takao
Mar 14, 06:17 PM
there seem to be news breaking of an explosion at reactor 2 but without any more specifics so far
edit: at the press conference http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-world-tv the press seems to be 'tearing them a new one'
so far from i have gathered:
- explosion noises from the suppression pool
- pressure in the suppression pool dropping (but might be damaged gauge)
- personal is evacuated except direct operaters and personal required for water injections (even evacuated from reacter 1+3 operations)
- 2.7 meters of the fuel rods exposed
tecpo constantly trying to dodge questions on wether serious damages have been done to the containment vessel
edit: at the press conference http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-world-tv the press seems to be 'tearing them a new one'
so far from i have gathered:
- explosion noises from the suppression pool
- pressure in the suppression pool dropping (but might be damaged gauge)
- personal is evacuated except direct operaters and personal required for water injections (even evacuated from reacter 1+3 operations)
- 2.7 meters of the fuel rods exposed
tecpo constantly trying to dodge questions on wether serious damages have been done to the containment vessel
BornAgainMac
Apr 13, 04:40 AM
Finally Grand Central has been used in a major app.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
latergator116
Mar 19, 08:51 AM
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.
NewGenAdam
Mar 11, 04:53 PM
"10.45pm GMT: Now there are reports from nuclear plant operator Tepco that the Fukushima No 2 plant has lost cooling to three of its reactors.
It was one reactor in the Fukushima No 1 plant that had been the cause for concern earlier – so this news is certainly unwelcome."
British newspaper, The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-tsunami-earthquake-live-coverage)
-very good and quickly updated live page. Probably faster than the BBC because I'd say the BBC puts relatively higher value on accuracy and authority of news than its speed. But there's not much in it.
The situation doesn't look too promising...
It was one reactor in the Fukushima No 1 plant that had been the cause for concern earlier – so this news is certainly unwelcome."
British newspaper, The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-tsunami-earthquake-live-coverage)
-very good and quickly updated live page. Probably faster than the BBC because I'd say the BBC puts relatively higher value on accuracy and authority of news than its speed. But there's not much in it.
The situation doesn't look too promising...
Multimedia
Sep 26, 11:38 AM
I bet I could peg all 8 cores doing a 3D render...easily. Bring them I say. This may make me hold off on my render farm idea. -mark
Run 4 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 4 copies of Toast Simutaneously
Run 2 copies of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 3 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 3 copies of Toast Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 2 copies of Toast Simultaneously
All of the above would easily and immediately HOSE the 8 Core Mac Pro NOW. I need to do all of the above a lot of the time.
I use Toast to encode and write EyeTV2 digital SD and HD Broadcast Recordings to DVD IMAGES (not DVD media) before crushing those images to excellent compact mp4 files with Handbrake. BOTH can use up to 3 cores on G5 Quads - perhaps 4 on Intel - EACH if they are allowed to run alone.
Run 4 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 4 copies of Toast Simutaneously
Run 2 copies of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 3 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 3 copies of Toast Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 2 copies of Toast Simultaneously
All of the above would easily and immediately HOSE the 8 Core Mac Pro NOW. I need to do all of the above a lot of the time.
I use Toast to encode and write EyeTV2 digital SD and HD Broadcast Recordings to DVD IMAGES (not DVD media) before crushing those images to excellent compact mp4 files with Handbrake. BOTH can use up to 3 cores on G5 Quads - perhaps 4 on Intel - EACH if they are allowed to run alone.
archipellago
May 2, 04:56 PM
Sure it can, but it's the percentage and the variables of these "bad" incidents that are key as you are generalizing without specifics.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
Its hard to link to conversations.....
Studies on malware are pointless, there is so little effort being put into writing OSX malware, no ROI.
to be honest I didn't think it was a still a live argument (Mac OSX security myths) it certainly isn't in my circles.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
Its hard to link to conversations.....
Studies on malware are pointless, there is so little effort being put into writing OSX malware, no ROI.
to be honest I didn't think it was a still a live argument (Mac OSX security myths) it certainly isn't in my circles.
gorgeousninja
Apr 13, 10:42 AM
So we have the usual posts from those who follow the old
iPod.. sucks
iPhone.. sucks
iMac/book/pro.. sucks
iTunes ... sucks
iOS/OSX.. sucks
iLife/work..sucks
iPad.. sucks
and now FCPX.. sucks
which has gone on since we can all remember, and all from people so convinced of their own self importance they actually think other people care..
but quite interestingly they have also changed track from
'My Dell/HP/Asus can do almost as much as a mac and it only cost half the price!!'
Which has become harder to say as Apple's market share has grown, and then became completely redundant since the launch of the iPad made competitors weep, so their only line now is.
'Apple's selling it really cheap cos they're just dumbing it down....and I'm such a 'pro'.......".
So yes it sucks, and yes it's really dumb!
and the rational and intelligent people will buy it because it will be a quality product that has the Apple 'just works' magic...
iPod.. sucks
iPhone.. sucks
iMac/book/pro.. sucks
iTunes ... sucks
iOS/OSX.. sucks
iLife/work..sucks
iPad.. sucks
and now FCPX.. sucks
which has gone on since we can all remember, and all from people so convinced of their own self importance they actually think other people care..
but quite interestingly they have also changed track from
'My Dell/HP/Asus can do almost as much as a mac and it only cost half the price!!'
Which has become harder to say as Apple's market share has grown, and then became completely redundant since the launch of the iPad made competitors weep, so their only line now is.
'Apple's selling it really cheap cos they're just dumbing it down....and I'm such a 'pro'.......".
So yes it sucks, and yes it's really dumb!
and the rational and intelligent people will buy it because it will be a quality product that has the Apple 'just works' magic...
firestarter
Mar 13, 08:47 AM
I'm strongly in favour of nuclear.
The Fukushima power plants have stood up remarkably well given the magnitude of earthquake that hit them - and this is with 40 year old technology.
We mustn't let incidents of this type put us off implementing new reactors in the west - our future relies on abundant electrical power, and it really is the only viable route out of our reliance on fossil fuel.
Renewables should also play a large part, but let's not forget that both wind turbines AND wave power rely on wind. No wind, no power. Without capacity to fill in the shortfalls in renewable energy supply, we have to have something like nuclear to form the bedrock of the generating landscape.
in reality nothing has really changed in my opinion it was just another event showing how the risks simply can't really be anticipated and also how the nuclear industry likes to reap the profits while not having to insure angainst any disasters _what so ever_
the society gets that burden + cost of potential failures
Compared to what?
Fossil fuel is a world of hurt in so many ways. From global warming to the politics of 'peak oil', Persian gulf wars, environmental damage caused by drilling, Gulf of Mexico oil spill, shale oil environmental damage etc. you could rewrite your sentence above as 'the oil industry likes to reap the profits...' and it would much more relevant. Are the oil industry paying for this? No!
Human deaths from nuclear power issues are a drop in the ocean compared to the petrochemical industry and it's massive political fallout.
'Renewables' are hardly without issue either. To make a decent amount of power you have to do it on a massive scale. What are your thoughts on the Chinese Three Gorges Dam?
The Fukushima power plants have stood up remarkably well given the magnitude of earthquake that hit them - and this is with 40 year old technology.
We mustn't let incidents of this type put us off implementing new reactors in the west - our future relies on abundant electrical power, and it really is the only viable route out of our reliance on fossil fuel.
Renewables should also play a large part, but let's not forget that both wind turbines AND wave power rely on wind. No wind, no power. Without capacity to fill in the shortfalls in renewable energy supply, we have to have something like nuclear to form the bedrock of the generating landscape.
in reality nothing has really changed in my opinion it was just another event showing how the risks simply can't really be anticipated and also how the nuclear industry likes to reap the profits while not having to insure angainst any disasters _what so ever_
the society gets that burden + cost of potential failures
Compared to what?
Fossil fuel is a world of hurt in so many ways. From global warming to the politics of 'peak oil', Persian gulf wars, environmental damage caused by drilling, Gulf of Mexico oil spill, shale oil environmental damage etc. you could rewrite your sentence above as 'the oil industry likes to reap the profits...' and it would much more relevant. Are the oil industry paying for this? No!
Human deaths from nuclear power issues are a drop in the ocean compared to the petrochemical industry and it's massive political fallout.
'Renewables' are hardly without issue either. To make a decent amount of power you have to do it on a massive scale. What are your thoughts on the Chinese Three Gorges Dam?
Amazing Iceman
May 2, 07:04 PM
Ah, Geek Squad... Do they let you drive the Bug?
Sorry, I don't work for Best Buy... They don't pay enough... and their employees don't really know much about anything, specially about MACs.
You go ahead, drive the bug and be happy.
Sorry, I don't work for Best Buy... They don't pay enough... and their employees don't really know much about anything, specially about MACs.
You go ahead, drive the bug and be happy.
toddybody
Apr 15, 11:30 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ. The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose. Those false Christians make me sick.
emotion
Sep 20, 10:30 AM
That's pretty much my question too. The iTV is a mini without DVD, storage, OS, or advanced interface? I guess I just don't see a market for this at $300.
I do, it's like an ipod for video. Or more like maybe airtunes. Anyway. Read the whole thread I think some people get it.
I think I understand what Apple is getting at here. Not sure I'll buy one but they might be on to something
I do, it's like an ipod for video. Or more like maybe airtunes. Anyway. Read the whole thread I think some people get it.
I think I understand what Apple is getting at here. Not sure I'll buy one but they might be on to something
leekohler
Mar 28, 09:34 AM
I should go to bed now. But before I do that, maybe a question will help explain part of my point about the difference between me and a property might gain or lose. If I asked "Who are you?" when we happened to see each other, would you reply that you were gay? I doubt it. You probably would say, "I'm Lee Kohler."
Yes, I would. But being gay is not a property I will ever lose. It's as much a part of me as my green eyes.
Yes, I would. But being gay is not a property I will ever lose. It's as much a part of me as my green eyes.
chrono1081
Apr 5, 10:16 PM
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
For the applications, they are all right at your fingertips at the dock or if you want them hidden and want to access them at an instant you can put them in a stack. Think of a stack like the windows start menu, but faster (and it doesn't have to be programs it can be anything).
As for alt+tab and copy and paste people are making it out to be an issue and its not. Use command + tab instead of alt tab, and command + c for copy, and command + v for paste. Its different at first but then you get use to it. I now like command better than control since command is next to the spacebar and is easier to reach.
Also, its perfectly easy to go up file structure levels in Finder, just customize your tool bar (see image)
Anyway I switched from Windows to Mac 3 years ago (because Vista pre service pack 1 couldn't handle large file transfers) and haven't looked back. It was the best move I made (and I fix Windows desktops and servers for a living). Now I can't stand using Windows anymore. I'm much more productive on a Mac.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
For the applications, they are all right at your fingertips at the dock or if you want them hidden and want to access them at an instant you can put them in a stack. Think of a stack like the windows start menu, but faster (and it doesn't have to be programs it can be anything).
As for alt+tab and copy and paste people are making it out to be an issue and its not. Use command + tab instead of alt tab, and command + c for copy, and command + v for paste. Its different at first but then you get use to it. I now like command better than control since command is next to the spacebar and is easier to reach.
Also, its perfectly easy to go up file structure levels in Finder, just customize your tool bar (see image)
Anyway I switched from Windows to Mac 3 years ago (because Vista pre service pack 1 couldn't handle large file transfers) and haven't looked back. It was the best move I made (and I fix Windows desktops and servers for a living). Now I can't stand using Windows anymore. I'm much more productive on a Mac.
skunk
Mar 14, 04:22 PM
I believe that massive solar energy farms in the Sahara and other deserts, servicing whole landmasses, like the EU proposal, is the way to go. If the price goes up to pay for the infrastructure, the rationing effect can only be a good thing. Safety, certainly, is hardly an issue.
javajedi
Oct 11, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
More fallacies...
#1 My PC doesn't crash
#2 It does not get infected with virii
#3 It doesn't look like something from the 1980s
You take a look for yourself
http://homepage.mac.com/kevindecker/PhotoAlbum3.html
Oh and one more thing Back2TheMac: I've noticed now you are signing quite a different tune, before the G4 was supreme... now.. it is slower and... uhh.. doesn't matter?? How convenient.
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
More fallacies...
#1 My PC doesn't crash
#2 It does not get infected with virii
#3 It doesn't look like something from the 1980s
You take a look for yourself
http://homepage.mac.com/kevindecker/PhotoAlbum3.html
Oh and one more thing Back2TheMac: I've noticed now you are signing quite a different tune, before the G4 was supreme... now.. it is slower and... uhh.. doesn't matter?? How convenient.
Lara F
May 5, 01:53 PM
Funny bit of irony - I went to Lake Placid NY for a sports competition last fall where a main sponsor was AT&T - logo on the side of the boards, booth set up etc.
Tower went down second day and there was zero service for 24h. :o
Now that AT&T offers a Canada plan with no extra long-distance fees, I may actually start talking on my iPhone for more extensive periods of time. Should be interesting to compare with Verizon...so far my frustration in NYC has been more over unavailable/slow internet connection than dropped calls.
Tower went down second day and there was zero service for 24h. :o
Now that AT&T offers a Canada plan with no extra long-distance fees, I may actually start talking on my iPhone for more extensive periods of time. Should be interesting to compare with Verizon...so far my frustration in NYC has been more over unavailable/slow internet connection than dropped calls.
acslater017
Apr 15, 10:54 AM
encourage[/I] people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine
...It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle.
I don't think anyone's saying "go for it!". The basic ideas I got from the video were:
-you're not alone if you're suffering
-life gets better, so stick around
-find help
I didn't really pick up on anyone saying, "You should be homosexual" or anything like that...
...It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle.
I don't think anyone's saying "go for it!". The basic ideas I got from the video were:
-you're not alone if you're suffering
-life gets better, so stick around
-find help
I didn't really pick up on anyone saying, "You should be homosexual" or anything like that...
Rt&Dzine
Apr 23, 06:17 PM
Have we answered the question of why there are so many atheists here? We got sidetracked by a few people making generalizations about atheists but not adding much substance.
acslater017
Apr 15, 10:50 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
There's nothing wrong with focusing on a particular issue. The Japan tsunami is not the only suffering going on in the world, but people raise money and raise awareness about it cuz it wouldn't make sense to rally around "fix everything".
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
There's nothing wrong with focusing on a particular issue. The Japan tsunami is not the only suffering going on in the world, but people raise money and raise awareness about it cuz it wouldn't make sense to rally around "fix everything".
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:09 PM
But how do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself? War and terrorism especially. HUGE accident(s) waiting to happen.
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
radio893fm
Aug 30, 12:49 AM
Thank God Apple users just amount 3% -or something like that- in the computer industry (forget about the ipod)...
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
Cromulent
Mar 27, 04:40 PM
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
nagromme
Mar 18, 12:54 PM
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement.
Obscurity IS a factor that helps Mac users. The point is that good, secure design is ALSO a factor. But DRM file distribution doesn't relate to OS security/privacy anyway.
Anyway... you still have to BUY the song to use this hack.
Obscurity IS a factor that helps Mac users. The point is that good, secure design is ALSO a factor. But DRM file distribution doesn't relate to OS security/privacy anyway.
Anyway... you still have to BUY the song to use this hack.
No comments:
Post a Comment