I was thinking this same thing. I can see the frustration Apple has for their chips. First, they move from Motorola to IBM, probably hoping to get faster chips. IBM couldn't deliver, so they're stuck changing again. They are probably going with Intel because they just don't want to take another chance.
I'm one of those people who still thinks the PowerPC is better, in spite of the Ghz. difference. I understand why Apple would not want to take another risk, though.
Okay: I support that. To anyone who cares, who is acting more foolish, him or I?
(This is my second account on/. -- I have been reading Slashdot for over 6 years. My other account was too personally identifying. I made this account to avoid people like yourself from harrassing me outside of/. And yes, I do give a crap about karma.)
I think I have become a troll here by feeding a troll. I'm going to go talk on that other thread where the person has coherent thoughts.
You've got me thinking. I think they also include the marriage aspect as a contract to stay committed, but that just doesn't hold up either; people don't see marriage that way. They may be thinking, to have a family, you need a strong masculine figure and a feminine figure. Of course, that doesn't happen when one of the partners dies. When they are sterile, they adopt a kid and start a family. Do they get the same benefits as a couple that creates one of their own? If so, shouldn't a same-sex couple? MochaMan, I think you've just blown my assertion to bits on that. Thanks for giving me something to think about!
I'm going to do something rarely done on Slashdot -- admit I'm wrong.
MG, those links are hillarious. The people who wrote them definitely are utter fools. I read them all and I'll give my opinion (that is what Slashdot is for!)
"Bush Agenda in Hands of Religious Right" This entertaining little article claims that there is some great religious conspiracy going on. First, it addresses the Republican push to get marriage defined in the constitution as a union between male and female. It claims this is based solely on religion when, in fact, it is based on economics: same-sex marriages cannot produce children, which is the primary reason for the tax breaks. Kids are damn expensive. Republicans aren't banning homosexuality, they are just keeping people from abusing the system to get benefits that were not designed for them.
As is typical with articles like this, it likes to jump around a lot, trying to sneak in absurd suggestions like, "It even says faith-based organizations that accept public money should be able to discriminate in hiring practices," hoping you'll accept it along with the rest of the whole. Naturally, it didn't provide any links or references to support this claim.
And the best part - typically, it ends with a conspiracy. Republicans all get together in a room and deny access to the press (an unforgivable sin). Evil man speaks horrid things behind closed doors. Give me a break.
"Religious right believes Bush truly is the candidate of God" This article just talks about how Bush is a man who believes in God. Apparently, this is a surprise. Hey, in case anyone is confused: George W. Bush is a Christian. I'm confused about this article: is it supposed to be negative? If it is, it is relying on just the fact that Bush is a Christian to be negative. Strange.
"The Godly Must Be Crazy" This made me laugh out loud. What a great article. Apparently, Christians don't care about the environment because they believe it's all going to end anyway when Christ comes back in Revelations. There are the usual references to abortion and gay rights designed to get the hairs to stand-up on liberal's necks so that they get feeling instead of thinking. I can't believe someone actually wrote this.
"President George Bush Researching the Apocalypse?" Okay, starting with a shot at Reagan as well, this article claims that, because Condoleeza Rice asked Jack van Impe to make an outline of the apocalypse, that this supports that the White House is making decisions based on the end times. Quite a leap. Apparently, not too insane for some people to put on an Agnosticism/Atheism blog!
"Apocalypse Bush!" "This is the great thing about rabid fundamentalism. You really just don't have to give a damn" - LOL. He tries to sound like he isn't drooling and whipping his head around by starting a paragraph with, "Look. This much has become clear. Bush is, more than anything else, an extreme fundamentalist Christian." When has this become clear? What does extreme mean? Bush has called Jesus his "favorite philosopher." That makes him extreme? This whole article is just another set of hateful talking points that tries to call them "careful, nuanced thinking" when it is, in fact, just more entertaining drivel.
"The Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse" Another case where the author makes an assertion: "There is also good reason to suspect Mr. Bush subscribes to the apocalyptic End Times Eschatology..." without providing any sort of proof or logic that leads to such a conclusion. It's just more drivel! Somebody, get these authors their meds!
All these articles contain fragmented hate-filled sentences without any rational thought. Darkman is totally right: those articles are written by utter fools! It's schizophrenic! Great entertainment!!! Thanks for the links!
Heh, he'd probably say it more like, "We've, uh, got to get them touristical people (little chuckle) with ties to Al-Queda (little chuckle)." Gotta love those verbal skills:-)
It isn't a difficult connection to make. We were attacked by terrorists. Iraq sponsors terrorism. We attack Iraq. The reason it is Iraq and not, say, Syria, is because Iraq has already been warned and warned since the golf war to cooperate. They didn't. There it is -- how much more plain can it be?
They are spending money because we are at war. Like another poster said, you can't have a war and not spend money. They are at war because we have been attacked. And, think what you want about Iraq, it is a state that supports terrorism that we have been way too patient with since the Gulf war. We didn't start the war, 9/11 did. That is history too fresh to re-write.
Side with big business -- you're right. I would like to see more reform from the current administration when it comes to unethical business practices. I suppose, though, this whole war thing has their attention just a bit diverted at the moment.
Support large government: exactly wrong. The Republican party is about diminishing the government's role in life (notable exception, The Patriot Act, which only recently has me concerned since some of the provisions are going to be permanent). The Republican party didn't pass the law that lets PRIVATE business take away someone's land to build a WAL*MART. The Republican party doesn't want to expand the welfare state, they want to MAKE JOBS for them to work at. It is exactly 180 degrees different than what you perceive. You are being told something incorrect over-and-over again by liberals with hopes that, eventually, you'll believe it.
Wipe their asses with the constitution -- again, 180 degrees wrong. The Republican party is now trying to appoint judges that will strictly interpret the constition. How can that be more clear?
Protect individuals that perform acts of treason -- that is so rediculous, I'm starting to think your message is troll bait.
You have to believe that, if the money is in the public's hands, that it will not grow, in order to found such an argument. It is small business that contributes MOST to this economy, not these large, corrupt corporations. Do you think that most people are lazy cattle that, once they get their money, they'll put it under the matress instead of invest it or take a shot at the American dream by becoming their own boss?
You're all twisted up -- lower taxes means more money for people to build their own businesses. More business means more revenue and jobs. I'm not saying there aren't pigs out there who horde it; I'm not naive. It's just that it is, in a capitalist society, business that fuels the economy. I'm not making judgments on that, it just is the way it is, and history has proven this again and again. Liberals just don't understand that things do not magically appear -- it takes hard work to make things happen.
I don't believe that you voted for Bush. I think you're just saying that to add credibility to your statements. The Republican party is about LOWERING taxes, not increasing them. Ironically, the Democratic party is the one fighting to RAISE taxes, as if that is a holy cause.
I tested this. I refused to sign a non-compete and the company fired me AND was able to deny me unemployment because I "Failed to follow company policy."
Anyone who has the impression in the USA that, as a producer, they are not f*cked, just hasn't worked enough years yet.
I don't know why companies do not fight to keep key employees in the first place. If I were to go in and become so important, the company should make me want to stay. It all seemed so simple before I left college. *What's left of hair -- falling -- out*
I'm not speaking about you as much as I am the sum of the kind of posts that aggrivate me. If I'm taking it out on you, I'm sorry; I shouldn't be, you're right, you're a thoughtful poster.
I also write in active voice (using 'you' and direct references) which comes across more aggresive than I intend. But, it's a no-win situation when writing: if I don't write active-voice, I'm a coward, if I write active-voice, I'm too assertive, so I choose one and stick with it.
Let's end this thread -- really, I am venting today because of some f*cking stupid a$$ LiveLink API bullsh*t and throwing a lot of my frustration in the wrong direction here.
Listen, I'm getting tired. This is the same old crap every thread and it's useless. When someone responds talks back to you in the same tone when you spout your hate for religion you scream, "Troll!" You're right. It is trolling to bring up religion to spawn these discussions when the article had nothing to do with it, yet the top-most parent of this thread is modded interesting? WTF does religion have to do with the lawsuit anyway? Am I frustrated -- yes, I'm frustrated; frustrated that the modders can't seem to get it right anymore.
Now, can we stop littering these damn threads with religious discussions, or at least take it somewhere else and try to stay on topic?
Good./. is a crucible and we've burned away everything else. There it is: the reason for all these off-topic yet not modded-so religious discussions: hate for George Bush.
Now, I dream of the day where I can read through one of these/. threads and not have to wade through hundreds of useless posts about religion that have little to nothing to do with the article itself.
Modders of the world, unite! Let's start modding those threads that fork off into religion off-topic. Okay?
Ah, there you are. There is always one of you in the crowd. I had no idea athEIsts broke the i before e except after c rule. Look how stupid I am! I mean, it even sounds spelled that way (to help you out, that is called "sarcasm"). You must have great faith in your argument to need to point out a poster's spelling errors and grammar problems.
Faith is about accepting that there are things we do not understand yet and trusting in a grand design that we are too small to understand (and may never be big enough to). So is science; at least, real science, which starts with, "I don't know," which should then be followed by, "But I'll find out!"
Certainly, you can't look at a panda's thumb or retina and not see the genius of a creator? When you look at a building and know how the builder laid the brick, does that mean the builder doesn't exist? Such foolishness!
The architects I speak of build institutions, like the church, corporation, government, etc. to glorify themselves, not God. They require people with the minds of cattle to accept what they force-feed them through various means: the media, the pulpit; whatever. None of this invalidates the existence of God, but it sure does make people like yourself bitter because you chew what they shove into your mouth.
If you refuse to lift your head up from the grass and look around with wonder, you are nothing more than cattle. All you know is what someone else feeds you. And those people feeding you don't want want you to see God because, then, you aren't looking at THEM.
Think. Look around and think. Did this happen by accident? You don't even have to feel: think! You don't even need instinct: think!!! Spit out that grass and join the living.
You're not in the minority here, it's just exasperating to deal with the tongue-lashing we get if we say anything pro-religion. Heck, I've had people try to steer threads into religion just to try and debunk the thread, even if the connection between the thread and religion is really thin.
It is fascinating to see self-proclaimed athiests talk about science being their god. Science proves the existence of God (a supreme creator) at every corner. Every new discovery validates more and more how beautiful and intricate the universe is. There are architects that lay the foundations of man's institutions on earth who are powerful indeed, but they can never approach the glory of God, no matter what they force-feed their cattle.
I think a lot of people are bitter because a nun slapped them on the knuckles too many times in Catholic school or something. Man corrupts things and the church is built by man. These corruptions do not invalidate the existence of God, they just validate that man needs guidance more than ever.
The latest election shows how people really think. These self-proclaimed intellectuals just like to shout loud so that they seem more numerous than they are.
Slashdot Mirror
You are the funniest troll I have ever run into. Thank you for the laughs!
Now, now, let's not bog the poor man down with too many syllables. :-)
LOL - you think my name is Susan?
I was thinking this same thing. I can see the frustration Apple has for their chips. First, they move from Motorola to IBM, probably hoping to get faster chips. IBM couldn't deliver, so they're stuck changing again. They are probably going with Intel because they just don't want to take another chance.
I'm one of those people who still thinks the PowerPC is better, in spite of the Ghz. difference. I understand why Apple would not want to take another risk, though.
Okay: I support that. To anyone who cares, who is acting more foolish, him or I?
/. -- I have been reading Slashdot for over 6 years. My other account was too personally identifying. I made this account to avoid people like yourself from harrassing me outside of /. And yes, I do give a crap about karma.)
(This is my second account on
I think I have become a troll here by feeding a troll. I'm going to go talk on that other thread where the person has coherent thoughts.
You've got me thinking. I think they also include the marriage aspect as a contract to stay committed, but that just doesn't hold up either; people don't see marriage that way. They may be thinking, to have a family, you need a strong masculine figure and a feminine figure. Of course, that doesn't happen when one of the partners dies. When they are sterile, they adopt a kid and start a family. Do they get the same benefits as a couple that creates one of their own? If so, shouldn't a same-sex couple? MochaMan, I think you've just blown my assertion to bits on that. Thanks for giving me something to think about!
I'm going to do something rarely done on Slashdot -- admit I'm wrong.
Wow, you were serious? Wow, I have other links you'll probably believe.
PS: Learn what "troll" means.
MG, those links are hillarious. The people who wrote them definitely are utter fools. I read them all and I'll give my opinion (that is what Slashdot is for!)
"Bush Agenda in Hands of Religious Right"
This entertaining little article claims that there is some great religious conspiracy going on. First, it addresses the Republican push to get marriage defined in the constitution as a union between male and female. It claims this is based solely on religion when, in fact, it is based on economics: same-sex marriages cannot produce children, which is the primary reason for the tax breaks. Kids are damn expensive. Republicans aren't banning homosexuality, they are just keeping people from abusing the system to get benefits that were not designed for them.
As is typical with articles like this, it likes to jump around a lot, trying to sneak in absurd suggestions like, "It even says faith-based organizations that accept public money should be able to discriminate in hiring practices," hoping you'll accept it along with the rest of the whole. Naturally, it didn't provide any links or references to support this claim.
And the best part - typically, it ends with a conspiracy. Republicans all get together in a room and deny access to the press (an unforgivable sin). Evil man speaks horrid things behind closed doors. Give me a break.
"Religious right believes Bush truly is the candidate of God"
This article just talks about how Bush is a man who believes in God. Apparently, this is a surprise. Hey, in case anyone is confused: George W. Bush is a Christian. I'm confused about this article: is it supposed to be negative? If it is, it is relying on just the fact that Bush is a Christian to be negative. Strange.
"The Godly Must Be Crazy"
This made me laugh out loud. What a great article. Apparently, Christians don't care about the environment because they believe it's all going to end anyway when Christ comes back in Revelations. There are the usual references to abortion and gay rights designed to get the hairs to stand-up on liberal's necks so that they get feeling instead of thinking. I can't believe someone actually wrote this.
"President George Bush Researching the Apocalypse?"
Okay, starting with a shot at Reagan as well, this article claims that, because Condoleeza Rice asked Jack van Impe to make an outline of the apocalypse, that this supports that the White House is making decisions based on the end times. Quite a leap. Apparently, not too insane for some people to put on an Agnosticism/Atheism blog!
"Apocalypse Bush!"
"This is the great thing about rabid fundamentalism. You really just don't have to give a damn" - LOL. He tries to sound like he isn't drooling and whipping his head around by starting a paragraph with, "Look. This much has become clear. Bush is, more than anything else, an extreme fundamentalist Christian." When has this become clear? What does extreme mean? Bush has called Jesus his "favorite philosopher." That makes him extreme? This whole article is just another set of hateful talking points that tries to call them "careful, nuanced thinking" when it is, in fact, just more entertaining drivel.
"The Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse"
Another case where the author makes an assertion: "There is also good reason to suspect Mr. Bush subscribes to the apocalyptic End Times Eschatology..." without providing any sort of proof or logic that leads to such a conclusion. It's just more drivel! Somebody, get these authors their meds!
All these articles contain fragmented hate-filled sentences without any rational thought. Darkman is totally right: those articles are written by utter fools! It's schizophrenic! Great entertainment!!! Thanks for the links!
God help us all, America is in the grip of a madman.
Not one part of your assertion is factual, yet you come to the conclusion that America is in the grip of a madman based on it. Who is mad here?
Heh, he'd probably say it more like, "We've, uh, got to get them touristical people (little chuckle) with ties to Al-Queda (little chuckle)." Gotta love those verbal skills :-)
Indeed. And, just because fixing a problem may be painful doesn't mean that we shouldn't fix the problem. It means we shouldn't have waited so long.
It isn't a difficult connection to make. We were attacked by terrorists. Iraq sponsors terrorism. We attack Iraq. The reason it is Iraq and not, say, Syria, is because Iraq has already been warned and warned since the golf war to cooperate. They didn't. There it is -- how much more plain can it be?
OMG, that is the funniest thing I've read in a while. Calling me brainwashed sheep and then referencing Michael Moore. Somebody mod this guy +5 Funny!
Alright, let's address those.
They are spending money because we are at war. Like another poster said, you can't have a war and not spend money. They are at war because we have been attacked. And, think what you want about Iraq, it is a state that supports terrorism that we have been way too patient with since the Gulf war. We didn't start the war, 9/11 did. That is history too fresh to re-write.
Side with big business -- you're right. I would like to see more reform from the current administration when it comes to unethical business practices. I suppose, though, this whole war thing has their attention just a bit diverted at the moment.
Support large government: exactly wrong. The Republican party is about diminishing the government's role in life (notable exception, The Patriot Act, which only recently has me concerned since some of the provisions are going to be permanent). The Republican party didn't pass the law that lets PRIVATE business take away someone's land to build a WAL*MART. The Republican party doesn't want to expand the welfare state, they want to MAKE JOBS for them to work at. It is exactly 180 degrees different than what you perceive. You are being told something incorrect over-and-over again by liberals with hopes that, eventually, you'll believe it.
Wipe their asses with the constitution -- again, 180 degrees wrong. The Republican party is now trying to appoint judges that will strictly interpret the constition. How can that be more clear?
Protect individuals that perform acts of treason -- that is so rediculous, I'm starting to think your message is troll bait.
You have to believe that, if the money is in the public's hands, that it will not grow, in order to found such an argument. It is small business that contributes MOST to this economy, not these large, corrupt corporations. Do you think that most people are lazy cattle that, once they get their money, they'll put it under the matress instead of invest it or take a shot at the American dream by becoming their own boss?
You're all twisted up -- lower taxes means more money for people to build their own businesses. More business means more revenue and jobs. I'm not saying there aren't pigs out there who horde it; I'm not naive. It's just that it is, in a capitalist society, business that fuels the economy. I'm not making judgments on that, it just is the way it is, and history has proven this again and again. Liberals just don't understand that things do not magically appear -- it takes hard work to make things happen.
I don't believe that you voted for Bush. I think you're just saying that to add credibility to your statements. The Republican party is about LOWERING taxes, not increasing them. Ironically, the Democratic party is the one fighting to RAISE taxes, as if that is a holy cause.
I tested this. I refused to sign a non-compete and the company fired me AND was able to deny me unemployment because I "Failed to follow company policy."
Anyone who has the impression in the USA that, as a producer, they are not f*cked, just hasn't worked enough years yet.
I don't know why companies do not fight to keep key employees in the first place. If I were to go in and become so important, the company should make me want to stay. It all seemed so simple before I left college. *What's left of hair -- falling -- out*
Couldn't have said that better myself. Clear communication is a sign of intelligence and respect.
I'm not speaking about you as much as I am the sum of the kind of posts that aggrivate me. If I'm taking it out on you, I'm sorry; I shouldn't be, you're right, you're a thoughtful poster.
I also write in active voice (using 'you' and direct references) which comes across more aggresive than I intend. But, it's a no-win situation when writing: if I don't write active-voice, I'm a coward, if I write active-voice, I'm too assertive, so I choose one and stick with it.
Let's end this thread -- really, I am venting today because of some f*cking stupid a$$ LiveLink API bullsh*t and throwing a lot of my frustration in the wrong direction here.
I apologize!!!
Listen, I'm getting tired. This is the same old crap every thread and it's useless. When someone responds talks back to you in the same tone when you spout your hate for religion you scream, "Troll!" You're right. It is trolling to bring up religion to spawn these discussions when the article had nothing to do with it, yet the top-most parent of this thread is modded interesting? WTF does religion have to do with the lawsuit anyway? Am I frustrated -- yes, I'm frustrated; frustrated that the modders can't seem to get it right anymore.
Now, can we stop littering these damn threads with religious discussions, or at least take it somewhere else and try to stay on topic?
Good. /. is a crucible and we've burned away everything else. There it is: the reason for all these off-topic yet not modded-so religious discussions: hate for George Bush.
/. threads and not have to wade through hundreds of useless posts about religion that have little to nothing to do with the article itself.
Now, I dream of the day where I can read through one of these
Modders of the world, unite! Let's start modding those threads that fork off into religion off-topic. Okay?
Ah, there you are. There is always one of you in the crowd. I had no idea athEIsts broke the i before e except after c rule. Look how stupid I am! I mean, it even sounds spelled that way (to help you out, that is called "sarcasm"). You must have great faith in your argument to need to point out a poster's spelling errors and grammar problems.
Faith is about accepting that there are things we do not understand yet and trusting in a grand design that we are too small to understand (and may never be big enough to). So is science; at least, real science, which starts with, "I don't know," which should then be followed by, "But I'll find out!"
Certainly, you can't look at a panda's thumb or retina and not see the genius of a creator? When you look at a building and know how the builder laid the brick, does that mean the builder doesn't exist? Such foolishness!
The architects I speak of build institutions, like the church, corporation, government, etc. to glorify themselves, not God. They require people with the minds of cattle to accept what they force-feed them through various means: the media, the pulpit; whatever. None of this invalidates the existence of God, but it sure does make people like yourself bitter because you chew what they shove into your mouth.
If you refuse to lift your head up from the grass and look around with wonder, you are nothing more than cattle. All you know is what someone else feeds you. And those people feeding you don't want want you to see God because, then, you aren't looking at THEM.
Think. Look around and think. Did this happen by accident? You don't even have to feel: think! You don't even need instinct: think!!! Spit out that grass and join the living.
You're not in the minority here, it's just exasperating to deal with the tongue-lashing we get if we say anything pro-religion. Heck, I've had people try to steer threads into religion just to try and debunk the thread, even if the connection between the thread and religion is really thin.
/.
It is fascinating to see self-proclaimed athiests talk about science being their god. Science proves the existence of God (a supreme creator) at every corner. Every new discovery validates more and more how beautiful and intricate the universe is. There are architects that lay the foundations of man's institutions on earth who are powerful indeed, but they can never approach the glory of God, no matter what they force-feed their cattle.
I think a lot of people are bitter because a nun slapped them on the knuckles too many times in Catholic school or something. Man corrupts things and the church is built by man. These corruptions do not invalidate the existence of God, they just validate that man needs guidance more than ever.
The latest election shows how people really think. These self-proclaimed intellectuals just like to shout loud so that they seem more numerous than they are.
You are in the silent majority, even on