Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 12:07 AM
When your moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature are bigoted and wrong, yes, we will attack you. Get used to it because that is the direction the world is moving, like it or not.
Matthew 5:10-12
Matthew 5:10-12
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:46 AM
Even if this were true (and it's demonstrably not true), the whole thing is based on the completely erroneous idea that morality should be dictated by any of our holy books. We do a disservice to humanity by allowing ourselves to remain captive to these bronze age ideals of what is right and wrong.
Erroneous idea to you, but that's just like, your opinion, man.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
You know, it's pretty easy to see why some are tempted to just dig in and declare you to be an enemy to be fought at any price - after they extend an olive branch and people like you still come back accusing hate.
It is hateful to trivialize a person's identity; to claim that homosexuality is a "trial", that must be overcome. It's dehumanizing, and it's hateful.
Funny. I find you to be the second most bigoted person I've seen so far on this thread. But that's just like, my opinion.
Erroneous idea to you, but that's just like, your opinion, man.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
You know, it's pretty easy to see why some are tempted to just dig in and declare you to be an enemy to be fought at any price - after they extend an olive branch and people like you still come back accusing hate.
It is hateful to trivialize a person's identity; to claim that homosexuality is a "trial", that must be overcome. It's dehumanizing, and it's hateful.
Funny. I find you to be the second most bigoted person I've seen so far on this thread. But that's just like, my opinion.
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?
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 11:33 AM
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes... "TelePort."
My ingenious title is catching on... I realize this post is off topic but we're on page 9. how much more relevant conversation can be had on this topic?
Anyway, I think it would be totally sweet if there were a cult folowing of people who wanted to call it TelePort. Then Apple would have no choice but to call it that...
...well I mean they would have a choice...
...and they'd probably choose not to call it that...
...but it'd still be sweet...
...right, guys?
...guys?
-Clive
Yes... "TelePort."
My ingenious title is catching on... I realize this post is off topic but we're on page 9. how much more relevant conversation can be had on this topic?
Anyway, I think it would be totally sweet if there were a cult folowing of people who wanted to call it TelePort. Then Apple would have no choice but to call it that...
...well I mean they would have a choice...
...and they'd probably choose not to call it that...
...but it'd still be sweet...
...right, guys?
...guys?
-Clive
ATG
Nov 1, 03:46 PM
The problem is that Appkit isn't thread safe, and until it is you aren't going to see much on the multithreading side. It's fine for a renderer but for your run of the mill GUI app like keynote or pages or iLife there isn't much point.
leekohler
Mar 28, 12:41 AM
Amazing. Not a word in response.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
Ljohnson72
Jan 28, 10:59 PM
Because Android isn't an OS that is on multiple devices on multiple carriers. :rolleyes:
dubbz
Mar 18, 05:07 PM
I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
Theft? That's really stretching it! If it allowed you to download music without paying, then I'd agree, but it doesn't.
Also, It might be illegal, but I certainly don't agree that it's unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
Theft? That's really stretching it! If it allowed you to download music without paying, then I'd agree, but it doesn't.
Also, It might be illegal, but I certainly don't agree that it's unethical.
Multimedia
Oct 20, 12:59 PM
Now to pre-arrange for the 8-core Mac Pro's arrival next month. :)
I'm now working with
Two 20" - 1600 x 1200 Dells
One 24" - 1920 x 1200 Dell
One 30" - 2560 x 1600 Dell
Two 15" - 1024 x 768 Original 15" Analog Bondai Blue Apple Studio Displays
2 PowerMac G5's Quad, 2GHz Dual Core + 1 Old 1.25GHz PowerBook G4
2 G4 Cubes
for a total of 9 cores totaling 16.2GHz. :p
Original retail cost of all of the above about $13,000
New 8-Core Mac Pro @ 2.66GHz each totaling 21.28GHz for about $4,000
I'm now working with
Two 20" - 1600 x 1200 Dells
One 24" - 1920 x 1200 Dell
One 30" - 2560 x 1600 Dell
Two 15" - 1024 x 768 Original 15" Analog Bondai Blue Apple Studio Displays
2 PowerMac G5's Quad, 2GHz Dual Core + 1 Old 1.25GHz PowerBook G4
2 G4 Cubes
for a total of 9 cores totaling 16.2GHz. :p
Original retail cost of all of the above about $13,000
New 8-Core Mac Pro @ 2.66GHz each totaling 21.28GHz for about $4,000
Doctor Q
Sep 12, 04:34 PM
Thread cross-reference: The The Offical iTV Speculation Thread by RedTomato discusses the questions of what the iTV will be able to play.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 01:54 PM
should we start with the freedom of choices for women?
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
AdrianK
Apr 6, 11:16 AM
- Viewing/deleting files in/modifying/... zipfiles without having to extract them first. In windows, I could just mess around in zipfiles or rars with files. If someone has a good app for that, let me know ;-)
Get Springy. It's literally *the* WinRAR alternative for OS X.
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
Get Springy. It's literally *the* WinRAR alternative for OS X.
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
LagunaSol
Apr 20, 10:10 PM
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
If more people added the chronic agitators to their Ignore list, no one would see their drivel, hence no one would respond to it, hence those of us who had long ago added them to our Ignore list wouldn't have to see their quoted drivel.
If more people added the chronic agitators to their Ignore list, no one would see their drivel, hence no one would respond to it, hence those of us who had long ago added them to our Ignore list wouldn't have to see their quoted drivel.
tsboy69
Nov 15, 01:10 AM
I was very happy with the IPhone 4 vs. my 3G - much less dropped calls, faster, etc. etc. This was in June
For the past few months though, the service seems to have gotten worse in the Los Angeles area - I drop a ton these days.....
That being said, I will admit I have a Vapor case on the phone and that is probably part of the issue....
For the past few months though, the service seems to have gotten worse in the Los Angeles area - I drop a ton these days.....
That being said, I will admit I have a Vapor case on the phone and that is probably part of the issue....
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:10 PM
The Qur'an is considered the perfect and literal word of allah.
muhammad is considered allah's perfect man and messenger on earth to be emulated by all men.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
Secular Democracy and democratic laws are made by human beings.
Human beings are necessarily not as perfect as God.
Therefore, under Islam adhering to man-made laws over divinely mandated laws is considered blasphemy.
Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin.
I must also express that Sharia Law is a framework, and is based on both Quran and examples set of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) { which are derived from the Quran}.
muhammad is considered allah's perfect man and messenger on earth to be emulated by all men.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
Secular Democracy and democratic laws are made by human beings.
Human beings are necessarily not as perfect as God.
Therefore, under Islam adhering to man-made laws over divinely mandated laws is considered blasphemy.
Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin.
I must also express that Sharia Law is a framework, and is based on both Quran and examples set of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) { which are derived from the Quran}.
mrwalker
Aug 29, 12:39 PM
As a Norwegian I can say that Apple has way more credibility than Greenpeace over here. We have seen what they are all about. Greenpeace is a bunch of spoiled city kids that has no idea what nature is.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 09:57 PM
And if over two thousand years from now people still believe in the Higgs Boson despite no evidence that it exists I'd likely be skeptical of their beliefs as well.
Hopefully we will find the answer soon enough because there are scientists working on both sides to prove and disprove the higgs boson and once we have it agreed one way or the other, we won't have many scientists preaching that you should have blind faith alone. The higgs boson is not going to be testing our loyalty!
The key thing for me that gives science credibility over religion is the ability to go back and revise your "beliefs" based on more recent findings or new understanding.
Hopefully we will find the answer soon enough because there are scientists working on both sides to prove and disprove the higgs boson and once we have it agreed one way or the other, we won't have many scientists preaching that you should have blind faith alone. The higgs boson is not going to be testing our loyalty!
The key thing for me that gives science credibility over religion is the ability to go back and revise your "beliefs" based on more recent findings or new understanding.
Gosh
Sep 12, 06:09 PM
Hi All, Hi Al!
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
mscriv
Apr 12, 09:52 AM
The biggest hassle was keyboard differences for me. Some keys I use quite often like "home" and "end" are missing.
My Mac keyboard has "home" and "end" keys. They function differently in basic use from Windows though. If you are talking about being able to jump to the beginning and end of a line of text (like in Word) then the Mac shortcut is command + Left or Right Arrow depending on whether you are going to the beginning or end of the line.
My Mac keyboard has "home" and "end" keys. They function differently in basic use from Windows though. If you are talking about being able to jump to the beginning and end of a line of text (like in Word) then the Mac shortcut is command + Left or Right Arrow depending on whether you are going to the beginning or end of the line.
squibran
Sep 12, 04:18 PM
I am looking forward to the specs of this device
I bought a Mac Mini and found that it would not show up on my Acer 24" tv while running as a mac but would if I booted up as a PC - I checked resolution and refresh rate when working as a PC and replicated it when in Mac mode but to no effect.
Has anyone else had problems like this?
I tried using DVI and VGA and the same with both - worked as a PC but not as a Mac.
Also interested in the new device as to whether it will read my Iphoto libraries?
Any sound advice appreciated!!
I bought a Mac Mini and found that it would not show up on my Acer 24" tv while running as a mac but would if I booted up as a PC - I checked resolution and refresh rate when working as a PC and replicated it when in Mac mode but to no effect.
Has anyone else had problems like this?
I tried using DVI and VGA and the same with both - worked as a PC but not as a Mac.
Also interested in the new device as to whether it will read my Iphoto libraries?
Any sound advice appreciated!!
Multimedia
Oct 14, 12:31 PM
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.I may have jumped the gun. Maybe it's not too much more. When I look at the published price of each 3GHz Woodcrest $851 and each 2.33GHz Clovertown $851, I can live with +$800 for either upgrade. ;)Maybe it is so when the quad-core systems come out Apple can keep the same price for the top-end while lowering the price on dual-core systems and still make a profit. The people that wait for the quad-cores will be happy they did and the people that don't care can get a Mac Pro for less because they waited. And each 2.66GHz Clovertown is published as $1172 so I'm surmising a + $1100 - $3599 - could be expected for top of the line Fall '06 8-Core Mac Pro - only $300 more than last year's Quad G5. :eek:
Plus once Clovertown ships, seems like Intel would begin lowering the price of Woodcrest to their customers as well. So I think you may be right. Wouldn't hurt. :p
Ain't technological progress astounding and fun? :D
Plus once Clovertown ships, seems like Intel would begin lowering the price of Woodcrest to their customers as well. So I think you may be right. Wouldn't hurt. :p
Ain't technological progress astounding and fun? :D
brianus
Sep 26, 12:47 PM
Tigerton is after Clovertown. It's 4 cores in a one dye package instead of 4 cores in two dyes in one package. But I'm not gonna wait for Tigerrton which I believe is scheduled for production in Spring 2007. Dual Clovertown is my next Mac for sure.
I'm aware of Tigerton, but I was told in another thread that it's not a true successor to Clovertown and could not possibly be used in a Mac Pro. That being the case, is Clovertown it until -- Harpertown?
I'm aware of Tigerton, but I was told in another thread that it's not a true successor to Clovertown and could not possibly be used in a Mac Pro. That being the case, is Clovertown it until -- Harpertown?
skunk
Mar 27, 07:50 AM
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes.I think being Catholic is a psychological problem, but it doesn't mean that I have any desire to deny Catholics the same rights as anyone else.
Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.This sentence (or phrase) is completely unintelligible.
Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.This sentence (or phrase) is completely unintelligible.
mpstrex
Aug 29, 04:09 PM
Actually, he's on the Al Gore movement. ;)
NO! Al Gore is in it for himself? I thought he was a selfless guy, out for the environment. I mean, his movie DID make over $20 million and the budget was REAL low, and the majority of the crew worked on it for free...
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=inconvenienttruth.htm
NO! Al Gore is in it for himself? I thought he was a selfless guy, out for the environment. I mean, his movie DID make over $20 million and the budget was REAL low, and the majority of the crew worked on it for free...
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=inconvenienttruth.htm