No, he didn't RTFA, neither did I. The real question is not what he used, but was it not getting the job done? Did he upgrade because the G4 failed in some way to help him create his music, or did he upgrade because he wanted a shiny new toy? I think that was the poster's question and the fact that he had a G4 in 2009 doesn't really answer it.
It seems like it's heavily tilted in Yahoo's favor. MS seems to be grasping at straws to become relevant in search, and I don't think this did anything but enrich Yahoo. Google might keep a wary eye on them, but I doubt they are worried at all.
I agree and disagree. I agree that despite what women say ("I want a caring, sensitive partner who is my equal . . . ") they do not tend to respect that. I do think there is something to the traditional, male as the head of the household marriage. Not that the wife is the subservient dog, but women do seem to want the man to take charge to some degree. (They call it "confident").
However, I disagree that the alpha-male jocks have high social/emotional intelligence. In the end, it doesn't really matter. You can't change who you are by reading a book. Be honest, don't cheat, don't go to bed angry, say I'm sorry, have FUN, etc. It's the common sense basics that should get you through it successfully.
I hope that is true, but something tells me it's not that simple. I think you signing a contract with a cellular company may give them some rights in areas like this.
I won't argue about my fellow countrymen's myopic view of the world consisting of US-UK-AU. I do think you are mistaken in one area, that the legal system in your country or any other does not favor the rich. That part is the same the world over.
While I see your point, keep in mind that Americans still like free speech. Lying, scumbag presidents who should be impeached don't like free speech. I think that explains the incidents in your link.
Not sure how it works worldwide, but in the US you do not OWN any music old by the big labels. You license it. You are granted a license to listen to it. In the "old days" you bought a CD and thus you sort of seemed to own it, but now with DRM and phoning home to DRM servers, the record company can enforce that license. Don't get me wrong, I think it's BS and I hope their business dies and we go to a more independent/Indie model of music, but right now this is the way it is.
Being a conspiracy theory fan, my two cents is the government is paying them to not renew the license. Several governments already are miffed that they can't eavesdrop on Skype calls. If the government banned Skype because they can't monitor it then there would be some unwanted publicity. I think they are paying these guys to make the problem go away quietly via a licensing dispute that no one cares about.
To be honest, IE8 is only this way because MS knows if they default it to Bing and give no options to change it they will end up in anti-trust hot water again. This is a result of MS abusing their monopoly position. If Apple ever gets to the same point then we'll be able to have a (sorry about this) apples to apples comparison, but right now your point fails a little.
Actually they weren't right because they said it was due to global warming. But what I don't get is that they are "scientists". They use the "scientific method". All their conclusions are "peer reviewed". They are smarter than all non-scientists. How could they be wrong? And if they were wrong about this is it possible that they could be wrong about other statements of "fact"? I thought scientists couldn't be wrong? That is was impossible for a non-scientist to question their conclusions?
Could it be possible (stay with me on this one) that they are full of shit and should be taken with more than just a grain of salt?
Not to stir the pot, but EVERYBODY does that, not just industrialists. Do you drive a car? Do you use a bus? Cab? You're polluting. Putting your own selfish interests above the environment, aren't you? Now I know that's hyperbole, but my point is EVERYONE justifies their own actions as being necessary. Al Gore is the poster boy for the AGW crowd and yet he makes my energy consumption pale in comparison. I'm sure he justifies his consumption because he needs to travel to spread the word about the coming apocalypse, but in the end he is simplying justifying his lifestyle and he won't change his life if it inconveniences him at all.
The whole thing is just hypocrisy all over the place. On every side. I don't believe anyone any more because they are all lying. Now I am going to go light my coal furnace by burning some plastic plates and I would like some quiet for my afternoon nap.
Eeaasssy big fella. The post had a point. 18 months is still ridiculous. It's almost as if MS wasn't taking security seriously and was instead wasting time on search engines, game consoles, media players, picking retail store locations and repackaging Vista as Win 7. . . . But no company could be THAT dumb and incompetent, could they?
Perhaps you should STFU with calling people names like "denialists". You made his point for him. Or couldn't you see that obvious fact because you were so busy admiring your keen scientific credentials and looking down on everyone else?
You've violated the Climate Research Defamation Act and are now subject to arrest and the label Denialist for the rest of your life. Please wait peacefully until the Climate Alarm Citizen Army (CACA) arrives to apprehend you and guide your reeducation by surgically removing your independent thought heretical tendencies.
Maybe we could begin take your opinion more seriously and have a true discussion on it if you didn't resort to childish name calling to anyone who dared to question your beliefs?
Good luck trying to interject some common sense into this issue. I've tried to have discussions with the pro AGW crowd and if you don't drink their kool-aid then you are shouted down as a "Denialist" (or worse). It's cult-like behavior that makes me instantly leery of their credibility and motivations. Your observation about "climate scientists" is also right on the money. It's a bogus term meant to denote anyone who agrees with the pro AGW crowd as qualified and anyone who disagrees as not technically qualified. It's a smoke and mirrors trick.
But hey, kudos for sticking your neck out there. The rabid (literally) pro AGW crowd will now swoop in and begin trying to destroy you, but stick to your guns. I personally think Time will be the eventual antidote to this particular doom and gloom cult. Over Time we'll find out they don't know what they're talking about and they'll fade into obscurity.
"There is no evidence for gods or faeries or santa claus"
WTF?? Are you daft? . . . If there was no faeries then who replaced my tooth with a quarter when I was a kid? If there was no Santa Claus then whose lap did I sit on and how did all those presents get under the tree, AND WHAT BASTARD ATE THE MILK AND COOKIES I LEFT OUT THAT NIGHT??!!
No evidence indeed! Wake up and smell the coffee man! Faeries and Santa exist or someone pulled off the biggest scam in the world when I was a kid!
Funny how every climate change incident is siezed upon by the AGW crowd. I've seen big storms, droughts, hurricanes, lack of hurricanes, etc. all ascribed to global warming. I think it's just the latest scapegoat by scientists who don't have a good enough understanding of how nature works to make the AGW statements with certainty.
Someone mentioned this in another post Ray, but is there any way for the defense team to request that these numbers be audited or do you have to have some actionable piece of evidence that the books are cooked?
While I agree with your sentiment that a court's decision does not decide what I can or can not debate, your statement that his quote was gratuitously offensive strikes me as a bit melodramatic.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he didn't RTFA, neither did I. The real question is not what he used, but was it not getting the job done? Did he upgrade because the G4 failed in some way to help him create his music, or did he upgrade because he wanted a shiny new toy? I think that was the poster's question and the fact that he had a G4 in 2009 doesn't really answer it.
It seems like it's heavily tilted in Yahoo's favor. MS seems to be grasping at straws to become relevant in search, and I don't think this did anything but enrich Yahoo. Google might keep a wary eye on them, but I doubt they are worried at all.
I agree and disagree. I agree that despite what women say ("I want a caring, sensitive partner who is my equal . . . ") they do not tend to respect that. I do think there is something to the traditional, male as the head of the household marriage. Not that the wife is the subservient dog, but women do seem to want the man to take charge to some degree. (They call it "confident").
However, I disagree that the alpha-male jocks have high social/emotional intelligence. In the end, it doesn't really matter. You can't change who you are by reading a book. Be honest, don't cheat, don't go to bed angry, say I'm sorry, have FUN, etc. It's the common sense basics that should get you through it successfully.
I hope that is true, but something tells me it's not that simple. I think you signing a contract with a cellular company may give them some rights in areas like this.
I won't argue about my fellow countrymen's myopic view of the world consisting of US-UK-AU. I do think you are mistaken in one area, that the legal system in your country or any other does not favor the rich. That part is the same the world over.
That's EXACTLY what I'd expect an Eastern European commie lovin' pinko to say!!
Sorry, the opportunity was there and I took it.
I think we all know that Pink Ponies may be related to Revelations, thus I would be scared too!
While I see your point, keep in mind that Americans still like free speech. Lying, scumbag presidents who should be impeached don't like free speech. I think that explains the incidents in your link.
Not sure how it works worldwide, but in the US you do not OWN any music old by the big labels. You license it. You are granted a license to listen to it. In the "old days" you bought a CD and thus you sort of seemed to own it, but now with DRM and phoning home to DRM servers, the record company can enforce that license. Don't get me wrong, I think it's BS and I hope their business dies and we go to a more independent/Indie model of music, but right now this is the way it is.
Being a conspiracy theory fan, my two cents is the government is paying them to not renew the license. Several governments already are miffed that they can't eavesdrop on Skype calls. If the government banned Skype because they can't monitor it then there would be some unwanted publicity. I think they are paying these guys to make the problem go away quietly via a licensing dispute that no one cares about.
To be honest, IE8 is only this way because MS knows if they default it to Bing and give no options to change it they will end up in anti-trust hot water again. This is a result of MS abusing their monopoly position. If Apple ever gets to the same point then we'll be able to have a (sorry about this) apples to apples comparison, but right now your point fails a little.
Actually they weren't right because they said it was due to global warming. But what I don't get is that they are "scientists". They use the "scientific method". All their conclusions are "peer reviewed". They are smarter than all non-scientists. How could they be wrong? And if they were wrong about this is it possible that they could be wrong about other statements of "fact"? I thought scientists couldn't be wrong? That is was impossible for a non-scientist to question their conclusions?
Could it be possible (stay with me on this one) that they are full of shit and should be taken with more than just a grain of salt?
Not to stir the pot, but EVERYBODY does that, not just industrialists. Do you drive a car? Do you use a bus? Cab? You're polluting. Putting your own selfish interests above the environment, aren't you? Now I know that's hyperbole, but my point is EVERYONE justifies their own actions as being necessary. Al Gore is the poster boy for the AGW crowd and yet he makes my energy consumption pale in comparison. I'm sure he justifies his consumption because he needs to travel to spread the word about the coming apocalypse, but in the end he is simplying justifying his lifestyle and he won't change his life if it inconveniences him at all.
The whole thing is just hypocrisy all over the place. On every side. I don't believe anyone any more because they are all lying. Now I am going to go light my coal furnace by burning some plastic plates and I would like some quiet for my afternoon nap.
Eeaasssy big fella. The post had a point. 18 months is still ridiculous. It's almost as if MS wasn't taking security seriously and was instead wasting time on search engines, game consoles, media players, picking retail store locations and repackaging Vista as Win 7. . . . But no company could be THAT dumb and incompetent, could they?
Perhaps you should STFU with calling people names like "denialists". You made his point for him. Or couldn't you see that obvious fact because you were so busy admiring your keen scientific credentials and looking down on everyone else?
You've violated the Climate Research Defamation Act and are now subject to arrest and the label Denialist for the rest of your life. Please wait peacefully until the Climate Alarm Citizen Army (CACA) arrives to apprehend you and guide your reeducation by surgically removing your independent thought heretical tendencies.
Maybe we could begin take your opinion more seriously and have a true discussion on it if you didn't resort to childish name calling to anyone who dared to question your beliefs?
Good luck trying to interject some common sense into this issue. I've tried to have discussions with the pro AGW crowd and if you don't drink their kool-aid then you are shouted down as a "Denialist" (or worse). It's cult-like behavior that makes me instantly leery of their credibility and motivations. Your observation about "climate scientists" is also right on the money. It's a bogus term meant to denote anyone who agrees with the pro AGW crowd as qualified and anyone who disagrees as not technically qualified. It's a smoke and mirrors trick.
But hey, kudos for sticking your neck out there. The rabid (literally) pro AGW crowd will now swoop in and begin trying to destroy you, but stick to your guns. I personally think Time will be the eventual antidote to this particular doom and gloom cult. Over Time we'll find out they don't know what they're talking about and they'll fade into obscurity.
"There is no evidence for gods or faeries or santa claus"
WTF?? Are you daft? . . . If there was no faeries then who replaced my tooth with a quarter when I was a kid? If there was no Santa Claus then whose lap did I sit on and how did all those presents get under the tree, AND WHAT BASTARD ATE THE MILK AND COOKIES I LEFT OUT THAT NIGHT??!!
No evidence indeed! Wake up and smell the coffee man! Faeries and Santa exist or someone pulled off the biggest scam in the world when I was a kid!
I think your definition of convection is a bit off.
Funny how every climate change incident is siezed upon by the AGW crowd. I've seen big storms, droughts, hurricanes, lack of hurricanes, etc. all ascribed to global warming. I think it's just the latest scapegoat by scientists who don't have a good enough understanding of how nature works to make the AGW statements with certainty.
I would assume recently means. . . you know. . . .RECENTLY. Yes, the last 4-5 years. So he was correct in his statement.
Do you read the post before you blindly criticize it or just make up things to support your opinions?
Someone mentioned this in another post Ray, but is there any way for the defense team to request that these numbers be audited or do you have to have some actionable piece of evidence that the books are cooked?
Absolutely spot on analysis. The term "cracker" has kept my people down for far too long. I prefer the term European American.
While I agree with your sentiment that a court's decision does not decide what I can or can not debate, your statement that his quote was gratuitously offensive strikes me as a bit melodramatic.