I can asure you the US was in doldrums of international opinion long before Bush got into power. I spent my entire uni life in the UK defending the US amongst a sea of anti's. Bush represents everything that liberals [inparticular from abroad] hate - hes a God-send to them. A right-wing Republican Texan with uneloquent speach.
Well I used the "make it big" term as in become somewhat mainstream and\or be able to make a living out of it. But artists don't have to share money with coporations if they don't want to - if they want to do all their own marketing, publishing and all that goes on with it they've got every opportunity to do so, and many do.
Well it worked to some degree. It worked in-so-much that they're an already hugely well known band due to the traditional RIAA\corporation backing and then made some money by this alternative approach - they used their good name to propel them forward in this venture. Now there are no shortage of unknown bands that have been putting mp3 albums up for years - the real question as to whether "it worked" is how many of those bands have made it big.
Actually people are already dying in the streets because of the sucky healthcare system.
I think you'll find people are dying in the streets in countries that have socialized healthcare as well. I've lived in both UK and US and each have parts of their healthcare system that are sucky. Socialized medicine is not the panacea that everyone makes out.
You're right, its not about absolute values in [Tera]FLOPS since the 'super computer' of yester-year is always overtaken by the desktop of yester-month. I personally wouldn't give it close to 1-2% - I think of it more towards the fastest 100 computers in existance, owned by government instituitions and a few select universities.
I don't know why China and India shouldn't bear so much of the burden of the Kyoto Protocol. Oh, hang on, perhaps because they are poor, thrid world countries perhaps.
So are you suggesting that whether or not a nation signs the Kyoto agreement is dependent on economics then?
No, she should've settled because she knew what she did was _illegal_ and if found out, punishable by potentially an even massively bigger figure. She hedged her bets and lost. Now, if she had a solid case as to her _not_ doing anything illegal she would have had grounds not to settle.
Wow, and to think that those who believe in God are told that they think they're superior and forcing views down peoples throats.
On what basis do you determine we don't need "god"? If, as you clearly state, "god" doesn't exist, on what grounds does it matter if someone believes in God or not? Are you going to resort to the "religious wars" argument? I am perfectly willing to accept that people _use_ religion as an excuse for war but when it comes down to it its masking the real impetus - usually that of self interest, pride, jealousy or a plain old power grab.
What I don't understand is this : if God doesn't exist, and we live in some sort of vacuum, why are you so concerned as to what I think?
Ahh...but thats just it. Highly probable isn't close to "proof". The "good book" provides a lot of evidence to go beyond a "reasonable doubt" to the believer - thats what faith is about. The person who doesn't believe hasn't accepted the evidence and all that goes along with it.
On your second statement is interesting too. I didn't choose love just off the cuff - Christians believe that God IS [unconditional] love.
Where did your ability to think and reason come from? Where did your notion of right and wrong come from? Every action has an equal and opposing reaction - what caused the amount of energy to kick off the big bang, or, what happened 1 second before the big bang? If I can't prove to you I love my 3 daughters does that mean I don't?
"This is the most ridiculous arguement anyone has ever made"...care to prove it?:)
You're mixing a whole boatload of discontiguous issues together to make your point. "No reason to suspect [God] might exist" - you don't think your existance is a good reason to at least contemplate it? The "good book" doesn't try to prove anything. Its a series of accounts, providing evidence (no I won't cite, feel free to read it yourself), of things that took place 2000+ years ago. And heres the thing - it answers key questions to what humankind seeks to find out. Whether you believe the evidence is there to support it, amongst other things, is a choice you make. But I don't hear answers from any other quarter.
Your 747 quip makes no equivalent sense to me to what we're talking about. I always enjoy these conversations - its very interesting to see how much time and effort atheists put into these debates over something that "doesn't exist".
Correct. There is *nothing* that can prove nor disprove the existance of God...including the "good book". I can not show you something that will undeniably prove it to you. The "good book" does indeed state the existance of God but it talks about it through faith, not proof.
Ok then, how about love? There is nothing I can do, say or show that I truely love my 3 children. I could be a great actor and "do" all the right things that look like I love them unconditionally but it doesn't absolutely "prove" or "disprove" anything. But by your definition it is impossible for me, or anyone ever, to have loved someone...because they can't "prove" it.
Well a POV from one of those theists...does this "God box" prove anything? No, it shows that one can emulate, or at best recreate, a spiritual experience. Of course I don't know how on earth anyone can measure it as being a "God box" but I'll put that aside. But it hardly disproves the existance of God when there are so many other unanswered questions that aethists don't appear to have answers for....in my opinion that are conclusive.
If for example I had a "taste box" that made everything taste like chocolate...it doesn't prove that nothing exists that tastes of chocolate.
And for all the theists I know, only a small fraction would tell people they are going to burn in hell or go around forcing people (forcing what exactly?). The overwhelming majority don't do that and either silently disagree (by respecting your beliefs) or state their beliefs in a civil, non confrontational way. On what you say about a double standard I think you're reading different semantics to what they mean. You can respect (accept someone has a POV in a civil manor), but disagree with them.
And good points also. You're right, there isn't really a quanitfiable monetary return that one can put on space exploration - certainly not at this embryonic stage. To me the ISS was more a political "lets all be friends and feel good" type project rather than something like Apollo or the Mars lander(s) or even Hubble.
I would rather throw money at specific goals like the Russian tether project that just went belly up or ion drives. I would also like nations not to do projects together but inconjunction with each other. Rather than have each nations Space program have x amount of the pie in each project have each Space program own a complete project. But heck, what do I know.
Firstly its not like the ISS isn't been used in those 10 years so its hardly only 5. Secondly it is a bold move and a decision from someone that understands not to throw good money after bad. If we're not getting our money's worth from it we should scrap at the earliest possible moment.
Heres a straight forward answer then - don't buy the damn phone if you don't like the terms. If you want "the right thing to be done" then feel free to start up a hw\sw business, create a similar iPhone and allow anyone cell phone provider to use.
Exactly. In a nutshell you can't expect Apple to warranty something they didn't sell you. Your nitpicking about the software being a configuration of the phone, instead of the phone, is way off base. Its clearly not. Apple is responsible for any untouched runnable code (software or firmware) that the user can configure through said code.
The way to change any configuration on the iPhone is through the Apple 'authorized' UI (be it hw or sw), not some hack that someone can got working.
This is a very good point - why upgrade if you don't need to? Going from Win98 to Win2000 brought stability. Going from Win2000 to XP brought security (yeah, yeah I know) and an improved media-centric system.
Also note that in my experience OS are usually 'upgraded' when one buys a new machine and the need to for that is becoming less and less. A P4 that worked 4 years ago still does its job fine [for typical business use].
Its very difficult to do a like-for-like comparison between the two countries. Take for instance health care - in the UK you get a "free" health system (of course its not actually free, but free at point of entry) whereas in the US its completely different, operationally and who pays. The living standard is also different - the US its seen as a necessity to each have a car whereas the UK its more of one per family, but public transport is far more accessible. All these things have associated costs.
Slashdot Mirror
I can asure you the US was in doldrums of international opinion long before Bush got into power. I spent my entire uni life in the UK defending the US amongst a sea of anti's. Bush represents everything that liberals [inparticular from abroad] hate - hes a God-send to them. A right-wing Republican Texan with uneloquent speach.
If you want to use approval ratings as a way to judge the mood of US voters you may want to consider that Congress are even lower than Bush.
Well I used the "make it big" term as in become somewhat mainstream and\or be able to make a living out of it. But artists don't have to share money with coporations if they don't want to - if they want to do all their own marketing, publishing and all that goes on with it they've got every opportunity to do so, and many do.
Well it worked to some degree. It worked in-so-much that they're an already hugely well known band due to the traditional RIAA\corporation backing and then made some money by this alternative approach - they used their good name to propel them forward in this venture. Now there are no shortage of unknown bands that have been putting mp3 albums up for years - the real question as to whether "it worked" is how many of those bands have made it big.
Some websites have a game at the top of the page where you try and click this monkey. Man, I love that game.
well its about 80 miles away...but I read it as 'most people who live there...' - could be wrong.
I think you'll find people are dying in the streets in countries that have socialized healthcare as well. I've lived in both UK and US and each have parts of their healthcare system that are sucky. Socialized medicine is not the panacea that everyone makes out.
You're right, its not about absolute values in [Tera]FLOPS since the 'super computer' of yester-year is always overtaken by the desktop of yester-month. I personally wouldn't give it close to 1-2% - I think of it more towards the fastest 100 computers in existance, owned by government instituitions and a few select universities.
So are you suggesting that whether or not a nation signs the Kyoto agreement is dependent on economics then?
Her Teenager DOES care about value - they just don't call it that.
No, they fined her for a median price for multiple instances of her breaking the law.
No, she should've settled because she knew what she did was _illegal_ and if found out, punishable by potentially an even massively bigger figure. She hedged her bets and lost. Now, if she had a solid case as to her _not_ doing anything illegal she would have had grounds not to settle.
On what basis do you determine we don't need "god"? If, as you clearly state, "god" doesn't exist, on what grounds does it matter if someone believes in God or not? Are you going to resort to the "religious wars" argument? I am perfectly willing to accept that people _use_ religion as an excuse for war but when it comes down to it its masking the real impetus - usually that of self interest, pride, jealousy or a plain old power grab.
What I don't understand is this : if God doesn't exist, and we live in some sort of vacuum, why are you so concerned as to what I think?
On your second statement is interesting too. I didn't choose love just off the cuff - Christians believe that God IS [unconditional] love.
Where did your ability to think and reason come from? Where did your notion of right and wrong come from? Every action has an equal and opposing reaction - what caused the amount of energy to kick off the big bang, or, what happened 1 second before the big bang? If I can't prove to you I love my 3 daughters does that mean I don't?
You're mixing a whole boatload of discontiguous issues together to make your point. "No reason to suspect [God] might exist" - you don't think your existance is a good reason to at least contemplate it? The "good book" doesn't try to prove anything. Its a series of accounts, providing evidence (no I won't cite, feel free to read it yourself), of things that took place 2000+ years ago. And heres the thing - it answers key questions to what humankind seeks to find out. Whether you believe the evidence is there to support it, amongst other things, is a choice you make. But I don't hear answers from any other quarter.
Your 747 quip makes no equivalent sense to me to what we're talking about. I always enjoy these conversations - its very interesting to see how much time and effort atheists put into these debates over something that "doesn't exist".
Correct. There is *nothing* that can prove nor disprove the existance of God...including the "good book". I can not show you something that will undeniably prove it to you. The "good book" does indeed state the existance of God but it talks about it through faith, not proof.
Ok then, how about love? There is nothing I can do, say or show that I truely love my 3 children. I could be a great actor and "do" all the right things that look like I love them unconditionally but it doesn't absolutely "prove" or "disprove" anything. But by your definition it is impossible for me, or anyone ever, to have loved someone...because they can't "prove" it.
If for example I had a "taste box" that made everything taste like chocolate...it doesn't prove that nothing exists that tastes of chocolate.
And for all the theists I know, only a small fraction would tell people they are going to burn in hell or go around forcing people (forcing what exactly?). The overwhelming majority don't do that and either silently disagree (by respecting your beliefs) or state their beliefs in a civil, non confrontational way. On what you say about a double standard I think you're reading different semantics to what they mean. You can respect (accept someone has a POV in a civil manor), but disagree with them.
I would rather throw money at specific goals like the Russian tether project that just went belly up or ion drives. I would also like nations not to do projects together but inconjunction with each other. Rather than have each nations Space program have x amount of the pie in each project have each Space program own a complete project. But heck, what do I know.
Firstly its not like the ISS isn't been used in those 10 years so its hardly only 5. Secondly it is a bold move and a decision from someone that understands not to throw good money after bad. If we're not getting our money's worth from it we should scrap at the earliest possible moment.
Heres a straight forward answer then - don't buy the damn phone if you don't like the terms. If you want "the right thing to be done" then feel free to start up a hw\sw business, create a similar iPhone and allow anyone cell phone provider to use.
The way to change any configuration on the iPhone is through the Apple 'authorized' UI (be it hw or sw), not some hack that someone can got working.
Also note that in my experience OS are usually 'upgraded' when one buys a new machine and the need to for that is becoming less and less. A P4 that worked 4 years ago still does its job fine [for typical business use].
Its very difficult to do a like-for-like comparison between the two countries. Take for instance health care - in the UK you get a "free" health system (of course its not actually free, but free at point of entry) whereas in the US its completely different, operationally and who pays. The living standard is also different - the US its seen as a necessity to each have a car whereas the UK its more of one per family, but public transport is far more accessible. All these things have associated costs.