. Johnson Spacecraft Center where they did. It just happened to be in Texas which needed a few bones to be thrown in their direction.
Blame whoever was president at the time. I believe it was Kennedy or Johnson.
Johnson was from Texas btw, so you may have something. But there is a benefit to not having mission control at the launch site, and it had to go somewhere. Clear Lake is as good of place as any. And if something has to be built somewhere, I don't know if I'd call the target site, "pork". Otherwise, every government building, no matter where it is located is pork.
So the parent was correct, it's just that conservatives think they are entitled to their pork.
I'm not going to say that conservatives are not guilty of pork barrel projects, but there seems to be some confusion about what should be considered pork. The GP was saying that conservatives are ALWAYS against spending of any kind and that private industry should ALWAYS do the job and it was hypocritical for them to want the federal government to spend money anywhere for anything. I think he has conservatives confused with anarchists... or Ron Paul, who loads bills with pork that he knows will pass and then votes against him so he can say that he always votes against pork.
Maybe the problem is with the definition of "pork". How is this:
There are certain jobs the federal government must perform, according to the Constitution. The military and border security are examples of this. It gets a bit fuzzy when you start to consider other things that might fit under the guise of military for example, such as the Interstate Highway system or NASA, which both serve dual rolls. Conservatives want the federal government to do those jobs and do them well. The rest should fall to the states, per the 10th Amendment.
Conservatives tend to get a little pissed when the government cuts functions that it is bound to do per the Constitution, like the military, and extends things that are not spelled out in the Constitution as a federal power, such as education spending or welfare programs.
So when we are talking about federal powers mandated by the Constitution, conservatives do not consider those programs as "pork". Pork would be programs that are not necessary, and only benefit those states receiving it. The Big Dig in Boston or farm subsidies would be examples of pork. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to rename an airport or highway after the very Senator currently sitting in the Senate is an example of pork. Upgrading that small airport, which no one uses with federal dollars is another example of pork. Trying to have the federal government to spend federal dollars in your home state or district for a job that it should be doing anyway, and will be doing somewhere is not pork. Expanding a military base, NASA, opening an FBI office are examples of NOT pork.
Are we clear?
It is hypocritical coming from the party that say government is not good at *anything*, and that privatization is *always* the best route.
Republicans say "smaller" government, not "no" government. They also say that government is "inefficient", not "never" the best route.
If you don't want conservatives to say that liberals *always* do this that or the other or that all liberals are X, then don't do the same or else YOU are the one being hypocritical.
So, please, allow me, as a conservative to FTFY:
Government is usually inefficient compared to the private sector, but there are some things that private industries should not control. NASA and the military are two good examples.
In other words, "hands off my pork, dammit!".
Do you consider NASA to be pork? I mean, sure, if rocket parts is made in six different states and assembled in a seventh, then we are talking about pork. But that's not what we are talking about here. Do you think Mission Control is pork?
Then he did nothing to get the country straightened out. He did nothing to create a job or even control spending. He did what he'd always done: giveaway to the rich, grab from everyone else, and interfere with Democrats regardless of the damage to the country.
Did you read the part about how he was MINORITY leader? See, that's the party that is NOT in power. They can't really do anything at all except block bills from passing. Well, unless the other party has a super majority, but that almost never... Oh wait... the Democrats DID have a super majority. So all those things you mentioned were done by... wait for it.... DEMOCRATS because they held the House, the White House, and a Super Majority of the Senate! And part where you said they wanted to interfere with Democrats... see, that couldn't have happened because of the whole super majority thing.
So the shit hole we are in right now? 100% Democrat. Don't even try to pin this on Republicans because they didn't get any power back until about a year ago, and that's just the House.
McConnell's a liar. Your citing his more detailed lie makes nothing clear except that you're willing to repeat his lies.
Well, if you could read, you'd know that there are two contradicting quotes here. Was he lying when he disagreed with you or when he agreed with you? You can't have it both ways.
The only reason there is a link between Rick and anal sex is is desire to enforce a lifestyle.
So, the response is to force a lifestyle on me? See, Rick can't change the gay lifestyle. All he can do is speak out against it. He does that, by the way, in a PG manner. So I'm going to assume that when you say "enforce a lifestyle", you mean "give information".
Now, the problem is, if I'm looking for information on anal sex, I don't expect to find Rick Santorum's position anywhere. Matter of fact, I bet Santorum is not included in any of the Google results when the term "ass fucking" is typed in. That would be complete and utter bullshit. Just as it's complete and utter bullshit for someone to force information about ass fucking when I'm looking for information on Santorum.
Understand?
Also, I'd be pretty surprised if a 12 year old hasn't searched for the term anal sex yet, somebody in class has been talking about it (probably as an eww gross type thing). Just speaking from my pre-internet, but existence of people with older siblings experience.
How about a 7 year old? 10 year old? At what point do I give up control of my kids? The correct answer is "depends". It depends on when I fucking decide. Not you. Not society. Not the Internet. I make that decision.
How do I fight back? Well, understand that I think that Internet should be a free and open place. Anything you want to find, should be found... ANYTHING other than child porn that was created by willing participants. But see, when that stuff starts getting shoved in my face when I'm looking for something else entirely, then I might start saying, "Gee! Maybe this Internet thing really does need a gate keeper." In the mean time, I might start pushing for such an idea and the more people I show this to site to as a prime example, the more "free Internet" thinking people might change their minds. Of course, I'll be happy if all porn sites are limited to .xxx domains, but once this ball gets rolling, who knows what will happen. See, freedom requires responsibility. The second people stop acting responsible, they start losing their freedoms.
Why? Because some asshole thought it was funny to put a page about butt fucking for people who were looking for information on Rick Santorum.
OK, just so we are straight here... You think it's OK for the Internet to be censored because you're incapable of protecting your own children from what may be found with a simple Google search of terms that do not normally have a sexual connotation?
No! That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you can have all the porn, sex, gay sex, animal sex, group sex, bukake, whatever you want to have on the Internet. Dammit, if it's not child porn, all the participants are willing, and no animals were harmed in the making of it, then it should be allowed. I'M ALL FOR IT.
However, I do not want to see when I'm searching for something totally non related to porn. When I want porn, I'll look for porn, and I expect to find it, and I don't want recipes for tuna casserole fucking it all up. And when I'm searching for a recipe on tuna casserole, I don't expect to find information on how to change my oil.
Everything in it's place. When you start forcing porn into areas where it's not expected, you will attract the attention of the people who truly do want it regulated.
I'm also amazed that you consider anal sex to be a "gay sex act". Women take it up the ass from men too, and believe it or not some men take it up the ass from women as well. It's just a sex act, plain and simple; the fact that you attach gay to it says something about you.
I guess it says something about Wikipedia too. Here is the first sentence on the Wiki page for sodomy:
Sodomy (play /sdmi/) refers to anal sex or other non-penile/vaginal copulation-like acts, especially between male persons or between a person and an animal.[1]
So tell me, what does this say about me and Wikipedia?
No one is forcing a lifestyle on your children. No one is coming into your home and reading the definition of anal sex aloud during dinner. No one is holding up posters with the definition in front of your house.
Actually, they kinda are. See, no one looking for information on anal sex is going to expect to find in on a "Santorum" site. So, why is it there? It was forced on me because I was not looking for it, yet it was put on my screen for me to read anyway.
It's your job to protect your kids, not mine, not Google's, and not the federal government's.
DING DING DING DING!!!!!!
Here is this all started:
Me: Please do not dictate how I should raise my children.
TiggertheMad: (after an anti-Santorum rant) Don't like the content? Don't use the Internet. Nobody is forcing you to.
Also, is it that horrible to learn what anal sex is? Some people like putting their penis in other people's anus, oh no! Get over it.
I say I want to raise my own kids, and the response is to "get over it". See my concern here?
It's basically, live without computers and smart phones or have anal sex thrust in my face at random times throughout the day? Is that what you are saying? I have to put up with my children reading about ass fucking if they want to research anything at all on their ipod, phone, personal computer or even the computers at the school library? Is there anything I can do to keep people from teaching my kids about ass fucking before I think they are ready, other than keeping them locked in the 1970's?
Oh, I know. When someone is searching for Ass Fucking, make sure they find information on Ass Fucking and when people are searching for Politician X, they should find information on Politician X. Seriously, what's wrong with that?
Also, I feel sorry for your kids...
If you had kids of your own, you would understand.
No one is forcing anyone to look at the search result in question.
True, but nothing told me that a search on Santorum would bring up information on anal sex either. So my options are:
1) Don't use the Internet
2) Have porn forced into my face!!!????!!!
No. I choose a third option can call out dickwads that put porn without so much as a warning disguised as a legitimate, educational site.
If you want to be a total prude and protect your kids from everything out there in the big bad world, then that is not only your prerogative, but it is your job and yours alone.
If you had kids, you would understand why you don't take your kids cruising down Montrose Ave at 2:30 am. You would understand that it not appropriate to take kids into bars and night clubs late at night. You would not be taking your little girl to a strip club on "take your daughter to work" day.
Or... is all that OK with you? Are you a prude? Don't you think that 7 year olds should now what happens in the Champaign room? If so, let me know. I'll call bullshit and meet you there.
Quit trying to censor what is legitimate speech just because it offends your delicate sensibilities. It's not my job to not offend you.
Ah, but see, that is the rub. I was not looking for information on anal sex. I was looking for information on Santorum. The link in question is disguised a legitimate Santorum link, but instead gives information on anal sex.
Of course, anyone is free to their opinion, and if this guy thinks that "spreading santorum" should refer to post-anal sex discharge, then he is free to believe that and tell whoever WANTS to listen. And that's the rub. He's not telling whoever WANTS to listen. He is actually providing a definition for an anal sex discharge to people who probably don't give a fuck. That's why this does not fall under free speech rights. If I were looking for such a thing, then it could be considered free speech. Since I neither asked for nor searched out this definition, it is not appropriate for it to be presented to me. Think of it as putting a Rated G on the cover of a porn film... Oh wait, you would be OK with that since you agree with NAMBLA that little boys and girls should be familiar with anal sex.
That's funny, I put my (straight) dick in my wife's (straight) anus on a fairly regular basis...
Don't fucking lie, nerd, no one would marry you. I doubt you are out of Jr High. See, when you become a big boy, you'll understand why it's not OK for children to know about certain subjects, like gay porn (unless, like I said, you are NAMBLA). But as a 7th grader, you think you can handle anything.
You merely cited one of many cases in which elected Republicans betray the values of the Republicans (and anyone else) who voted them into power.
With "Doc" in your name, you'd think you'd be more literate. Guess it's a nick-name, like "What's up Doc?. Do you watch a lot of Looney Toons until mommy comes home? I showed a link that shows that it's not just Republicans who want Creationism taught in school. For that matter, a majority of Democrats wanted it taught. Here, let me point it out for you:
...but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection.
That help Doc? Be sure to tell your reading teacher tomorrow that a nice man helped you with your comprehension (I know it's a big word, but I bet you can sound it out). Also be sure to tell her that I think you have shown marked improvement in your reading skills since I first saw you on here.
I guess there is the possibility that you can read. You could just be an asshole who can't accept facts that disprove what he thought to to be true. Sorry Doc, but unlike Santa Clause facts are still facts whether you believe in them or not. Maybe your lib colored glasses actually block facts that make you butt hurt. Whatever it is, it sure makes you look like an asshole when someone says "A majority of Democrats think X" and our response is "You merely cited one of many cases in which elected Republicans betray the values of the Republicans (and anyone else) who voted them into power."
For laughs, do you think schools should teach that any random unprovable assertion about the creation of the universe is wrong? Like say it was sneezed out of the nose of a Great Green Arkleseizure?
If you can find me a credible religion that teaches such tripe then it's not a teacher's place to disprove or negate. See, if a state funded teacher says that a certain religion is wrong, then the state is taking a side on the religious debate, which as you liberals like to point out, is against the Bill of Rights. A teacher can no more teach religion than they may teach against it.
Now please, try to refute the parts about the Republicans supporting creationism or using "intellectual" as an insult. This should be a fun read.
OK, I'll try. From HERE:
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
That help? You're right. It was a fun read!
Also note that, as a conservative myself, I do not favor the teaching of Creationism in school, as part of the official curriculum. However, I don't feel that schools should have the right to say that creationism is wrong.
How do you sleep at night when we've seen this exact policy from the GOP for the last 4-6 years.
Clearly stated by Senate Minority Leader McConnell (KY):
"Our number one priority is to make Obama a one term President."
It really doesn't get much clearer than that.
Actually, it does get clearer than that:
“Well that is true, [making Obama a one-term President is] my single most important political goal along with every active Republican in the country. But that’s in 2012. Our biggest goal for this year is to get this country straightened out, and you can’t get this country straightened out if we don’t do something about spending, about deficit, about debt and get this economy moving again. So, our goal is to have a robust vibrant economy that will benefit all Americans, and that’s why I think this debate that we’re having right now is so important to our country’s future.”
-- Senate Minority Leader McConnell (KY)
From TFA:
These three agencies were originally singled by President George W. Bush in 2006 for a 10-year budget doubling
From you:
The Republicans are very much anti-intellectual. You can pretend otherwise if that helps you sleep at night, but you are fooling yourself.
Just so we are clear:
If (
Republican does X)
Republicans are wrong;
Else
Republicans are wrong;
EndIf
Did I get that right?
Does it help you sleep at night knowing that whatever Republicans do, you will find fault?