How quaint. Where I live it's common for pickups and SUVs to keep their high beams on and pull up as close as possible to your rear so that the maximum amount of light shines into your eyes via your rear-view mirror.
Well, I think he's not entirely off base, though it probably heavily depends on your area and choice of lunch stop. For example, on days that I don't bring my lunch to work and I'm slammed for time, I can drive to the McDonald's about a mile away, eat, and make it back within 20 minutes. At an average adult walking pace (~3mph) it would take 20 minutes just to get there.
Obviously the better solution is just to bring your own lunch and/or work for a company that doesn't have absurd policies that harm the productivity of the people that produce their value...
The magic year in that... page is 1913. Before 1913 no one except the ultra rich and non-citizens had to pay tax! The page makes it out like the government is illegally collecting taxes and we were all swindled into it by Walt Disney... or we could note that the 16th Amendment was ratified on February 3, 1913. Nope, no mention of that though, except the very end were the writer pretends it doesn't exist:
No part of the Federal Government is constitutionally permitted to levy such a direct tax on citizens of States and no amendment to the Constitution has changed that, not even the 16th amendment.
Er, well the 16th amendment did change the Constitution to allow it, and courts have confirmed that it applies to wages and other income.
The article does point out that the increasing taxes were enacted to help pay for the war and so they were in full effect during the 50s. This is the same 50s during which the concept of a "nuclear family" really took off. Somehow in the golden era of the nuclear family they did just fine paying the taxes with only one parent (the father) bringing home the bacon. So why is it that today a nuclear family struggles with both parents working?
I'm not sure why you're still arguing this point, it makes no sense.
A homosexual man cannot marry another man (of any orientation).
A heterosexual man cannot marry another man (of any orientation).
A man of any sexual orientation cannot marry another man (of any orientation).
On the other hand, a homosexual man can marry a woman (of any orientation). So, while I agree with you that the net effect is that of the groups discriminated by the law, the group "same-sex homosexual partners wishing to marry one another" is the most represented, it's not the only case either. The law discriminates against all men of any belief or persuasion from marrying another man.
Take the sentence you quoted from me:
No, it's decidedly not about sexual orientation. The law says that if you are male, you cannot marry another male (and the same with females).
Your inference is that a male marrying another male must be homosexual and the law prevents one male from marrying another male, thus the law discriminates against homosexuals. The conclusion is true but not exclusive (as it also potentially discriminates against other demographics). You premise is unnecessarily exclusive (i.e. it is not necessary that both or even one of the male/female parties in a same-sex marriage be homosexual).
In case it's still not clear, two buddies that have zero sexual interest in each other or sex with men in general and have never desired anything but a woman but decide to get married for shits and giggles would also be prevented by the law because the law says two people of the same sex cannot be married. If it said that homosexuals cannot marry people of their own sex, that would be discriminating based on sexual orientation and in that case the two buddies would be allowed to get married because they are heterosexual.
I was responding to the idea that people would be paying off their debts with the extra income. For the most part, people in that kind of debt are living beyond their means. That is, they could spend less now with some self control and not have a "need" for the extra 5 or 15k. I posit that these same people when given extra income will continue to be financially irresponsible and spend it on increased luxury rather than needs, like paying off debts.
I wasn't really intending to get involved in a tax debate, but I don't agree that taxes caused the current situation where two parents are required to work to provide for a family. Taxes really haven't changed all that much, but pay (or effective pay taking into account external factors like inflation) has decreased. For example, if an extra $5k (or $15k income of which the family would supposedly receive $5 ?? 66% tax rate ??) would make a huge difference in society, why can companies not pay their employees an extra $15k per year? Sure, it will hurt the bottom line but why is that such a big deal? ExxonMobil brought in $20 billion in net income last year and they employ approximately 80k people. A $15k raise for every single one would cost them about $1.2 billion, a mere 5% of their net income...
No, it's decidedly not about sexual orientation. The law says that if you are male, you cannot marry another male (and the same with females). For example, a homosexual male could marry a homosexual female without violating the law.
Personally, I find that very humorous because that seems to me to actually be "degrading to the sanctity of marriage." Here we have to people that loathe the thought of being intimate with one another but they are man and woman so it's OK. How that is less degrading than two men or two women declaring their love for one another in body and spirit, is quite beyond my understanding.
If you reduced everyone's tax rate so that on average, you essentially gave everyone a deduction (of about 15k a year) then you'd really be on to something far greater than just tax sense. We'd pay car loans off sooner, houses too. We'd really have a more prosperous society.
You don't really believe that, do you? People are spending more than they bring in after taxes now, so lowering taxes will somehow fix this? For the vast majority of people, that deduction would simply be another 15k to spend on a slightly more luxurious lifestyle.
Reproduction is not dependent on sexual desire or even intercourse. See artificial insemination.
Furthermore, male sexual function is not necessarily dependent on interaction with desired sexual partners (i.e. it's possible for a heterosexual man to achieve an erection and ejaculate without a heterosexual women present or involved. An erection is also not necessary for ejaculation). See also female-male rape, prison rape, and the prevalence of teenage boys experimenting with each other (mutual masturbation, etc.).
Of course even beyond all that, you're missing the point of "gay rights." It's not (just) that homosexuals can't live a life resembling a "normal hetero" one, it's that they shouldn't have to if they don't want to. Whites and blacks could have been content with marrying people of their own color, and blacks could have been content just being alive despite being discriminated against and/or enslaved. That's not the way it should be though.
Hah, yeah that's why I threw the "extreme" in there because just "lack of hospitality" sounded a bit... ridiculous ("extreme lack" too but at least it's somewhat humorous).
Though I have also heard it said that the intent of the men was to assault the guests, not rape them. Doesn't really matter though because anyone that reads it will see whatever they want to believe (myself included) so there's little point in arguing about it.
Language is defined through its use. It's undoubtedly true that the word "sodomy" holds the meaning it does because people used it to refer to some form of "sexual deviancy." Consider also how in modern times the phrase "begging the question" has all but lost its original meaning and now is a synonym for "raising the question." That it is now used incorrectly does not change the original meaning.
Ironically, you're begging the question (petitio principii--assuming the initial point) with your argument. You're saying that 1. the word sodomy (modern) means "unnatural sex," 2. the word derives from the Latin meaning "sin of Sodom," 3. therefore the people of Sodom practiced sodomy. There's a disconnect there because you're assuming that the "sin of Sodom" is "unnatural sex," but this is an unproven claim.
If the "sin of Sodom" is instead an extreme lack of hospitality, then the word sodomy should refer to that, but will still be used improperly to refer to "unnatural sex" (and homosexual sex in particular) because that is the common meaning. Just like begging the question.
Considering I was modded "Troll" within seconds of my previous post for merely providing a counterpoint to the "knives are way more scary and dangerous than guns" narrative, I'm not really sure what good can come of me responding but I apparently can't help myself.
a) Why is there such a rabid and thoughtless defense of this particular amendment/right? If we're going to talk about natural rights, I also have the natural right to build a nuclear weapon and keep it in my basement. That doesn't mean any industrialized nation is going to let me nor that it is reasonable to expect that they should. At some point some reason has to enter the discussion and someone is going to have to decide where the line is. A private citizen keeping nuclear weapons (or high explosives in general) is regarded as too high of a risk to society so it isn't allowed. On the other hand, for the most part, we regard the risk of collateral/accidental damage from a firearm to be an acceptable risk. Thus, my point was, there must be and already is reason involved in deciding who is allowed to have which weapons. And really, that was a sub-point in that my true goal was to reign in the knives are way more dangerous than guns argument.
b) For the most part, I'd say you're right; most of the permit holders I know are very responsible. There are still many who love to talk about how they carry and wouldn't hesitate to blow away some lowlife. Sure, most of them would pussy out when the time came, but again my point was about collateral damage, not crazed gun owners. The guy that thought he was going to do the world some good could very easily miss and destroy a family. To reiterate, my point was that knives have a much smaller potential for collateral damage.
c) Again, I'm not really making an anti-gun statement here, just bringing a counterpoint. It's an extremely common point made in these discussions, that someone threatening you with a knife is more violent and more dangerous psychologically than someone threatening you with a gun. I don't dispute this, I'm just pointing out that in the case that both attackers want to kill me with their weapon, my chances of getting out alive are better with the guy swinging the knife.
And as long as we're on the subject, I'm not convinced that someone old or weak is going to be much better off even if they have a gun. It takes a certain amount of strength to hold and keep steady a metal gun (though this can be minimized with proper training and gun selection) and dexterity to aim and squeeze the trigger without throwing off your angle. You also have to act faster than your attacker who is probably younger, stronger, faster and by the nature of the situation probably has you by surprise with his weapon already prepared.
Yes, I know that next thing someone is going to say in response to that last bit is that the intent is not to have the person with the gun to their head act, but rather some other brave soul in the room pull their gun. I'd just point out that this situation is statistically much less likely to ever arrive than it is that you'll be butchered in your sleep by your spouse/lover/friend/family member.
It's somewhat baffling. These carriers can't be stupid enough to count on the devices reporting usage accurately, can they?
Let me answer your question with another one: Website developers can't be stupid enough to allow raw SQL to be passed in through URL parameters, can they?:)
Knives are also a lot less likely to accidentally kill someone. Note I'm not just talking about little Johnny blowing his face off playing with daddy's gun, but the nervous criminal might pull the trigger without really meaning to if he's startled. Consider also the carry-permit-holder packing heat and a hardon as he tries to smoke a baddie but realizes too late that it's not as easy as it looks in the movies and it's little Suzy he hit. Also easier to run from a knife wielder bent on killing you than it is to dodge bullets.
I'm not necessarily against guns, but I think a little more careful thought needs to be involved beyond just "hand out pistols on every street corner."
It probably does, but not because it rejects non-standard names. In fact, having a well-defined model of what a name is and rejecting input that doesn't conform to it is necessary for security.
Why is it necessary for security? If you're not insane, your database is accessed via parameterized queries and text is properly escaped. I couldn't care less if you enter 'lol<script src="hackme.com"></script>' for your name. It will be happily stored and since HTML is not allowed to be embedded in that field, it will be HTML encoded before output. If someone wants to be addressed as the small shell script that they are, who am I do deny them?
No, a "block to compatibility" would be to accept arbitrary inputs as names. Compatibility requires some standardization, and that requires rejecting things that the software doesn't know about.
Again, why? If people would stop forcing bizarre rules on their data there would be no compatibility problem. Of course they do and will continue to for the foreseeable future so if I do have to export data to a so-clever-it's-a-failure system, I can always mangle the text.
That's another example of some database designer being "clever." The number of databases out there that use a boolean data type for the gender column must surely approach some uncountable number. They do that even when, like in the example you give, there is an obvious need for a third value at the very least. Cue mental giant using NULL as a "meaningful" value...
Or you have systems like the one I work with where there are so many places where it makes me think someone was actually making an effort to have a proper database but just as the thought was coming together, someone else beat them mercilessly with a retard stick. In this database, gender is amazingly not a boolean and they even got on the right track by making it a character value before making a permanent stop at char(1) retardville.
No, I was looking at this: http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/ I haven't tried everything yet but the only problem I've seen is that the video one doesn't actually play (I'm assuming this has something to do with the whole codec war) although the content scaling still works.
So what was your point again? I didn't even have Safari on my machine until just now to see if the video was even supposed to play. So if you're trying to say I'm blatantly making shit up and posting it on Slashdot, you may want to try again.
When you consider that some of this information belongs to people with *.mil email addresses, I think you're underestimating the shit storm that is about to be (well, SHOULD be) unleashed on AT&T and Apple.
Why? I mean, sure, I'd be a little annoyed if I had been on a list of emails that got leaked but mostly because some company couldn't be bothered to actually implement some software correctly.
Why all this secrecy over email addresses? Most people I know are more than happy to have their email address plastered all over the internet and to anyone who asks. It's a primary point of contact and brings in new business. In what ways do I become vulnerable if I tell you my email address is joedirt@aol.com (sorry to whoever this is;)?
I've been reading the comments in this topic and I'm very concerned about Apple, this evil empire trying to strangle the poor but heroic ad provider, Google. And now they're trying prevent anyone from seeing the magic of this HTML5 (this W3C I keep hearing about must be Apple's Wickedly 3vil Crap division)! I mean look at the evidence:
Try to open the demo in IE: Nope, try Safari.
Try to open the demo in FF: Nope, try Safari.
Try to open the demo in Chrome: Wow, neat!
Er, wait, what? Apple lets their hated rival use their demo? Oh, I get it now. It's because Safari and Chrome are both based on WebKit so they both work. Apple just wrote their demos for the parts of HTML5 that WebKit supports (which IE and FF might not). No delusional conspiracy theory needed, after all! Whew.
Curiously, some people will attempt to argue that the 14th Amendment itself is unconstitutional. This left me speechless at first but I came to understand that the people that most often rant about unconstitutionality are the ones that define that concept as "something I don't agree with."
The thing that some of us understand about devices like the iPhone and iPad is that they are not, not intended to be, nor ever will be general purpose computing devices. I'll even go so far as to say that I don't want my iPhone to be like that. Call it a toy all you want, but in a way that's exactly what I want. If I ever have to do more than tap a couple of times to do what I want on such a device, it's a failure. For me, all its value derives from the fact that I can get the information I need extremely quickly with an easy to use and pleasant UI.
After my good experience with the iPhone I bought an iMac a few months ago to replace my aging desktop at home and I love that too. I'll tell you right now though that if they take away my ability to develop applications or really lock it down in anyway I'll kick it to the curb and go back to my Linux box (well ok, I'll just format it... no need to waste nice hardware:). Different contexts, different tolerances.
What are you talking about? It has nothing to do with "infidels." I would cringe just as much if someone wrote LINUX or WINDOWS as if they're acronyms. Mac is not an acronym, at best it's an abbreviation for Macintosh but nowadays it's simply the product name. I also cringe when people write MicroSoft.
When you can't correctly write the name of the product, you immediately paint yourself as someone who has no idea what you're talking about because no one on the inside of those communities writes it that way.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to reading SlashDOT on my DELL WorkStation in my FOXFire browser.
Slashdot Mirror
How quaint. Where I live it's common for pickups and SUVs to keep their high beams on and pull up as close as possible to your rear so that the maximum amount of light shines into your eyes via your rear-view mirror.
Well, I think he's not entirely off base, though it probably heavily depends on your area and choice of lunch stop. For example, on days that I don't bring my lunch to work and I'm slammed for time, I can drive to the McDonald's about a mile away, eat, and make it back within 20 minutes. At an average adult walking pace (~3mph) it would take 20 minutes just to get there.
Obviously the better solution is just to bring your own lunch and/or work for a company that doesn't have absurd policies that harm the productivity of the people that produce their value...
Er, well the 16th amendment did change the Constitution to allow it, and courts have confirmed that it applies to wages and other income.
The article does point out that the increasing taxes were enacted to help pay for the war and so they were in full effect during the 50s. This is the same 50s during which the concept of a "nuclear family" really took off. Somehow in the golden era of the nuclear family they did just fine paying the taxes with only one parent (the father) bringing home the bacon. So why is it that today a nuclear family struggles with both parents working?
On the other hand, a homosexual man can marry a woman (of any orientation). So, while I agree with you that the net effect is that of the groups discriminated by the law, the group "same-sex homosexual partners wishing to marry one another" is the most represented, it's not the only case either. The law discriminates against all men of any belief or persuasion from marrying another man.
Take the sentence you quoted from me:
Your inference is that a male marrying another male must be homosexual and the law prevents one male from marrying another male, thus the law discriminates against homosexuals. The conclusion is true but not exclusive (as it also potentially discriminates against other demographics). You premise is unnecessarily exclusive (i.e. it is not necessary that both or even one of the male/female parties in a same-sex marriage be homosexual).
In case it's still not clear, two buddies that have zero sexual interest in each other or sex with men in general and have never desired anything but a woman but decide to get married for shits and giggles would also be prevented by the law because the law says two people of the same sex cannot be married. If it said that homosexuals cannot marry people of their own sex, that would be discriminating based on sexual orientation and in that case the two buddies would be allowed to get married because they are heterosexual.
I was responding to the idea that people would be paying off their debts with the extra income. For the most part, people in that kind of debt are living beyond their means. That is, they could spend less now with some self control and not have a "need" for the extra 5 or 15k. I posit that these same people when given extra income will continue to be financially irresponsible and spend it on increased luxury rather than needs, like paying off debts.
I wasn't really intending to get involved in a tax debate, but I don't agree that taxes caused the current situation where two parents are required to work to provide for a family. Taxes really haven't changed all that much, but pay (or effective pay taking into account external factors like inflation) has decreased. For example, if an extra $5k (or $15k income of which the family would supposedly receive $5 ?? 66% tax rate ??) would make a huge difference in society, why can companies not pay their employees an extra $15k per year? Sure, it will hurt the bottom line but why is that such a big deal? ExxonMobil brought in $20 billion in net income last year and they employ approximately 80k people. A $15k raise for every single one would cost them about $1.2 billion, a mere 5% of their net income...
No, it's decidedly not about sexual orientation. The law says that if you are male, you cannot marry another male (and the same with females). For example, a homosexual male could marry a homosexual female without violating the law.
Personally, I find that very humorous because that seems to me to actually be "degrading to the sanctity of marriage." Here we have to people that loathe the thought of being intimate with one another but they are man and woman so it's OK. How that is less degrading than two men or two women declaring their love for one another in body and spirit, is quite beyond my understanding.
You don't really believe that, do you? People are spending more than they bring in after taxes now, so lowering taxes will somehow fix this? For the vast majority of people, that deduction would simply be another 15k to spend on a slightly more luxurious lifestyle.
Reproduction is not dependent on sexual desire or even intercourse. See artificial insemination.
Furthermore, male sexual function is not necessarily dependent on interaction with desired sexual partners (i.e. it's possible for a heterosexual man to achieve an erection and ejaculate without a heterosexual women present or involved. An erection is also not necessary for ejaculation). See also female-male rape, prison rape, and the prevalence of teenage boys experimenting with each other (mutual masturbation, etc.).
Of course even beyond all that, you're missing the point of "gay rights." It's not (just) that homosexuals can't live a life resembling a "normal hetero" one, it's that they shouldn't have to if they don't want to. Whites and blacks could have been content with marrying people of their own color, and blacks could have been content just being alive despite being discriminated against and/or enslaved. That's not the way it should be though.
Hah, yeah that's why I threw the "extreme" in there because just "lack of hospitality" sounded a bit... ridiculous ("extreme lack" too but at least it's somewhat humorous).
Though I have also heard it said that the intent of the men was to assault the guests, not rape them. Doesn't really matter though because anyone that reads it will see whatever they want to believe (myself included) so there's little point in arguing about it.
Language is defined through its use. It's undoubtedly true that the word "sodomy" holds the meaning it does because people used it to refer to some form of "sexual deviancy." Consider also how in modern times the phrase "begging the question" has all but lost its original meaning and now is a synonym for "raising the question." That it is now used incorrectly does not change the original meaning.
Ironically, you're begging the question (petitio principii--assuming the initial point) with your argument. You're saying that 1. the word sodomy (modern) means "unnatural sex," 2. the word derives from the Latin meaning "sin of Sodom," 3. therefore the people of Sodom practiced sodomy. There's a disconnect there because you're assuming that the "sin of Sodom" is "unnatural sex," but this is an unproven claim.
If the "sin of Sodom" is instead an extreme lack of hospitality, then the word sodomy should refer to that, but will still be used improperly to refer to "unnatural sex" (and homosexual sex in particular) because that is the common meaning. Just like begging the question.
Considering I was modded "Troll" within seconds of my previous post for merely providing a counterpoint to the "knives are way more scary and dangerous than guns" narrative, I'm not really sure what good can come of me responding but I apparently can't help myself.
a) Why is there such a rabid and thoughtless defense of this particular amendment/right? If we're going to talk about natural rights, I also have the natural right to build a nuclear weapon and keep it in my basement. That doesn't mean any industrialized nation is going to let me nor that it is reasonable to expect that they should. At some point some reason has to enter the discussion and someone is going to have to decide where the line is. A private citizen keeping nuclear weapons (or high explosives in general) is regarded as too high of a risk to society so it isn't allowed. On the other hand, for the most part, we regard the risk of collateral/accidental damage from a firearm to be an acceptable risk. Thus, my point was, there must be and already is reason involved in deciding who is allowed to have which weapons. And really, that was a sub-point in that my true goal was to reign in the knives are way more dangerous than guns argument.
b) For the most part, I'd say you're right; most of the permit holders I know are very responsible. There are still many who love to talk about how they carry and wouldn't hesitate to blow away some lowlife. Sure, most of them would pussy out when the time came, but again my point was about collateral damage, not crazed gun owners. The guy that thought he was going to do the world some good could very easily miss and destroy a family. To reiterate, my point was that knives have a much smaller potential for collateral damage.
c) Again, I'm not really making an anti-gun statement here, just bringing a counterpoint. It's an extremely common point made in these discussions, that someone threatening you with a knife is more violent and more dangerous psychologically than someone threatening you with a gun. I don't dispute this, I'm just pointing out that in the case that both attackers want to kill me with their weapon, my chances of getting out alive are better with the guy swinging the knife.
And as long as we're on the subject, I'm not convinced that someone old or weak is going to be much better off even if they have a gun. It takes a certain amount of strength to hold and keep steady a metal gun (though this can be minimized with proper training and gun selection) and dexterity to aim and squeeze the trigger without throwing off your angle. You also have to act faster than your attacker who is probably younger, stronger, faster and by the nature of the situation probably has you by surprise with his weapon already prepared.
Yes, I know that next thing someone is going to say in response to that last bit is that the intent is not to have the person with the gun to their head act, but rather some other brave soul in the room pull their gun. I'd just point out that this situation is statistically much less likely to ever arrive than it is that you'll be butchered in your sleep by your spouse/lover/friend/family member.
Let me answer your question with another one: Website developers can't be stupid enough to allow raw SQL to be passed in through URL parameters, can they? :)
Knives are also a lot less likely to accidentally kill someone. Note I'm not just talking about little Johnny blowing his face off playing with daddy's gun, but the nervous criminal might pull the trigger without really meaning to if he's startled. Consider also the carry-permit-holder packing heat and a hardon as he tries to smoke a baddie but realizes too late that it's not as easy as it looks in the movies and it's little Suzy he hit. Also easier to run from a knife wielder bent on killing you than it is to dodge bullets.
I'm not necessarily against guns, but I think a little more careful thought needs to be involved beyond just "hand out pistols on every street corner."
Why is it necessary for security? If you're not insane, your database is accessed via parameterized queries and text is properly escaped. I couldn't care less if you enter 'lol<script src="hackme.com"></script>' for your name. It will be happily stored and since HTML is not allowed to be embedded in that field, it will be HTML encoded before output. If someone wants to be addressed as the small shell script that they are, who am I do deny them?
Again, why? If people would stop forcing bizarre rules on their data there would be no compatibility problem. Of course they do and will continue to for the foreseeable future so if I do have to export data to a so-clever-it's-a-failure system, I can always mangle the text.
That's another example of some database designer being "clever." The number of databases out there that use a boolean data type for the gender column must surely approach some uncountable number. They do that even when, like in the example you give, there is an obvious need for a third value at the very least. Cue mental giant using NULL as a "meaningful" value...
Or you have systems like the one I work with where there are so many places where it makes me think someone was actually making an effort to have a proper database but just as the thought was coming together, someone else beat them mercilessly with a retard stick. In this database, gender is amazingly not a boolean and they even got on the right track by making it a character value before making a permanent stop at char(1) retardville.
Just like the bible thumpers. It's all Good! Except for those parts we don't like.
In before the trolls!
*reads article*
Oh...
No, I was looking at this: http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/ I haven't tried everything yet but the only problem I've seen is that the video one doesn't actually play (I'm assuming this has something to do with the whole codec war) although the content scaling still works.
So what was your point again? I didn't even have Safari on my machine until just now to see if the video was even supposed to play. So if you're trying to say I'm blatantly making shit up and posting it on Slashdot, you may want to try again.
Why? I mean, sure, I'd be a little annoyed if I had been on a list of emails that got leaked but mostly because some company couldn't be bothered to actually implement some software correctly.
;)?
Why all this secrecy over email addresses? Most people I know are more than happy to have their email address plastered all over the internet and to anyone who asks. It's a primary point of contact and brings in new business. In what ways do I become vulnerable if I tell you my email address is joedirt@aol.com (sorry to whoever this is
Er, wait, what? Apple lets their hated rival use their demo? Oh, I get it now. It's because Safari and Chrome are both based on WebKit so they both work. Apple just wrote their demos for the parts of HTML5 that WebKit supports (which IE and FF might not). No delusional conspiracy theory needed, after all! Whew.
Curiously, some people will attempt to argue that the 14th Amendment itself is unconstitutional. This left me speechless at first but I came to understand that the people that most often rant about unconstitutionality are the ones that define that concept as "something I don't agree with."
Do you have a point to make or will you continue to talk abstractly about the subject with a vague notion of "sex is bad?"
The thing that some of us understand about devices like the iPhone and iPad is that they are not, not intended to be, nor ever will be general purpose computing devices. I'll even go so far as to say that I don't want my iPhone to be like that. Call it a toy all you want, but in a way that's exactly what I want. If I ever have to do more than tap a couple of times to do what I want on such a device, it's a failure. For me, all its value derives from the fact that I can get the information I need extremely quickly with an easy to use and pleasant UI.
:). Different contexts, different tolerances.
After my good experience with the iPhone I bought an iMac a few months ago to replace my aging desktop at home and I love that too. I'll tell you right now though that if they take away my ability to develop applications or really lock it down in anyway I'll kick it to the curb and go back to my Linux box (well ok, I'll just format it... no need to waste nice hardware
What are you talking about? It has nothing to do with "infidels." I would cringe just as much if someone wrote LINUX or WINDOWS as if they're acronyms. Mac is not an acronym, at best it's an abbreviation for Macintosh but nowadays it's simply the product name. I also cringe when people write MicroSoft.
When you can't correctly write the name of the product, you immediately paint yourself as someone who has no idea what you're talking about because no one on the inside of those communities writes it that way.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to reading SlashDOT on my DELL WorkStation in my FOXFire browser.
Right, because since histamine receptors are not exclusive to a single drug company, there is an absolute dearth of histamine blockers on the market.