killr_b
Jul 12, 03:56 PM
And finally... you have a black macbook pro? I'm impressed. :P So did you use Krylon?
Dude, check it out... http://www.colorwarepc.com/products/select_MacBookPro.aspx
A black Macbook Pro looks cool, right. :cool:
Dude, check it out... http://www.colorwarepc.com/products/select_MacBookPro.aspx
A black Macbook Pro looks cool, right. :cool:
Apple OC
Apr 24, 12:00 AM
For what it's worth, I don't think you're an idiot.
You simply made a statement that I'm not willing to make.
I make the statement because that is how I see things ... as I said there is not even remote evidence that there are Gods or that there ever were.
Science has given me very logical and believable answers as to how life formed on Earth.
I am not one that is still searching for answers. ... some so called Atheists are hoping for the proof that there is or is not a God. ... Science has already given me all the proof I need.
You simply made a statement that I'm not willing to make.
I make the statement because that is how I see things ... as I said there is not even remote evidence that there are Gods or that there ever were.
Science has given me very logical and believable answers as to how life formed on Earth.
I am not one that is still searching for answers. ... some so called Atheists are hoping for the proof that there is or is not a God. ... Science has already given me all the proof I need.
shawnce
Jul 12, 10:53 AM
The most intelligent post on this thread.
...but Intel has workstation chipsets that support the Xeon 51xx series and they have 16x PCIe (among several other nice things)...
For example...
Intel� 5000X Chipset (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm) (Product Brief PDF (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/product_brief.pdf))
Also review page 7 of this PDF (http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc51kprodbrief.pdf).
...but Intel has workstation chipsets that support the Xeon 51xx series and they have 16x PCIe (among several other nice things)...
For example...
Intel� 5000X Chipset (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm) (Product Brief PDF (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/product_brief.pdf))
Also review page 7 of this PDF (http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc51kprodbrief.pdf).
Bernard SG
Apr 28, 07:30 AM
Q2 figures will tell a different story, I would bet.
bartelby
Apr 15, 09:25 AM
Why on earth are people marking this as 'negative'?!?
CaoCao
Mar 24, 08:24 PM
If I said that I don't want blacks to be married, because it hurts the sacrament of marriage, would that be hate? I think that it would be.
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
I didn't realize that the Catholic Church had an irrational fear of homosexuals. Since the Catholic Church has an irrational fear of homosexuals could you please help me figure out the growing outreach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_International) to homosexuals?
From the article:
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
I didn't realize that there was black behavior
While one can't change their orientation one does chose their actions.
It is also quite unpopular to be a member of the KKK. Shall we similarly go out of our way to show compassion and tolerance for their most deeply held convictions? Or am I perhaps being cruel and unfair to the guy in the sheet when I call him an a-hole and suggest he shape up his attitude or don't act surprised when civilized human beings don't like him very much.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
Could you cite examples of mainline Catholicism lynching homosexuals, burning cross on their lawns, bombing their houses etc?
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
I didn't realize that the Catholic Church had an irrational fear of homosexuals. Since the Catholic Church has an irrational fear of homosexuals could you please help me figure out the growing outreach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_International) to homosexuals?
From the article:
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
I didn't realize that there was black behavior
While one can't change their orientation one does chose their actions.
It is also quite unpopular to be a member of the KKK. Shall we similarly go out of our way to show compassion and tolerance for their most deeply held convictions? Or am I perhaps being cruel and unfair to the guy in the sheet when I call him an a-hole and suggest he shape up his attitude or don't act surprised when civilized human beings don't like him very much.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
Could you cite examples of mainline Catholicism lynching homosexuals, burning cross on their lawns, bombing their houses etc?
robotfist
Apr 12, 10:24 PM
I was following the tweets, the live blogs, and a few crappy cell phone streams during this release.
Until Apple puts up their official site, it's too early to tell if the new FCP is a game changer.
Based on the description, it sounds amazing.
Based on the terrible pictures, it looks questionable.
I always go into new software releases with an open mind. I'm hoping the new FCP is as amazing as it sounds.
Whatever it is, $299 is pretty fantastic.
Until Apple puts up their official site, it's too early to tell if the new FCP is a game changer.
Based on the description, it sounds amazing.
Based on the terrible pictures, it looks questionable.
I always go into new software releases with an open mind. I'm hoping the new FCP is as amazing as it sounds.
Whatever it is, $299 is pretty fantastic.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 10:39 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
but worth it :D. if they get conroe i fully expect that most every G5 will be outclassed by IMACS at many applications. Depends on how much RAM they give it though. I hope they give imac at least 4GB capacity, and 256VRAM.
but worth it :D. if they get conroe i fully expect that most every G5 will be outclassed by IMACS at many applications. Depends on how much RAM they give it though. I hope they give imac at least 4GB capacity, and 256VRAM.
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
Chappers
Mar 13, 12:13 PM
When pumps failed to pump in water and the back up diesel powered generators failed they ran into problems.
If its important - have more than one backup. Risk assessment means always thinking of the worse case scenario. Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
If its important - have more than one backup. Risk assessment means always thinking of the worse case scenario. Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
Vonnie
Mar 18, 03:01 PM
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 01:50 AM
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.)
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
awmazz
Mar 11, 07:51 AM
Japanese police are reporting several hundred bodies on a beach near Sendai so it looks like as per the Indonesian tsunami the official toll will skyrocket once the water recedes.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 06:32 PM
Maybe not in the New Testament, but certainly in the Old.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.
h'biki
Mar 20, 05:33 PM
Likewise, the BILLIONS of songs "stolen" vs. purchased on iTMS speaks volumes about people's feeling about DRM, RIAA, and these laws you speak so highly of..
I suspect it probably has more to do with the fact the music is free than it has to do with ideology. People were pirating music way before the RIAA and DRM became 'evil'. They're the justification for piracy, not the reason.
Piracy is an economic behaviour. I can point you to plenty of impartial (ie not funded by anyone) studies on this. In order to stop piracy you have to compete with it. Both sides are dressing it up as some kind of moral war, but it (mostly) isn't.
I suspect it probably has more to do with the fact the music is free than it has to do with ideology. People were pirating music way before the RIAA and DRM became 'evil'. They're the justification for piracy, not the reason.
Piracy is an economic behaviour. I can point you to plenty of impartial (ie not funded by anyone) studies on this. In order to stop piracy you have to compete with it. Both sides are dressing it up as some kind of moral war, but it (mostly) isn't.
Sydde
Mar 15, 12:12 PM
There's too much hysteria over this. This plant has been hit by a force 9 earthquake and a tsunami and yet although some radiation has been released this is by no means anything like as serious as Chernobyl.
In a world where the security risks and economics of oil and natural gas are on their way to being untenable and the renewable energy options cannot realistically meet the world's ever growing energy demands, the benefits of nuclear fission far outweigh the risks, particularly when you consider that the public and worker fatalities relating to fission reactors are dwarfed in comparison to those from energy generation from fossil fuels, petrochemicals and natural gas.
Do you write brochures for a living?
In a world where the security risks and economics of oil and natural gas are on their way to being untenable and the renewable energy options cannot realistically meet the world's ever growing energy demands, the benefits of nuclear fission far outweigh the risks, particularly when you consider that the public and worker fatalities relating to fission reactors are dwarfed in comparison to those from energy generation from fossil fuels, petrochemicals and natural gas.
Do you write brochures for a living?
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 04:35 PM
bad example. ok so you think that o-zone deterioration has NO effect on global warming?
First of all, I did study physics before, but this is not my area eventhough I work in research. But I do know this, the actual causuality between the deterioation of the ozon layer and global warming is very complex.
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
First of all, I did study physics before, but this is not my area eventhough I work in research. But I do know this, the actual causuality between the deterioation of the ozon layer and global warming is very complex.
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
munkery
May 2, 05:30 PM
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
SuperCachetes
Mar 14, 09:14 AM
So far, we are several days past multiple earthquakes and aftershocks, and so far there has been no nuclear disaster. That's where we are at right now. Thus, I have more confidence than ever in nuclear power as the way to go.
...And that would be a fine position, if vulnerability to natural disasters were the only strike against nuclear power. It isn't.
I guess what gets to me is I know people affected by this, living in shelters right now who lost everything, including a guy who lived a mere 3 km from the Fukushima plant, so I guess I'm just thinking of all the people with much more primary needs right now that worrying about a nuclear power plant they've lived in the shadow of problem-free for 40 years.
Not to trivialize the immediate suffering or catastrophe at all, but should a full meltdown occur at one of those reactors, I expect that it will very quickly become the "primary" issue of anyone nearby.
...And that would be a fine position, if vulnerability to natural disasters were the only strike against nuclear power. It isn't.
I guess what gets to me is I know people affected by this, living in shelters right now who lost everything, including a guy who lived a mere 3 km from the Fukushima plant, so I guess I'm just thinking of all the people with much more primary needs right now that worrying about a nuclear power plant they've lived in the shadow of problem-free for 40 years.
Not to trivialize the immediate suffering or catastrophe at all, but should a full meltdown occur at one of those reactors, I expect that it will very quickly become the "primary" issue of anyone nearby.
FreeState
Apr 15, 01:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWYqsaJk_U8
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
----------------------------------------------------------------
***Moderator Note: This thread is now associated with a front-page news story (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/15/apple-employees-contribute-to-it-gets-better-project/). Due to the potentially controversial nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
----------------------------------------------------------------
***Moderator Note: This thread is now associated with a front-page news story (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/15/apple-employees-contribute-to-it-gets-better-project/). Due to the potentially controversial nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Sodner
Mar 18, 08:44 AM
Get em AT&T. Bust them all. Hold them to the contracts they signed. Fine them, cancel them, jail them. Do what's in your right per the contract to punish all the theives.
leekohler
Mar 28, 03:22 AM
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they thought they they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still wouldn't accept gay sex. Neither would any orthodox pope.
I'm sorry, but who says you have to have gay sex? Obviously, it's what made those artists happy, but ultimately it's none of your or anyone else's business. Why you constantly try to make it your business is puzzling.
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
Oh- I most certainly do. It means, "Be who you are, just don't act like who you are." It's quite clear. And if me loving another human being and building a life with them makes your god angry, so be it. I have no use for that god. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than spend eternity with something that horrible and judgemental. Fortunately, "god" does not exist, and when we die, we die. While I'm here, I will make the most of my life and help others do the same. You can do what you want.
I'm sorry, but who says you have to have gay sex? Obviously, it's what made those artists happy, but ultimately it's none of your or anyone else's business. Why you constantly try to make it your business is puzzling.
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
Oh- I most certainly do. It means, "Be who you are, just don't act like who you are." It's quite clear. And if me loving another human being and building a life with them makes your god angry, so be it. I have no use for that god. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than spend eternity with something that horrible and judgemental. Fortunately, "god" does not exist, and when we die, we die. While I'm here, I will make the most of my life and help others do the same. You can do what you want.
toddybody
Apr 15, 09:32 AM
These teens are just people who are hurting because of the terrible actions others place on them. That empathy needs to be universal...regardless of your opinion on sexuality.
For all you young guys and gals hurting out there, stay strong because you have so many wonderful things ahead of you. It will get better, there are so many people just like you...and you're loved. God Bless, I cant wait to see what you all accomplish:)
For all you young guys and gals hurting out there, stay strong because you have so many wonderful things ahead of you. It will get better, there are so many people just like you...and you're loved. God Bless, I cant wait to see what you all accomplish:)
Peterkro
Mar 13, 03:01 PM
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alternative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alternative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf