sbarton
Jul 13, 08:47 AM
Originally Posted by sbarton
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
more...
And as a commentator he can
more...
Let me get this
more...
#39;Someone said to me,
more...
two things struck me.
more...
My Life In Travel: Gabby Logan
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
more...
stcanard
Mar 18, 01:04 PM
The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry.
I think at this point you could argut that Apple is the Music Download industry.
With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
A year ago I would have agreed with this, but I think the landscape has changed.
Apple has already signed all the major labels, and realistically they don't dare back out. This will come up in contract negotiations only.
The indies don't care nearly as much about DRM, they don't make money through moving huge numbers of tracks, but through raising awareness of the artists leading to concert and merchandising sales.
Overall the cat's out of the bad, its turned into a (dare I say it?) Tiger, and nobody's putting it back in.
I think at this point you could argut that Apple is the Music Download industry.
With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
A year ago I would have agreed with this, but I think the landscape has changed.
Apple has already signed all the major labels, and realistically they don't dare back out. This will come up in contract negotiations only.
The indies don't care nearly as much about DRM, they don't make money through moving huge numbers of tracks, but through raising awareness of the artists leading to concert and merchandising sales.
Overall the cat's out of the bad, its turned into a (dare I say it?) Tiger, and nobody's putting it back in.
more...
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 01:53 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
You have nothing with no wind.
Even if wind farms were 100% efficient, they don't hold a candle to nuclear output.
Besides, we don't have room here in Japan for wind farms so it makes no difference.
Alternative energy is not a viable source everywhere in the world, plain and simple. That's all I'm saying.
I was trying to explain that then 30% number is you can count on 30% of the total out put nation wide at any movement in time.
I am not talking about some random wind turbine giving 30% of their out put all the time but when you have lot of turbines spread all over the country you can count on 30% of them.
As for a problem with nuclear power is water. They require a LOT and I mean a LOT of water per MW compared to lets say Coal. One of our current largest problem is having enough water to cooling and producing power.
You have nothing with no wind.
Even if wind farms were 100% efficient, they don't hold a candle to nuclear output.
Besides, we don't have room here in Japan for wind farms so it makes no difference.
Alternative energy is not a viable source everywhere in the world, plain and simple. That's all I'm saying.
I was trying to explain that then 30% number is you can count on 30% of the total out put nation wide at any movement in time.
I am not talking about some random wind turbine giving 30% of their out put all the time but when you have lot of turbines spread all over the country you can count on 30% of them.
As for a problem with nuclear power is water. They require a LOT and I mean a LOT of water per MW compared to lets say Coal. One of our current largest problem is having enough water to cooling and producing power.
more...
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
more...
Gelfin
Mar 26, 12:59 AM
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
more...
sinsin07
Apr 8, 11:57 PM
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death” on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360. The consoles are so poorly made that broken PS3's seldomly fetch $50 on eBay.
commentator and the former
more...
OK la.. reminds me of Pirates
more...
Kinda awesome, me too.
more...
Tonight we dine with Fat Al,
Top Commentator Widget for
I believe the commentators
Reg Gutteridge: Commentator
more...
math,#39; said commentator
more...
And it made me smile for a
commentator Doctor Warlock
Society told me so.
more...
Picture was e-mailed to me
more...
insightful commentary on
fishkorp
Mar 18, 05:47 AM
I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit as this is wrong. The service that people have bought is not somehow giving them more bandwidth or a higher amount of download data simply because they are tethering through the phone. The phone can only download so fast to begin with so any device you connect to it will still be limited.
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
more...
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 08:48 PM
Superb. Replace one fuel reliance on the Middle East with another. Genius idea.
You may have little choice.
You may have little choice.
more...
fehhkk
Mar 18, 12:44 PM
Carriers don't seem to understand that if you consume your 2GB data allowance in one day, it's actually better for them, because they will get your for overages :D
Stupid AT&T.
On a separate note, I don't think I mind paying $20 for an extra 2GB of data. I was paying $59.99 for a Verizon USB data stick for a 5GB/mo. plan... So, since I don't tether that much, it seems adequate, *AND* I can switch off the tethering plan as I need it (without getting into a 2 year contract for just a USB data stick).
Stupid AT&T.
On a separate note, I don't think I mind paying $20 for an extra 2GB of data. I was paying $59.99 for a Verizon USB data stick for a 5GB/mo. plan... So, since I don't tether that much, it seems adequate, *AND* I can switch off the tethering plan as I need it (without getting into a 2 year contract for just a USB data stick).
more...
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now.
Nope, not better - faster. Nobody is saying Macs suck - they're saying Macs are slow. I paid $2300 for 550MHz of G4 molasses last year when I could have bought a PC notebook that kicked the pants off it performance-wise. But I don't regret my purchase decision. I would buy the same computer again today (well, maybe the iBook instead).
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now.
Nope, not better - faster. Nobody is saying Macs suck - they're saying Macs are slow. I paid $2300 for 550MHz of G4 molasses last year when I could have bought a PC notebook that kicked the pants off it performance-wise. But I don't regret my purchase decision. I would buy the same computer again today (well, maybe the iBook instead).
Popeye206
Apr 9, 08:45 AM
And the Eco system grows. I love it!
I really feel that Gaming will eventually be one of the things that really make the iOS devices fly even more than now. :) Love it!
I really feel that Gaming will eventually be one of the things that really make the iOS devices fly even more than now. :) Love it!
AtomBoy
Oct 7, 08:08 PM
Hi WanaPBnow,
Yeah, you guessed it, I'm an ex-pat!
You're right. Apple needs to 'kick-start' the Power PC. I hope the IBM rumours are true and we'll see a G5 sometime next year that can really compete with Intel/AMD.
If the speed/cost ratio continues to widen considerably over the next 12 months Apple might lose a number of loyalists.
Yeah, you guessed it, I'm an ex-pat!
You're right. Apple needs to 'kick-start' the Power PC. I hope the IBM rumours are true and we'll see a G5 sometime next year that can really compete with Intel/AMD.
If the speed/cost ratio continues to widen considerably over the next 12 months Apple might lose a number of loyalists.
jav6454
Mar 18, 04:07 AM
Big Thumbs up AT&T. I am glad they are just taking it to enroll people into the 2gig plan and add tethering, saves people the trouble of having to do it themselves!
Plus I won't have to subsidize their data usage from their stealing bandwidth and access from AT&T.
I can't wait though, in a few weeks / months, though, when we start seeing people complaining how AT&T screwed them and changed their dataplan even though they did nothing wrong and weren't using MyFi and AT&T is horrible and a crook.
It is coming...
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base. It is probably pretty easy for them to determine it. I suspect Apple has included some kind of method for them to determine it. People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
Someone is failing... hard
Plus I won't have to subsidize their data usage from their stealing bandwidth and access from AT&T.
I can't wait though, in a few weeks / months, though, when we start seeing people complaining how AT&T screwed them and changed their dataplan even though they did nothing wrong and weren't using MyFi and AT&T is horrible and a crook.
It is coming...
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base. It is probably pretty easy for them to determine it. I suspect Apple has included some kind of method for them to determine it. People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
Someone is failing... hard
more...
leomac08
Mar 11, 01:05 AM
I have been seeing the breaking news, I saw a tsunami!:(
It was originally 7.9 then upgraded to 8.8, then 8.9:eek:
It's so devastating! Cars couldn't escape!:eek:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12709598
It was originally 7.9 then upgraded to 8.8, then 8.9:eek:
It's so devastating! Cars couldn't escape!:eek:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12709598
more...
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 07:06 PM
That makes no sense at all..
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
That's why I said this:
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
Read more carefully.
-Clive
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
That's why I said this:
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
Read more carefully.
-Clive
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:59 PM
The facts get distorted by deceptive TOS's from At&t and peoples own agendas.
It's not deceptive. It's just that people don't read it until they want to prove/disprove something.
People are more concerned with shortening their wait time/shopping experience online or in the store to get their hands on their devices more so than reading the terms and usage regarding those devices.
But that's not deceptive. You're confusing deceptive with laziness
It's not deceptive. It's just that people don't read it until they want to prove/disprove something.
People are more concerned with shortening their wait time/shopping experience online or in the store to get their hands on their devices more so than reading the terms and usage regarding those devices.
But that's not deceptive. You're confusing deceptive with laziness
darkplanets
Mar 14, 09:19 AM
A voice of reason (read the whole thing):
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
more...
DJsteveSD
Mar 18, 11:51 AM
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
I like that idea, I'm at work and I have a movie running on netflix on my iphone just to use up data, curious to see how much it actually uses as I rarely use 1gb on my unlimited plan...
I like that idea, I'm at work and I have a movie running on netflix on my iphone just to use up data, curious to see how much it actually uses as I rarely use 1gb on my unlimited plan...
more...
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 12:09 PM
And Fear.
And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...
more...
more...
And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...
skunk
Apr 27, 01:15 PM
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated.The real point is that the "Judaeo-Christian God" is not Judaeo-Christian at all, but the chief god of the Ugaritic pantheon, and no more "real" than Zeus, Jupiter, Horus or Astarte.
PCUser
Oct 11, 12:44 PM
This isn't going to further the discussion any, but... javahedi, perhaps you could post a link to the C code? I'd very much like to compile it with GCC under Linux and Windows. Just a curious benchmark, IMO. :) Thanks!
(Doesn't the benchmark do 1,600,000,000 calculations? 20,000 x 20,000 x 4 = 1,600,000,000... am I missing something? It does two adds, one multiply, and one sqrt per cycle. The loop cycles 400,000,000 times... ?)
(Doesn't the benchmark do 1,600,000,000 calculations? 20,000 x 20,000 x 4 = 1,600,000,000... am I missing something? It does two adds, one multiply, and one sqrt per cycle. The loop cycles 400,000,000 times... ?)
Iscariot
Mar 25, 10:51 AM
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
QUANTICO, Va. � An HIV-positive Navy chaplain was sentenced Thursday to two years in prison after pleading guilty to forcible sodomy and other charges. Lt. Cmdr. John Thomas Lee, 42, of Burke, Va., was sentenced after entering a plea agreement at his court-martial at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in northern Virginia. Lee admitted having sex with an Air Force officer without disclosing that he had HIV and forcing himself on a U.S. Naval Academy midshipman. Marine spokesman Maj. Tim Keefe said after Thursday�s hearing that nobody is known to have contracted HIV from Lee. Lee, a Catholic priest, was assigned to the academy from 2003 to 2006 and later to Quantico. He was relieved of his duties in June. The forcible sodomy occurred in the fall of when the midshipman was in his junior year. The midshipman, who was not identified, had previously received counseling from Lee, and said he allowed Lee to perform oral sex on him because he was intimidated by Lee�s status as a chaplain.
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
QUANTICO, Va. � An HIV-positive Navy chaplain was sentenced Thursday to two years in prison after pleading guilty to forcible sodomy and other charges. Lt. Cmdr. John Thomas Lee, 42, of Burke, Va., was sentenced after entering a plea agreement at his court-martial at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in northern Virginia. Lee admitted having sex with an Air Force officer without disclosing that he had HIV and forcing himself on a U.S. Naval Academy midshipman. Marine spokesman Maj. Tim Keefe said after Thursday�s hearing that nobody is known to have contracted HIV from Lee. Lee, a Catholic priest, was assigned to the academy from 2003 to 2006 and later to Quantico. He was relieved of his duties in June. The forcible sodomy occurred in the fall of when the midshipman was in his junior year. The midshipman, who was not identified, had previously received counseling from Lee, and said he allowed Lee to perform oral sex on him because he was intimidated by Lee�s status as a chaplain.
more...
entatlrg
Apr 24, 11:55 AM
It's just another way of the 'stronger minded' to power and control the 'weaker minded' in the world. That's it.
dscuber9000
Mar 24, 07:42 PM
So they can't do it to you, but you can do it to them?
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
As cool as that poster might be..
3. Don't wear sunglasses for nothing. :cool:
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
As cool as that poster might be..
3. Don't wear sunglasses for nothing. :cool:
more...
Mag-subscribe sa:
I-post ang Mga Komento (Atom)
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento