That's fine, you can continue living in the suburbs. Nobody's making you move. Just don't bitch and whine when you can't afford to buy enough gas to drive where you want to go. That way of life is not guaranteed, it's a geological and political aberration in time.
I challenge you to name a country which has had a single governmental system for an equal amount of time, without revolution or major constitutional reforms.
That's a challenge you can't meet, either. It has most definitely not been 500 years since the last major rebellion in the UK. The Glorious Revolution was in 1688 and there were continued uprisings from that up until the mid-18th century. And since that time, a large portion of the country has actually led a successful rebellion and formed a new republic. That's Ireland in case you're confused.
Right, but he wrote his first major work at approximately ~75 AD. He wrote the work referenced above at ~95 AD. Given that Jesus was born somewhere 0-10 BC, a contemporary of Jesus, who could've spoken intelligently and accurately about his experiences (even if such a person could've been tracked down back then) would've been at best ~75 years old in 95 AD, and most likely much older. Even Paul died in ~AD 65, and I won't get into that one. It's a pretty big stretch to call Josephus a primary source or insinuate that his history is an accurate account by modern standards.
Josephus was born after Jesus had died (or was claimed to have died, whatever). Even if Jesus did exist, Josephus had no direct contact with him. Because of the time difference, short lifespans, and other reasons it's likely he didn't even have contact with anyone that actually met or spoke to Jesus. So while Josephus might be one of the earliest historians to reference Jesus, he is not a primary source by a long shot. AFAIK, there are no confirmed primary sources concerning this subject.
Not that I disagree that he was a real historical figure. I'm pretty sure Socrates, Homer, and Siddartha Guatama were real people as well, but that doesn't mean there is much evidence to prove that. Nevertheless, I think it's reasonable to assume these people actually existed.
That's very true. But that is making one very massive assumption. This theory assumes the law accurately reflects the will of the people and corporations are completely separated from those making the laws. But what we actually see are corporations lobbying politicians to change the laws in order to maximize their profits.
In order for them to get the benefit of the doubt and be considered good citizens for doing nothing but pursuing profit, they have to stay the hell out of lawmaking.
Are you serious? Taking cultural relativism to a new height, eh?
They are uncontacted because they (this is really the key, so pay attention) have been not contacted by outside civilizations. There is at maximum maybe a couple thousand of them (sorry if the number is wrong), living in self-imposed isolation. There are over six billion of us, and we travel all around the world contacting each other constantly.
Why are those things evidence against democracy? I would be more worried if everybody agreed on the same thing, and there were small minorities getting crushed consistently on most issues. Democracy works because everyone is pushing and pulling for their viewpoint, and you end up with a workable compromise that pisses nearly everybody off.
Point me to a realized democracy where your points don't apply, and I'll cede your point.
Well maybe you should read about the Spanish conquest of Perú compared to México. Perú was already devastated by smallpox, was in the middle of a massive civil war, and it took the Spanish 50 years to conquer the place (much longer to actually control all of it). Guns, horses, steel, and war dogs were pretty big advantages, but we're talking hundreds or at most a few thousand Spaniards vs. literally tens of millions of natives before smallpox.
Cortes' invasion was incredibly effective because the Spanish arrived at precisely the right time to force a takeover of the entire society in an amazingly short time (3 years). The way Mexican (Aztec) society and empire was organized, if it would've taken the Spanish much longer the Mexica empire would've dissolved and many independent states would've assumed local power, making complete control impossible at that time. Even with disgruntled societies as their allies, it's very hard to imagine Spaniards conquering the Americas without smallpox arriving when it did.
Even with complete control of Mexican culture and local supplies it took them another 100 years to pacify most of what is now México and 300 to completely conquer and pacify the Yucatán.
I agree. Los Angeles should be abandoned and you can give us folks upstream all that water and power back.
But to make my point a little more seriously, every single city in the country is by nature uninhabitable for the number of people we have there. That's just as true for New York, Chicago, and LA as for Las Vegas and Phoenix. Southern Nevada has a tiny fraction of the population of Southern California, and uses a proportionately small amount of the water and power from the Colorado River. So why is it Las Vegas that gets criticized?
The fact that we can't tell with absolute precision how long the light has been traveling is a good example of why we use the term real time. In our frame of reference, it is happening in real time.
I think you read too much into what I was saying. You still have to develop muscles, but most people don't use their fingers and hands to do *anything* strenuous. Just getting your hands moving around quickly and applying force for long periods of time would put you ahead of most beginners. Like someone who lifts weights and rides a stationary bike a few times a week would be far ahead of someone who just sits on their ass when it comes to training for a marathon.
It also helps with hand/finger strength. One of the hardest parts of beginning at guitar is only being able to move your fingers quickly and hold chord shapes for the first fifteen minutes before getting tired. If you were good at guitar hero, you should already have a lot of the muscles developed to progress more quickly.
They had the balls to disagree with you? Wow, they really are douchebags.
How about instead of being a "populist snob," just find critics who you agree with. There are plenty of people out there writing about movies that judge movies based on "common people's" judgements. Some of us want to watch movies that are beautiful and express themselves eloquently about life, some of us just want mindless entertainment. And there are *gasp* people that actually like both and a little bit of everything in between.
Open your mind a little. Everyone that disagrees with you is not a moron. If you always disagree with Yahoo Movies, you should stop reading Yahoo Movies!
That's bullshit too. I can get a badass hosted server with a dedicated, super-high quality 100mbps very, very close to guaranteed bandwidth for prices like that. For the price most people pay for cable subscription I can get a dedicated shitty server with 10mbps shared connection, still very high quality. Obviously residential areas have a built-in disadvantage, but shouldn't it be in the same ballpark? With the UTOPIA project here in Utah, I can get a 50/50mbps connection for $60/month that doesn't censor or throttle. Other than the will to organize and a significant tech-savvy population (hardly unique), what does suburban Utah have that most of the country doesn't?
It's not technically infeasible in America. Maybe in BFE but not in anything resembling a large city, let alone high-density cities. We're the kind of people with the knowledge to change this. Let's get off our collective asses and stop accepting this kind of service!
There are two answers, as far as I understand it. I'm not a theologian, not religious, and this is vague recollection supported by wikipedia articles.
Historically, the view of the church is that if a person dies unbaptized, they go to hell. But obviously that brings about problems, many of which you brought up above. So, there came the idea of Limbo, which is basically a place that's not quite as bad as hell, but outside Gods' kingdom. This was a place for unbaptized children, pagans who had never heard the word of God but had lived morally, etc. (and presumably aliens). But if you had heard the word and chose not to believe it, you still go to hell.
I don't really understand all the theological issues and all that, but somehow this was not "official" and just something theologians worked out on their own, so as a Catholic you weren't required to believe in it. Pope Benedict "formally dissolved" this idea (not sure what that means), and the current thinking is that it's possible for unbaptized people that haven't heard the word to go directly to heaven.
If you want a more complete (and surely more accurate) explanation, I would suggest talking to a priest.
I was trying to be polite in my first post, but I'll just come out and say it. You're an idiot. Please read up on actual genetics and the scientific theory, and why simply using "your eyes" is not an appropriate way to prove a theory. Seriously, return your mind to the modern world, where we have disproved these silly theories many decades ago.
And that's why - whether anyone wants to admit it or not - you can spot, in a given geographic region - people that have a "peasant" look/build and other people that have an "aristrocratic" look/build. Genetic manipulation.
They said the same thing about Europe and Mesoamerica hundreds of years ago, but it turns out it was a difference in diet and nutrition problem, not genetics. Would you have any scientific evidence on these? Specifically which geographic regions you're talking about, and genetic testing to show the peasant/aristocratic difference?
The problem is that you probably couldn't fix anything without really bad consequences (even for those unreligious folks). If you do genetic modification on a plant and 6 months later it dies, you've killed a plant. If you do genetic modification on a human embryo and it's unsuccessful, you've killed a baby. Or even something less extreme such as sterilization, genetic disease, etc. It's definitely something I wouldn't want on my hands.
Talking about the state "forcing gestation" on a woman is completely removing her decision to have sex out of the equation and making her a victim, when she is complicit with the act of creating a child. When you have sex, you must accept that a pregnancy may happen. That *is* the natural conclusion, despite modern technology attempting to prevent it. If abortion were illegal, the state wouldn't be forcing people to become pregnant, it would simply force them to take responsibilities for decisions the person has already made.
Obviously if it is a rape, the situation becomes different.
And though a lot of people try to center the debate around abortion on personhood of the embryo / fetus, they miss the point. It is about bodily autonomy...
The problem you make in your statement here is assuming that the reason people disagree with you is because they haven't thought of your argument. They probably have, but they don't accept the *validity* of your argument. Don't be dismissive of another's argument simply because you have different values. They value the life of a human being ("person" or not) more than they value a strange interpretation of personal liberty.
This is not an issue that is going to be resolved. FWIW, I am of the personal opinion that, while I consider abortion to be immoral, the state shouldn't have any business in it. It is not the state's responsibility to resolve ethical debates.
See, preventing me from using your resources to spread my message isn't censorship, because you aren't preventing me from spreading my message, you are preventing me from using your resources, which you have every right to do.
Actually, it is censorship if they're blocking the message because of the content. They (usually) have the right to do it if it's on their network, but it most definitely *is* censorship.
To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001'.
I picked the PATRIOT act because it is probably the most well-known currently, but there are literally thousands (from any country) that I could choose from. Do you really think the stated purpose of a law and its actual implementation and interpretation are the same thing?
Perhaps you could point out the AAA title that has withstood cracking attempts for months, or even weeks? Most games are cracked before the game even gets to the public. There's no game I can think of that hasn't been cracked within days at the latest. I would really like to see those statistics you speak about that show DRM improving profits.
Look. Very few high-budget games are released without DRM. I know this is an emotional issue for a lot of Slashdotters, but the number of people here assuming they're smarter than, well, almost every game publisher in the world is pretty sad to see. Do you really think they pay for expensive DRM systems over and over again if it loses them money? Even if you assume some of them are completely dysfunctional, we're not talking about a few publishers. We're talking about the vast majority.
That's a baseless appeal to authority. Yes, it *is* possible that most of an industry is wrong and a few people both inside and outside the industry are correct. If you really don't think that is possible, look at the state of financial companies in the US over the last six months. And there's a hell of a lot more money at stake there than at video game companies.
It's well understood in the industry that the DRM cracking problem comes from people who just don't want to pay for the game. Very few are pure hearted people who conscientiously want to make backups of their disks.
Once again, if you don't have any numbers to back you up, your statements are worthless. We know companies can make money selling software (even video games and music) without DRM, or with very simple protection (like serial codes). That has been proven over time. But unless you have some information that I haven't seen, there is no reason to believe DRM is helpful. Pirated copies are still incredibly easy to find, and DRM is a frustrating mess for us law-abiding PC gamers.
It pisses me off to no end that we can't conlude that one race may be better at things than another (due to P.C.).
What an ignorant statement. By race do you mean black? African? African-American? You might be surprised to find out that these are all significantly different things. To compare whether one race has an inherent physical advantage you would first have to define race, and the political terms "African-American," "Caucasian," "Asian", et al mean close to nothing in scientific terms.
And even if you could use those categories, what do you mean by better? Bigger, faster, stronger? Physical superiority is pretty hard to define and measure other than in small snapshots such as the 100-meter dash or a bench press maximum. Is Lance Armstrong a greater athlete than LaDainian Tomlinson? Is Dirk Nowitzki a greater athlete than Tiger Woods?
And even if you can definitively measure physical ability, what does *that* really mean? High-level sports are about *much* more than pure physical ability. Proper training, nutrition, coaching, etc. are important in all sports. So are concentration, discipline, confidence, mental toughness, and hundreds of other factors. Unless you have some miracle experiment lined up, you can't separate the mental from the physical. Maybe black people are better at football because they are more confident than whites. Maybe they are better at basketball because an inner-city black sports prodigy is more likely to be singled out and receive individual attention from coaches. Have you ruled that out?
You can look at track, basketball, football, etc. and come to the conclusion that blacks are much more athletic than whites. But is that because they're better athletes, or because those sports have higher emphasis in black society? In the early 1980's blacks made up almost 30% of MLB rosters. Now it's somewhere between 8-9%. Is that because blacks are inferior? Have blacks gotten worse at baseball in the last twenty years? Or is it because baseball is no longer as popular in black communities?
I don't see anyone claiming that whites are better at baseball or swimming (or water polo, lacrosse, golf, tennis, etc.) because they have an inherent physical advantage, even though the numbers are pretty dramatically against blacks in those sports. In the World Cup, mostly white teams like England, Argentina, France, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Uruguay, etc. have all had enormous success, while Brazil is the only mostly black team to have won it. Is it because whites are superior?
As you can see, this is a much more complex issue than you make it seem with your four-sentence blanket statement somehow linking this with overzealous political correctness. Try some critical thinking next time before you post, it usually helps you from looking like an idiot.
He also is under the delusion that creating a Mac upgradeable prosumer desktop will somehow "Dell-ize" Apple.
That's not a delusion. The reason Apple makes so much money is because they sell high-end machines almost exclusively. Those high-end AIO machines have nice, fat profit margins. The huge majority of what Dell sells has razor-thin profit margins, that's why they're trying to move into high-end gaming machines. I personally would like to buy a $400 PC and install OS X, and dislike Apple because I can't, but it's a sound business decision. Mac software may be what's great from a user's point of view, but hardware is where they make their money.
Slashdot Mirror
That's fine, you can continue living in the suburbs. Nobody's making you move. Just don't bitch and whine when you can't afford to buy enough gas to drive where you want to go. That way of life is not guaranteed, it's a geological and political aberration in time.
That's a challenge you can't meet, either. It has most definitely not been 500 years since the last major rebellion in the UK. The Glorious Revolution was in 1688 and there were continued uprisings from that up until the mid-18th century. And since that time, a large portion of the country has actually led a successful rebellion and formed a new republic. That's Ireland in case you're confused.
Right, but he wrote his first major work at approximately ~75 AD. He wrote the work referenced above at ~95 AD. Given that Jesus was born somewhere 0-10 BC, a contemporary of Jesus, who could've spoken intelligently and accurately about his experiences (even if such a person could've been tracked down back then) would've been at best ~75 years old in 95 AD, and most likely much older. Even Paul died in ~AD 65, and I won't get into that one. It's a pretty big stretch to call Josephus a primary source or insinuate that his history is an accurate account by modern standards.
I think it's pretty damn safe to assume George Bush will never work in government ever again, let alone the Executive branch.
Josephus was born after Jesus had died (or was claimed to have died, whatever). Even if Jesus did exist, Josephus had no direct contact with him. Because of the time difference, short lifespans, and other reasons it's likely he didn't even have contact with anyone that actually met or spoke to Jesus. So while Josephus might be one of the earliest historians to reference Jesus, he is not a primary source by a long shot. AFAIK, there are no confirmed primary sources concerning this subject.
Not that I disagree that he was a real historical figure. I'm pretty sure Socrates, Homer, and Siddartha Guatama were real people as well, but that doesn't mean there is much evidence to prove that. Nevertheless, I think it's reasonable to assume these people actually existed.
That's very true. But that is making one very massive assumption. This theory assumes the law accurately reflects the will of the people and corporations are completely separated from those making the laws. But what we actually see are corporations lobbying politicians to change the laws in order to maximize their profits.
In order for them to get the benefit of the doubt and be considered good citizens for doing nothing but pursuing profit, they have to stay the hell out of lawmaking.
Are you serious? Taking cultural relativism to a new height, eh?
They are uncontacted because they (this is really the key, so pay attention) have been not contacted by outside civilizations. There is at maximum maybe a couple thousand of them (sorry if the number is wrong), living in self-imposed isolation. There are over six billion of us, and we travel all around the world contacting each other constantly.
Why are those things evidence against democracy? I would be more worried if everybody agreed on the same thing, and there were small minorities getting crushed consistently on most issues. Democracy works because everyone is pushing and pulling for their viewpoint, and you end up with a workable compromise that pisses nearly everybody off.
Point me to a realized democracy where your points don't apply, and I'll cede your point.
Well maybe you should read about the Spanish conquest of Perú compared to México. Perú was already devastated by smallpox, was in the middle of a massive civil war, and it took the Spanish 50 years to conquer the place (much longer to actually control all of it). Guns, horses, steel, and war dogs were pretty big advantages, but we're talking hundreds or at most a few thousand Spaniards vs. literally tens of millions of natives before smallpox.
Cortes' invasion was incredibly effective because the Spanish arrived at precisely the right time to force a takeover of the entire society in an amazingly short time (3 years). The way Mexican (Aztec) society and empire was organized, if it would've taken the Spanish much longer the Mexica empire would've dissolved and many independent states would've assumed local power, making complete control impossible at that time. Even with disgruntled societies as their allies, it's very hard to imagine Spaniards conquering the Americas without smallpox arriving when it did.
Even with complete control of Mexican culture and local supplies it took them another 100 years to pacify most of what is now México and 300 to completely conquer and pacify the Yucatán.
I agree. Los Angeles should be abandoned and you can give us folks upstream all that water and power back.
But to make my point a little more seriously, every single city in the country is by nature uninhabitable for the number of people we have there. That's just as true for New York, Chicago, and LA as for Las Vegas and Phoenix. Southern Nevada has a tiny fraction of the population of Southern California, and uses a proportionately small amount of the water and power from the Colorado River. So why is it Las Vegas that gets criticized?
The fact that we can't tell with absolute precision how long the light has been traveling is a good example of why we use the term real time. In our frame of reference, it is happening in real time.
I think you read too much into what I was saying. You still have to develop muscles, but most people don't use their fingers and hands to do *anything* strenuous. Just getting your hands moving around quickly and applying force for long periods of time would put you ahead of most beginners. Like someone who lifts weights and rides a stationary bike a few times a week would be far ahead of someone who just sits on their ass when it comes to training for a marathon.
It also helps with hand/finger strength. One of the hardest parts of beginning at guitar is only being able to move your fingers quickly and hold chord shapes for the first fifteen minutes before getting tired. If you were good at guitar hero, you should already have a lot of the muscles developed to progress more quickly.
They had the balls to disagree with you? Wow, they really are douchebags.
How about instead of being a "populist snob," just find critics who you agree with. There are plenty of people out there writing about movies that judge movies based on "common people's" judgements. Some of us want to watch movies that are beautiful and express themselves eloquently about life, some of us just want mindless entertainment. And there are *gasp* people that actually like both and a little bit of everything in between.
Open your mind a little. Everyone that disagrees with you is not a moron. If you always disagree with Yahoo Movies, you should stop reading Yahoo Movies!
That's bullshit too. I can get a badass hosted server with a dedicated, super-high quality 100mbps very, very close to guaranteed bandwidth for prices like that. For the price most people pay for cable subscription I can get a dedicated shitty server with 10mbps shared connection, still very high quality. Obviously residential areas have a built-in disadvantage, but shouldn't it be in the same ballpark? With the UTOPIA project here in Utah, I can get a 50/50mbps connection for $60/month that doesn't censor or throttle. Other than the will to organize and a significant tech-savvy population (hardly unique), what does suburban Utah have that most of the country doesn't?
It's not technically infeasible in America. Maybe in BFE but not in anything resembling a large city, let alone high-density cities. We're the kind of people with the knowledge to change this. Let's get off our collective asses and stop accepting this kind of service!
There are two answers, as far as I understand it. I'm not a theologian, not religious, and this is vague recollection supported by wikipedia articles.
Historically, the view of the church is that if a person dies unbaptized, they go to hell. But obviously that brings about problems, many of which you brought up above. So, there came the idea of Limbo, which is basically a place that's not quite as bad as hell, but outside Gods' kingdom. This was a place for unbaptized children, pagans who had never heard the word of God but had lived morally, etc. (and presumably aliens). But if you had heard the word and chose not to believe it, you still go to hell.
I don't really understand all the theological issues and all that, but somehow this was not "official" and just something theologians worked out on their own, so as a Catholic you weren't required to believe in it. Pope Benedict "formally dissolved" this idea (not sure what that means), and the current thinking is that it's possible for unbaptized people that haven't heard the word to go directly to heaven.
If you want a more complete (and surely more accurate) explanation, I would suggest talking to a priest.
I was trying to be polite in my first post, but I'll just come out and say it. You're an idiot. Please read up on actual genetics and the scientific theory, and why simply using "your eyes" is not an appropriate way to prove a theory. Seriously, return your mind to the modern world, where we have disproved these silly theories many decades ago.
They said the same thing about Europe and Mesoamerica hundreds of years ago, but it turns out it was a difference in diet and nutrition problem, not genetics. Would you have any scientific evidence on these? Specifically which geographic regions you're talking about, and genetic testing to show the peasant/aristocratic difference?
The problem is that you probably couldn't fix anything without really bad consequences (even for those unreligious folks). If you do genetic modification on a plant and 6 months later it dies, you've killed a plant. If you do genetic modification on a human embryo and it's unsuccessful, you've killed a baby. Or even something less extreme such as sterilization, genetic disease, etc. It's definitely something I wouldn't want on my hands.
Talking about the state "forcing gestation" on a woman is completely removing her decision to have sex out of the equation and making her a victim, when she is complicit with the act of creating a child. When you have sex, you must accept that a pregnancy may happen. That *is* the natural conclusion, despite modern technology attempting to prevent it. If abortion were illegal, the state wouldn't be forcing people to become pregnant, it would simply force them to take responsibilities for decisions the person has already made.
Obviously if it is a rape, the situation becomes different.
The problem you make in your statement here is assuming that the reason people disagree with you is because they haven't thought of your argument. They probably have, but they don't accept the *validity* of your argument. Don't be dismissive of another's argument simply because you have different values. They value the life of a human being ("person" or not) more than they value a strange interpretation of personal liberty.
This is not an issue that is going to be resolved. FWIW, I am of the personal opinion that, while I consider abortion to be immoral, the state shouldn't have any business in it. It is not the state's responsibility to resolve ethical debates.
Actually, it is censorship if they're blocking the message because of the content. They (usually) have the right to do it if it's on their network, but it most definitely *is* censorship.
From the USA PATRIOT act:
I picked the PATRIOT act because it is probably the most well-known currently, but there are literally thousands (from any country) that I could choose from. Do you really think the stated purpose of a law and its actual implementation and interpretation are the same thing?
Perhaps you could point out the AAA title that has withstood cracking attempts for months, or even weeks? Most games are cracked before the game even gets to the public. There's no game I can think of that hasn't been cracked within days at the latest. I would really like to see those statistics you speak about that show DRM improving profits.
That's a baseless appeal to authority. Yes, it *is* possible that most of an industry is wrong and a few people both inside and outside the industry are correct. If you really don't think that is possible, look at the state of financial companies in the US over the last six months. And there's a hell of a lot more money at stake there than at video game companies.
Once again, if you don't have any numbers to back you up, your statements are worthless. We know companies can make money selling software (even video games and music) without DRM, or with very simple protection (like serial codes). That has been proven over time. But unless you have some information that I haven't seen, there is no reason to believe DRM is helpful. Pirated copies are still incredibly easy to find, and DRM is a frustrating mess for us law-abiding PC gamers.
What an ignorant statement. By race do you mean black? African? African-American? You might be surprised to find out that these are all significantly different things. To compare whether one race has an inherent physical advantage you would first have to define race, and the political terms "African-American," "Caucasian," "Asian", et al mean close to nothing in scientific terms.
And even if you could use those categories, what do you mean by better? Bigger, faster, stronger? Physical superiority is pretty hard to define and measure other than in small snapshots such as the 100-meter dash or a bench press maximum. Is Lance Armstrong a greater athlete than LaDainian Tomlinson? Is Dirk Nowitzki a greater athlete than Tiger Woods?
And even if you can definitively measure physical ability, what does *that* really mean? High-level sports are about *much* more than pure physical ability. Proper training, nutrition, coaching, etc. are important in all sports. So are concentration, discipline, confidence, mental toughness, and hundreds of other factors. Unless you have some miracle experiment lined up, you can't separate the mental from the physical. Maybe black people are better at football because they are more confident than whites. Maybe they are better at basketball because an inner-city black sports prodigy is more likely to be singled out and receive individual attention from coaches. Have you ruled that out?
You can look at track, basketball, football, etc. and come to the conclusion that blacks are much more athletic than whites. But is that because they're better athletes, or because those sports have higher emphasis in black society? In the early 1980's blacks made up almost 30% of MLB rosters. Now it's somewhere between 8-9%. Is that because blacks are inferior? Have blacks gotten worse at baseball in the last twenty years? Or is it because baseball is no longer as popular in black communities?
I don't see anyone claiming that whites are better at baseball or swimming (or water polo, lacrosse, golf, tennis, etc.) because they have an inherent physical advantage, even though the numbers are pretty dramatically against blacks in those sports. In the World Cup, mostly white teams like England, Argentina, France, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Uruguay, etc. have all had enormous success, while Brazil is the only mostly black team to have won it. Is it because whites are superior?
As you can see, this is a much more complex issue than you make it seem with your four-sentence blanket statement somehow linking this with overzealous political correctness. Try some critical thinking next time before you post, it usually helps you from looking like an idiot.
That's not a delusion. The reason Apple makes so much money is because they sell high-end machines almost exclusively. Those high-end AIO machines have nice, fat profit margins. The huge majority of what Dell sells has razor-thin profit margins, that's why they're trying to move into high-end gaming machines. I personally would like to buy a $400 PC and install OS X, and dislike Apple because I can't, but it's a sound business decision. Mac software may be what's great from a user's point of view, but hardware is where they make their money.