WillEH
Mar 19, 10:56 PM
Don't include me. Your reasoning is as confused as your conclusion. There is absolutely no logic in maintaining that killing is wrong and then appealing to that principle to justify more killing.
I think someone shouldn't play god, but at the same time I agree that if you take a life, your life should be taken ( I know I'm contradicting myself, but that's just HOW I feel ) But I'd also rather someone rot in prison for 50 years. But then again, it's like a holiday camp in prisons here. Playstations, internet, TV. The UK is a complete and utter joke. We're the laughing stock of the world. We're so scared of human rights, we bend over backwords for any prisoner. I'm SO happy that common sense what introduced for prisoner votes.
Justify more killing, I could use the same old line, "I bet their victim didn't want to die", all that crap, but I won't. All I'm going to say is that countries need to show that if you kill, you're not going to get away with it lightly.
When I say "we", I don't speak for everyone, I maybe misworderd it a little..
Republic of Ukistan, if that were a real place (which I have a feeling it is...) I'm sure they would have capital punishement! :p
P.s, I tend to stay away from political threads, but I just couldn't help myself! I always end up getting seriously bashed in them! meh.. :(
I think someone shouldn't play god, but at the same time I agree that if you take a life, your life should be taken ( I know I'm contradicting myself, but that's just HOW I feel ) But I'd also rather someone rot in prison for 50 years. But then again, it's like a holiday camp in prisons here. Playstations, internet, TV. The UK is a complete and utter joke. We're the laughing stock of the world. We're so scared of human rights, we bend over backwords for any prisoner. I'm SO happy that common sense what introduced for prisoner votes.
Justify more killing, I could use the same old line, "I bet their victim didn't want to die", all that crap, but I won't. All I'm going to say is that countries need to show that if you kill, you're not going to get away with it lightly.
When I say "we", I don't speak for everyone, I maybe misworderd it a little..
Republic of Ukistan, if that were a real place (which I have a feeling it is...) I'm sure they would have capital punishement! :p
P.s, I tend to stay away from political threads, but I just couldn't help myself! I always end up getting seriously bashed in them! meh.. :(
manu chao
Apr 4, 06:08 PM
You're right. Ideally they wouldn't need my info. In the grand scheme of things, I personally trust Apple more than I trust most other companies. I also expect to have a continuing long-term relationship with them, that includes person-to-person services in addition to sale of products. I also prefer to have a single point-of-contact I can use to sever any relationships I don't want to continue.
So for me it comes down to "who do you trust?" Apple has, historically, been very good about not subscribing me to mailings I don't want. They also never have sold my info (I know this because I use a different email address in a domain I own for every on-line business I do business with. From this I know who, exactly, sells my info. I just look at who my spam is addressed to).
There are quite a number of companies I trust in addition to Apple (a lot of local ones). I cannot remember to ever having received spam from Google (not that I trust them in everything but in this regard they have been good).
So for me it comes down to "who do you trust?" Apple has, historically, been very good about not subscribing me to mailings I don't want. They also never have sold my info (I know this because I use a different email address in a domain I own for every on-line business I do business with. From this I know who, exactly, sells my info. I just look at who my spam is addressed to).
There are quite a number of companies I trust in addition to Apple (a lot of local ones). I cannot remember to ever having received spam from Google (not that I trust them in everything but in this regard they have been good).
yac_moda
Jul 26, 07:29 PM
TALK ABOUT PRE-ANNOUNCING :confused: :eek: :confused:
Remember when SJ said we support BR ?!?!?!!?
From someone who SWORE NO pre-announcements :eek: :eek:
And still no BlueRay from Apple :eek: :eek: :eek:
Remember when SJ said we support BR ?!?!?!!?
From someone who SWORE NO pre-announcements :eek: :eek:
And still no BlueRay from Apple :eek: :eek: :eek:
PCMacUser
Feb 23, 04:03 PM
Hi Guys and Girls,
Just thought I'd mention that the highly respected PC website "Tom's Hardware Guide" has just posted an absolutely GLOWING review of the Mac Mini on its website today...
http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20050216/index.html
Just thought I'd mention that the highly respected PC website "Tom's Hardware Guide" has just posted an absolutely GLOWING review of the Mac Mini on its website today...
http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20050216/index.html
more...
OrangeSVTguy
Apr 23, 12:43 AM
I have my office on the first floor but just going to turn it into a guest bedroom and move my office to the basement. It's always cold down there so I'll be able to run all my clients again. 6 cores at 4.2ghz puts of quite a bit of heat even with 1.27v. 4 GPUs @ 900mhz puts off quite a bit too lol.
gkarris
Mar 3, 02:38 PM
Jobs, no jobs, no money, more "entitlement" needed so that people don't starve...
Sorry, that's the Truth..
There are jobs "out there" - everything says, "Made in China" and all your calls go to India...
It's a no-brainer...
Sorry, that's the Truth..
There are jobs "out there" - everything says, "Made in China" and all your calls go to India...
It's a no-brainer...
more...
greenerob
Apr 24, 06:57 PM
Forget it, I am an idiot. I figured it out.
DeusInvictus7
Apr 13, 09:53 PM
Link!
http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=§ion=&q=Angry+Bird#/d332s5v
Just change the Wallpaper setting to fit to screen with a black background, fits the best that way.
Those are some angry lookin' birds...
lol yeah, except the white one, looks like he's been holding in that egg a bit too long... :p
http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=§ion=&q=Angry+Bird#/d332s5v
Just change the Wallpaper setting to fit to screen with a black background, fits the best that way.
Those are some angry lookin' birds...
lol yeah, except the white one, looks like he's been holding in that egg a bit too long... :p
more...
Blue Velvet
Mar 2, 12:24 PM
The biggest problem I see with SS is that it's an unsustainable Ponzi Scheme which requires constant growth in population in order to sustain costs incurred by smaller and smaller groups of people.
This is why you are wrong:
Nonetheless, some critics are attempting to undermine confidence in Social Security with wild and blatantly false accusations. They allege that the trust funds have been �raided� or disparage the trust funds as �funny money� or mere �IOUs.� Some even label Social Security a �Ponzi scheme� after the notorious 1920s swindler Charles Ponzi. All of these claims are nonsense.
Every year since 1984, Social Security has collected more in payroll taxes and other income than it pays in benefits and other expenses. (The authors of the 1983 Social Security reform law did this on purpose in order to help pre-fund some of the costs of the baby boomers� retirement.) These surpluses are invested in U.S. Treasury securities that are every bit as sound as the U.S. government securities held by investors around the globe; investors regard these securities as among the world�s very safest investments.
Investing the trust funds in Treasury securities is perfectly appropriate. The federal government borrows funds from Social Security to help finance its ongoing operations in the same way that consumers and businesses borrow money deposited in a bank to finance their spending. In neither case does this represent a �raid� on the funds. The bank depositor will get his or her money back when needed, and so will the Social Security trust funds.
As far back as 1938, independent advisors to Social Security firmly endorsed the investment of Social Security surpluses in Treasury securities, saying that it does �not involve any misuse of these moneys or endanger the safety of these funds.�
Moreover, Social Security is the �polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme,� says the man who quite literally wrote the book about Ponzi�s famous scam, Boston University professor Mitchell Zuckoff. The Social Security Administration�s historian has a piece on this topic as well.
Unlike the frauds of Ponzi � and, more recently, Bernard Madoff � Social Security does not promise unrealistically large financial returns and does not require unsustainable increases in the number of participants to remain solvent. Instead, for the past 75 years it has provided a foundation that workers can build on for retirement as well as social insurance protection to families whose breadwinner dies and workers who become disabled.
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/social-security-sense-and-nonsense/
See, also: Social Security a Ponzi scheme? No way. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009010715)
This is why you are wrong:
Nonetheless, some critics are attempting to undermine confidence in Social Security with wild and blatantly false accusations. They allege that the trust funds have been �raided� or disparage the trust funds as �funny money� or mere �IOUs.� Some even label Social Security a �Ponzi scheme� after the notorious 1920s swindler Charles Ponzi. All of these claims are nonsense.
Every year since 1984, Social Security has collected more in payroll taxes and other income than it pays in benefits and other expenses. (The authors of the 1983 Social Security reform law did this on purpose in order to help pre-fund some of the costs of the baby boomers� retirement.) These surpluses are invested in U.S. Treasury securities that are every bit as sound as the U.S. government securities held by investors around the globe; investors regard these securities as among the world�s very safest investments.
Investing the trust funds in Treasury securities is perfectly appropriate. The federal government borrows funds from Social Security to help finance its ongoing operations in the same way that consumers and businesses borrow money deposited in a bank to finance their spending. In neither case does this represent a �raid� on the funds. The bank depositor will get his or her money back when needed, and so will the Social Security trust funds.
As far back as 1938, independent advisors to Social Security firmly endorsed the investment of Social Security surpluses in Treasury securities, saying that it does �not involve any misuse of these moneys or endanger the safety of these funds.�
Moreover, Social Security is the �polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme,� says the man who quite literally wrote the book about Ponzi�s famous scam, Boston University professor Mitchell Zuckoff. The Social Security Administration�s historian has a piece on this topic as well.
Unlike the frauds of Ponzi � and, more recently, Bernard Madoff � Social Security does not promise unrealistically large financial returns and does not require unsustainable increases in the number of participants to remain solvent. Instead, for the past 75 years it has provided a foundation that workers can build on for retirement as well as social insurance protection to families whose breadwinner dies and workers who become disabled.
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/social-security-sense-and-nonsense/
See, also: Social Security a Ponzi scheme? No way. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009010715)
yadmonkey
May 3, 12:21 PM
You already have a few members in this thread who said they're not eligible.
A number of ineligible donors is not the same as a lack of eligible donors. That's basic logic.
A number of ineligible donors is not the same as a lack of eligible donors. That's basic logic.
more...
opticalserenity
Jul 10, 11:49 PM
I'll be at the Perimeter Mall store around 0700, who else? :apple::apple:
Hollowman7717
Mar 26, 08:12 PM
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280645752954&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.com%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm570%26_nkw%3D280645752954%26_fvi%3D 1&_rdc=1
Look at this eBay listing, read the description, this seller is selling a "picture" of an iPhone 4 for $340 can you believe this? Be aware buyers read the description before buying on eBay
Look at this eBay listing, read the description, this seller is selling a "picture" of an iPhone 4 for $340 can you believe this? Be aware buyers read the description before buying on eBay
more...
TheBobcat
Nov 29, 04:24 PM
Napster was AWESOME! It worked, had few viruses (at least in the beginning) and was fast for the time. Ah, good memories of getting home from middle school and loading up...
Ugh, now we get HDCP. Reminds me of that DIVX thing they pushed back in the day. Every time new stuff comes along, they try and DRM the crap out of it. Good thing DIVX went down in flames.
PS: DIVX is not the codec for video, it was a "self-destructing" DVD variant.
Ugh, now we get HDCP. Reminds me of that DIVX thing they pushed back in the day. Every time new stuff comes along, they try and DRM the crap out of it. Good thing DIVX went down in flames.
PS: DIVX is not the codec for video, it was a "self-destructing" DVD variant.
irmongoose
Nov 29, 12:19 PM
Practically speaking...
If they limit the number of iPods you can transfer the movies onto, how are they going to differentiate between an additional iPod and one you replaced for a newer one? What I mean is, if they would only allow for a transfer to 5 iPods, and let's say you have 5 and one breaks, or eventually you replace them all for newly released ones, how will they be able to differentiate that from an "additional 6th iPod"?
The entire scheme is flawed. Practically speaking.
irmongoose
If they limit the number of iPods you can transfer the movies onto, how are they going to differentiate between an additional iPod and one you replaced for a newer one? What I mean is, if they would only allow for a transfer to 5 iPods, and let's say you have 5 and one breaks, or eventually you replace them all for newly released ones, how will they be able to differentiate that from an "additional 6th iPod"?
The entire scheme is flawed. Practically speaking.
irmongoose
more...
kingledley
May 3, 05:43 AM
Guessing that MobileMe (as it is now) will go free, and then the premium service will allow backup and access to all your system. $100 a year for that would definitely be worth it.
ZaSheR
Dec 5, 08:50 AM
Something I did up to fill in the void behind this huge screen!
262905
262906
262905
262906
more...
mikki-r
Jul 6, 01:17 PM
My husband and I both have off work and we're planning to show up at the AT&T store on Street Rd. around 6am :) . Hopefully that will be early enough for us to get our 3g iPhones!
Doc750
Feb 10, 10:57 AM
am i missing something? Its not showing up for me.
log out and log back in. See if that works, also make sure your making changes on the primary line, not a secondary one. (if you have one)
log out and log back in. See if that works, also make sure your making changes on the primary line, not a secondary one. (if you have one)
celticpride678
Apr 30, 09:56 PM
I searched around in Safari's resource files and couldn't find anything. Not sure where MacRumors got it.
Lennholm
Apr 29, 04:12 AM
So Samsung believed Apple was violating it's patents all this time but decided to do nothing about it. Now that they have been pushed they decide to act. Sounds to me they are trying to find whatever they can to bite back at Apple.
Well it could be that they thought they had a mutual understanding with Apple that they could borrow some technologies from each other but now that Apple choose to sue (Apple waited too you know, the Galaxy S wasn't exactly launched two weeks ago) Samsung is not gonna let it slide. I'm not commenting on the validity of the claim but I want to point out that people should remember that patents aren't only for the tangible things we consumers see, like the similarities between iOS and Touchwiz, but also the transparent to us consumers- under the hood technology, for which Samsung holds lots of patents.
Well it could be that they thought they had a mutual understanding with Apple that they could borrow some technologies from each other but now that Apple choose to sue (Apple waited too you know, the Galaxy S wasn't exactly launched two weeks ago) Samsung is not gonna let it slide. I'm not commenting on the validity of the claim but I want to point out that people should remember that patents aren't only for the tangible things we consumers see, like the similarities between iOS and Touchwiz, but also the transparent to us consumers- under the hood technology, for which Samsung holds lots of patents.
maverick808
Jan 9, 04:26 PM
only england eh?
not scotland, wales and northern ireland?:rolleyes:
Only countries in Great Britain eh? Not Ireland, France, Germany.. the rest of Europe? :rolleyes: ;)
not scotland, wales and northern ireland?:rolleyes:
Only countries in Great Britain eh? Not Ireland, France, Germany.. the rest of Europe? :rolleyes: ;)
steadysignal
Apr 6, 12:34 PM
This is torture... I just wish Apple would send out invitations for another event and tell us themselves what it is that we will be seeing. Please, Apple?
it really matters that much to you? is it that big of a deal?
it really matters that much to you? is it that big of a deal?
SeattleMoose
Apr 7, 03:04 PM
I will always have a soft spot for Atari. My first PC in 1987 was an Atari 1040 ST Mega 2 which had (hang on to something...) 2 Megabytes of RAM and a 8Mhz CPU. I added on a HUGE 20MB hard drive the size of a shoebox. I bought it coz of the built-in MIDI port which I used to drive my recording studio.
In it's day it was a GREAT computer!!!
Favorite game - "Leisure Suit Larry in The Land of The Loung Lizards". :rolleyes:
In it's day it was a GREAT computer!!!
Favorite game - "Leisure Suit Larry in The Land of The Loung Lizards". :rolleyes:
chris975d
Nov 19, 12:49 PM
Doubtful since their warranty does not transfer to a second hand buyer. If I were to buy an iPod and then sell it on ebay a few weeks later the new owner would not be covered.
That is where Apple COULD screw anyone buying iPads from TJ Maxx, if they wanted to. Since TJM isn't an authorized retailer, and if they are buying from a 3rd party (who, presumably IS an authorized retailer), TJ Maxx becomes the 1st owner of the product (no different than when an individual purchases from an authorized retailer). But Apple typically honors warranties even when it's not under the original purchaser, as I know I've sold an iPod touch to a friend and he's had it warranty replaced twice already. But then again, he's always said he was me when taking it to the Genius Bar, as it pulls up my info since it's registered to me. But I doubt Apple would do any of this (invalidating the warranties) due to the bad press they'd get.
That is where Apple COULD screw anyone buying iPads from TJ Maxx, if they wanted to. Since TJM isn't an authorized retailer, and if they are buying from a 3rd party (who, presumably IS an authorized retailer), TJ Maxx becomes the 1st owner of the product (no different than when an individual purchases from an authorized retailer). But Apple typically honors warranties even when it's not under the original purchaser, as I know I've sold an iPod touch to a friend and he's had it warranty replaced twice already. But then again, he's always said he was me when taking it to the Genius Bar, as it pulls up my info since it's registered to me. But I doubt Apple would do any of this (invalidating the warranties) due to the bad press they'd get.
0 comments:
Post a Comment