So a device that, at a certain price, you can put a sim card into to connect it to the internet... and you want to bypass this by buying the cheaper one and tethering it to a phone (that costs more than the difference between the two versions of the device)....
Firstly clearly no grasp of business and pricing structures. Secondly pathetic complaint. Thirdly DUH!
Yeah it's over-priced, yeah it might be gimmicky, but since most of the critics are clearly dumber than the people fooled into buying one; it's probably looking at being a success.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00040A7 2-A95C-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate- change
Let's just consider this simple FACT. When smoking was deemed to be cancerous and dangerous to the health of individuals they found plenty of scientists willing to work for them to disprove negative claims. Ignoring Al Gore as an inflated ego there is plenty of popular support for the theory of Global Warming. There is plenty of evidence from many varied fields to support it. Before grasping at the few dissenting voices as proof that it is not universally accepted it's worth investigating the credibility of the dissenters, their motives and why they are at odds with the majority.
One of the protagonists in this article for example works for oil companies. Do your research see what you can find out.
Considering that the these are the same rhetorical arguments used by the creationist/intelligent design people, the smoking lobby etc. I'm instinctively suspicious. Fabricating dissent or over inflating the value of opposition is a tactic favored by those who fear change. I think as a simple test we should move all those who don't agree with Global warming to New Orleans, Bangladesh and the Netherlands just to really test their convictions.
Anti-Global warming rhetoric is for people who can't deal with large amounts of rhetoric forcing them to re-think their world view. Just as anti-Evolution arguments are for those who have failed to let their world view evolve. For most of he scientific community Global warming isn't a matter of "IF" it, it's "HOW" it will affect us. Considering that most of the scientific is hugely more intelligent than the average journalist, American voter or US President I'm going to go with their over-whelming consensus until there is some stronger evidence than the opinions of some corporate stooges, a few deranged rogues seeking attention and their friendly Right-Wing spin doctors.
Proving conclusively that you have no idea about religion OR science.
As a Theologian I can tell you you're getting THAT wrong as well.
I suggest logic classes, basic philosophy and maybe learning about the philosophy of science before you dive into this kind of debate with old hat failed arguments about science and faith.
Religion deals in absolutes (which we place our faith in), Science deals in assumptions that may be changed. Once you've grasped that then you'll know that your argument was incredibly silly from the start.
Remember if you just claim convincingly that Jesus told you to commit the violence it's OK.
That's why when I allow my country to kill unarmed women and children I make sure Jesus told them to do it.
"Appropriate" is what some wife beating 60 year old pastor says you can do in the name of Jesus.
Firstly isn't it annoying that violence and sex get put together in the minds of those seeking to censor everything? They are two very different things. If you confuse the two then you really need psychiatric help and exclusion orders from the sex that you are attracted to.
Secondly the obsession with pornography is annoying because it sustains itself on the myth that sex is somehow bad. To paraphrase the great Bill Hicks we're all here because someone had sex. I just wish these up-tight anti-porn campaigners would take it to heart and stop having sex so evolution can do us all a favor and naturally select this idiocy out. Sadly hypocrisy and their tendency to treat women as property to rape for child rearing (hence their confusion of violence and sex) lets them procreate.
So perhaps we should make more games fitting the porn label? More sex less violence. Just to make it clear. I suggest a game with mutant rabbits out-breeding up-tight puritanical shrew creatures for world domination.
Slashdot Mirror
So a device that, at a certain price, you can put a sim card into to connect it to the internet... and you want to bypass this by buying the cheaper one and tethering it to a phone (that costs more than the difference between the two versions of the device).... Firstly clearly no grasp of business and pricing structures. Secondly pathetic complaint. Thirdly DUH! Yeah it's over-priced, yeah it might be gimmicky, but since most of the critics are clearly dumber than the people fooled into buying one; it's probably looking at being a success.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00040A7 2-A95C-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate- change
Let's just consider this simple FACT. When smoking was deemed to be cancerous and dangerous to the health of individuals they found plenty of scientists willing to work for them to disprove negative claims. Ignoring Al Gore as an inflated ego there is plenty of popular support for the theory of Global Warming. There is plenty of evidence from many varied fields to support it. Before grasping at the few dissenting voices as proof that it is not universally accepted it's worth investigating the credibility of the dissenters, their motives and why they are at odds with the majority.
One of the protagonists in this article for example works for oil companies. Do your research see what you can find out.
Considering that the these are the same rhetorical arguments used by the creationist/intelligent design people, the smoking lobby etc. I'm instinctively suspicious. Fabricating dissent or over inflating the value of opposition is a tactic favored by those who fear change. I think as a simple test we should move all those who don't agree with Global warming to New Orleans, Bangladesh and the Netherlands just to really test their convictions.
Anti-Global warming rhetoric is for people who can't deal with large amounts of rhetoric forcing them to re-think their world view. Just as anti-Evolution arguments are for those who have failed to let their world view evolve. For most of he scientific community Global warming isn't a matter of "IF" it, it's "HOW" it will affect us. Considering that most of the scientific is hugely more intelligent than the average journalist, American voter or US President I'm going to go with their over-whelming consensus until there is some stronger evidence than the opinions of some corporate stooges, a few deranged rogues seeking attention and their friendly Right-Wing spin doctors.
Proving conclusively that you have no idea about religion OR science. As a Theologian I can tell you you're getting THAT wrong as well. I suggest logic classes, basic philosophy and maybe learning about the philosophy of science before you dive into this kind of debate with old hat failed arguments about science and faith. Religion deals in absolutes (which we place our faith in), Science deals in assumptions that may be changed. Once you've grasped that then you'll know that your argument was incredibly silly from the start.
Remember if you just claim convincingly that Jesus told you to commit the violence it's OK. That's why when I allow my country to kill unarmed women and children I make sure Jesus told them to do it. "Appropriate" is what some wife beating 60 year old pastor says you can do in the name of Jesus.
Firstly isn't it annoying that violence and sex get put together in the minds of those seeking to censor everything? They are two very different things. If you confuse the two then you really need psychiatric help and exclusion orders from the sex that you are attracted to. Secondly the obsession with pornography is annoying because it sustains itself on the myth that sex is somehow bad. To paraphrase the great Bill Hicks we're all here because someone had sex. I just wish these up-tight anti-porn campaigners would take it to heart and stop having sex so evolution can do us all a favor and naturally select this idiocy out. Sadly hypocrisy and their tendency to treat women as property to rape for child rearing (hence their confusion of violence and sex) lets them procreate. So perhaps we should make more games fitting the porn label? More sex less violence. Just to make it clear. I suggest a game with mutant rabbits out-breeding up-tight puritanical shrew creatures for world domination.