Addai

It's freakin' crazy. Can you imagine if we were fined for not buying any other industries product? Given the utter lack of understanding in basic economics we've seen over the last....decades, I'm not particularly hopeful.

Irony: Why irony? I've wasted my breath a dozen times already on this forum trying to engage you and your never thought out, always-slanted, highly-warped, and often wreaking-of-ignorance posts in serious discussion, and never gotten a reply. Eventually you get back what you put out.

Homegroups is an easy to use integrated option for people to share files. Noobs will love it. Non-noobs still have a host of other options. The way it groups icons is the best use of real estate i've seen a taskbar have, HOWEVER, you can simply turn off the grouping. How on earth could windows firewall annoy you? Mind you windows firewall of win7 is completely different from xp. I've NEVER seen a single message from it, and according to a couple networking professors I've talked with it's up to snuff. As for firefox crashing...this might be microsofts fault, it might be mozilla's. Who knows? You're using a BETA operating system, you cannot expect stability with all programs. I personally had stability with all major modern browsers. I can understand if some didn't. That's why they label it beta! The pricing scheme is pretty retarded, but it's still cheaper. Mac's way of doing things is offering a cheap operating system with the caveat that you can only run it on our massively marked up machines. Microsoft doesn't make any profit off hardware, so they need to recoup their money solely on the software, and thus it costs more. But seeing as the machine you put it on costs so much less, the savings is still tremendous. For me it just comes down to usability...mac's windows management is not logical, windows systems have long been logical but incredibly shitty (hence why I used to prefer macs). Windows 7 is the first to get it sort of right (there are definitely some improvements I want to see, but finally somebody put something out that's on the right track).

Would you two get off it? Windows 7 is the next installment of vista, of course it is similar. But it is FAR different, and FAR better in many, many ways. Let me give a quick list off the top of my head, that I hope you mac lovers will give consideration. I'm always amazed how defensive and stubborn people can be about their software: First off, the taskbar is the best I've ever seen in any operating system, and seeing as that basically dictates the entire user experience for every day tasks, not to mention how much it matters in terms of productivity, that is a MASSIVE change. OSX should take a tip from Microsoft on how they might change their dock's functionality. Second, a big past complaint was driver support. Windows 7 auto-magically finds and installs drivers like you would not believe. No small task considering the OCEANS of legacy hardware and new components constantly being released. This will be an enormous plus for noobs. Third: Their security systems as a whole have been integrated into a single, easy to use and cohesive interface. It's damn good. It features their same improved firewall from vista, windows defender, and now they have a new antivirus client that is supposed to be one of the best on the market [free]. (Don't even begin to start with me that you mac users don't have security problems. Macs get cracked faster than anything at hacker conventions, though I will give apple kudos for FINALLY putting out security patches). Again, this feature is going to be excellent for noobs. Fourth: Libraries. Best file management system yet in windows or mac world, in my opinion. So easy, so simple, so effective. Five: Jumplists. Common users will love these, but if you're like me and work in a production environment, constantly are working on different projects with files spread across a suite of multimedia applications, constantly writing different papers, letters, etc. -- your life is going to see a vast improvement should you use jumplists. Or, you might just use libraries, easily accessible from the windows explorer taskbar button. Six: Home groups. This is the easiest way probably ever implemented for a commercial operating system to create a network between computers. Now, with a couple clicks, you can be sharing all your music, videos, etc. with other systems. My roommate, for instance, is accessing my music library to play songs on his massive speakers. I'm accessing his video library. Everyone will love this, noobs and tech savvy alike. There are probably a host of other things I'm forgetting, but to call this little more than Vista is ignorant. The user experience is massively different. This is the first operating system I've used in my life that I like.

Was something unclear?

Nonsensical jibberish... But anyways, he has been exactly as billed. It should shock me that anyone could be surprised at his presidency thus far. It has been completely as expected for anyone who follows politics beyond the talking heads of cable news, network nightly news, and even talk radio (seeing how far it's degraded). When he won (or had McCain won, makes no difference), I pretty much decided to give up and unplug best I could till 2012, at which point my hope was, and is, that everyone will be so angry at the state of the union that for once this country will decide to educate themselves, stand up, and make their vote count so that we might actually see a candidate win who cares to lead us down a path other than the one we've been on for the last few decades. /run-on /rant

You're are a very warped mind.

I'm not sure, but she eats meat and dairy so...what's the difference. I mean, at best you could only argue a matter of degree so isn't it sort of moot?

hahaha, no, where on earth did you hear that. your body will only burn muscle as a last resort, that is to say it will only burn muscle when your body has no fat to burn, and no energy from food. so if you eat enough...no.

yeah man, cardio is great for you, it can be done every day. the only caveat is that if you're burning more than you're taking in, you'll have a problem if you're trying to gain muscle/weight from the lifting you're doing. so eat up.

iPod's aren't macs but they are computers made by Apple. Macs are just terribly overpriced, which isn't something anyone can argue against. You can lookup production costs for them, the markup is insane. And now, their operating system feels like it was designed by a chimp compared to Windows 7. I'm interested to see what comes out in the latest advent of OSX, because they quite seriously are going to need to fix their dock so it works in a more logical, effective manner.

Again with the ridiculous statements above...really, I am making an effort to show you respect, the least you could do is be serious. Did you ever notice how Reason Magazine and other libertarian groups were reluctant to endorse Ron Paul because of his ties to the confederacy? Did you know he is also anti abortion and anti gay marriage? He is not a cut and dry libertarian. He is something different. Ron Paul is the human embodiment of libertarian philosophy. If you disagree, than you do not know what libertarianism is. That's not an arguable statement, you either are educated or you are not. Let me respond to a couple of the points you made there. Abortion is not a libertarian mandate. This is a topic that can split any political ideology. In libertarianism there are two schools of thought on this. You seem to only know the first: that a person's right to their body, and their life, is absolute--therefore abortion should be legal. The second, however, is actually more backed by libertarian philosophy than the first: force cannot ever be used to bring about a change, and all humans have a right to their life, going back to the idea that everyone has absolute power over their lives insofar as it does not affect another's right to theirs--therefore, killing a child, terminating life, using force to bring about a change and so on--would be anti-libertarian, and thus abortion should be illegal. That's a similar debate to what you see in any political ideology, and why? Because abortion has NOTHING to do with politics. This goes to the core of our belief systems, and furthermore, any position on abortion can be validated with any one of a thousand rationalizations. Secondly, you say he is against gay marriage. You are wrong. According to Paul, the government should not be involved in marriage, and thus anyone could marry anyone. One thing nearly all libertarians agree on is that marriage ought to be a private union, that government should have no place in it. Now, as for Paul's personal feelings, who knows or cares. Libertarians, just like any other group of people, have prejudices. Some might not like gay people, or meat eaters, transgenders, mexicans, and so on. The difference in libertarianism is that they all agree on one thing: like it or not, people have the right to live their lives as they see fit. I'm sure there are a host of things Paul doesn't like, but he supports your right to do them. For instance, Ron Paul HATES drug use. HATES it. However, he has crusaded for an end to the drug war and for the legalization or marijuana for years. He's a champion of the cause. Yet he hates it. Why? Because him liking or disliking it has nothing to do with your right to live your life how you want it. That's integrity and conviction in your beliefs. I've always found it funny how people compromise. They want rights x,y, and z but only for THEM. Second something goes against what THEY want, they push to restrict another persons rights. The difference with libertarians: they're consistent.

Now really, why do you go and say something dumb like that? Here we are, on the verge of a serious conversation, and you say that? You need to understand that if you're going to say ridiculous things for the point of effect, nobody will respect you, nobody will take you seriously, and your voice will hold no more weight in this world than a bawling child. So I'm going to ignore those ridiculous things and respond to the one reasonable sentence you put in there. I too dislike a fiat currency. That said, every large country in this world operates off fiat. I do not know where you are from (where are you from?) but I'm guessing you're on fiat too. If you don't want fiat, and you don't want commodity, then you're about out of choices. Representative is all you have left, and that's merely commodity backed in lieu of commodity--they're fundamentally the same. So what is it you propose?

Rache Maddow is a retard, it s me she has a show. To be fair, I've never seen it. I saw her give one interview, I had no idea who she was, and I just about fell over with the unbelievable level of ignorance and stupidity she displayed. Only now do I realize she has a show...I thought she was just some psycho they pulled out of the audience or something.

short answer: no. long answer: so long as you eat enough.

Did you not read my post? He is the opposite of an anarchist. Under his political ideology a government is necessary. Perhaps you don't understand exactly what anarchism is, what libertarianism is, how a free market works, capitalism, etc. Everything I know about Paul I know from a primary source: the man himself. I listen to him speak, his letters, and his books. All else is just noise. Anywho, for YEARS I've been ranting to people about our monetary system. It's so refreshing to hear someone else mention it!!!! Speaking of which, Paul put out a great new book called "End The Fed." He's been the loudest voice for reforming our monetary system for the last three decades. HR 1207, his latest legislation that looks like it might actually pass, you've got to love that bill. I actually arrived to work an hour late just so I could finish watching the three hour house financial committee hearing on it.

Meh I built my sister a new computer a month back. She was a lifelong Mac user. What I got her was screaming fast for a fraction of the price, most parts have a decent warranty or an extended could have been purchased. But who cares. I custom picked parts that were higher quality than anything that goes into a Mac, and if a part goes in a PC I pop open the side, take it out, and put in a new one. You cannot beat the cost effectiveness of a PC. But anywho I think mac users should give Windows 7 a chance. My sister and her fiance are now using it happily after a life on macs! I was working all day today in a mac lab trying to organize digital assets for this e-news organization...*shudders*...anyways I got so frustrated at the terrible windows management of OSX. I should mention that what I specialize in is basically creating applications and user interfaces that give a good end user experience. I'm all about creating things that are as functional as they are enjoyable and intuitive to use. So I sort of have an obsession with these things. Anyways, the new windows taskbar has the best usability of any taskbar I've ever used (of previous windows, mac, and a number of linux solutions...I actually wrote my own years ago in utter frustration since everything in the world sucked). Anywho, give it a chance!

You need to read with context. When I said America was forgiving, I meant the American people. Which was true. I gave many examples that were analogous situation to what we were discussing (actually worse!). Things the government has done are irrelevant to what was being discussed. I'm not sure how you misunderstood that. I was an anarchist for short period. Anarchism, however, is a very complex philosophy. "I want to dismantle the current government because it's corrupt" does not make you an anarchist, it makes you a revolutionist. Your anger seems to revolve around "corporate fascism". You're confusing terms. I agree with you completely about the governments allowing certain things and printing money, though...that sounded a bit Ron Paul'ish. Ron Paul is NOT an anarchist in ANY sense of the term however. He is the opposite, he's a Libertarian. In short they believe that people should be allowed to live their lives however than wish so long as it doesn't interfere with other people's right to do the same. Under Paul's belief, and basically everyone with their head properly affixed to their shoulders (referring specifically to free market believers when I say that), a government is NECESSARY. Capitalism and free markets boil down to ONE thing only: private property rights. Without a government to enforce these rights, neither can exist (exceptions being very small utopian-esque societies that have existed around the world that in fairness are little more than tribes.) I find it funny when people say us free market guys want government to go away. Like hell we do! Under our model the free market can't even EXIST without the government! We're the people that coined the term MARKET FAILURE! But I digress -mutters-.

Out of curiosity, what are you? Anyways, Paul made a mistake. A mistake he has admitted to and apologized to for years, one in which he was the only victim. Given this guys life, his career, and his record, you have to keep things in perspective. This is something you are clearly failing to do. America is an EXTRAORDINARILY forgiving country. To the extreme. This is the nation of second chances. It's one of the things about our culture that I don't particularly like...too forgiving. Michael Vick is an excellent example. Granted those involved in animal rights, most at least, will likely continue to dislike him (although the ASPCA has publicly "forgiven" Vick and are now supporting the things he's doing!), the majority of people have forgiven this man. Just about anyone you can think of in pop-culture, which includes politics, who has made a big mistake, has been forgiven by the masses. So let's not call me drunk on lies. Given the ignorance you have displayed, and that I have spoken to you respectfully in spite of it...let's keep it civil, we'll both get more out of it.

More likely that you will say something else retarded because you fail to think critically or just care to argue, which will lead me to spelling things out like I'm talking to a child for another two pages.

Please read my entire post. I've heard a lot of silly things that people say were in his old newsletters. The fact is simply that his name was used for the title, but he wasn't the one authoring most any of the content. I know, I know! You're thinking BUT HIS NAME WAS ON IT, IT WAS HIS NEWSLETTER! And I understand that. But again, the reality of it is that the vast majority of what was in those newsletters did not come from him, just like the vast majority of all congressional newsletters do not come from the congressmen themselves. But you're thinking BUT EVEN IF THAT'S TRUE, IT WAS STILL HIS RESPONSIBILITY. And you would be absolutely correct. Paul has been apologizing for years about the content of those newsletters, which he did not author, and in fact never even edited. He was rarely involved in them, they printed some dumb stuff, and forevermore it's been a stain on his name. Which is 100% his fault, and he admits to readily. But the only victim here was himself. But are you really going to a man of such high integrity and moral fiber over that? I mean, do we want to get into bad things liberals have done? Let's see: Bill Clinton had sex with other women while married and the President, Ted Kennedy got drunk and went driving which led to a womans death who he abandoned, and more recently John Edwards was having an affair while his wife was fighting cancer and still rallying for his presidential bid, yadda yadda. And those were all things that we know THEY DID, whereas Paul merely let things get printed using his name that he never read. With Paul, the only victim was himself. Now, I'm not making the case the liberals are immoral or evil and conservatives are not. This has nothing whatsoever to do with political ideology. I'm just putting things into perspective. And furthermore, this is a nation that is known for forgiveness. For sexual affairs, for violence, for theft--across the entertainment industry through sports through politicians we've seen everyone from Kobe Bryant to Ted Kennedy to Michael Vick receive forgiveness, and you want to demonize a man because he didn't look at what was being printed under his name?

That is one of the most ridiculous, ignorant things I've ever heard said. I consider Ron Paul to be something of a personal hero to me. Even if you disagree with the man's politics, the sheer level of his integrity re-inspired my hope in this nation. He is not dirty, he is not a crook. Furthermore, supporting sound money is not "hawking gold." You should check your vocabulary, perhaps read some books on monetary issues. Also, he has not supported "ring wing conspiracies." And for cash? Are you nuts? There are few men alive, and no men in the entirety of our government, who I respect more than Ron Paul. I have read two of his books, listened to speeches from the 1970's through today, studied his voting record, written a research paper on him, and I can tell you right now that you've been listening to some seriously misguided people who did not know what they were talking about. You shouldn't take other peoples word at face value, you should do your own research, because I am certain that nobody who has ever taken the time to really listen to Dr. Paul, to see what he's done over the span of his career, could possibly write such a ingly ignorant remark. Let me just give you a little a background: This is a man who grew up in Pittsburgh, and ended up becoming a doctor after graduating from Duke. He went on to enlist in the military during Vietnam and served as a flight surgeon for years. Then, for years following this, he worked in churches and other clinics where he made absolutely peanuts for money. These were the places that took in ANYONE who needed care, often times providing care for free. Then of course he became an OBGYN and delivered over 4,000 babies. Even once he became a congressman, he still wanted to treat patients on the weekend (congress would not allow this, they have some strange rules). This is a man who you can go back three decades and find him giving the EXACT same speeches he is giving today. He's never waivered one inch. You look at his voting record, and it is pure. He has NEVER gone against what he stands for. He holds the HISTORICAL RECORD for being the single no vote more times than anyone, that is to say he's been outvoted 434-1 more times than anyone. He never, ever bends, hence his nickname Dr. No. Can you point to a single politician in the last century who has had a career of his length and not once ever compromised his values? Here's a brief record: Ron has never voted to raise taxes. Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget. Ron has never voted for the Iraq War. Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay. Ron has never taken a government-paid junket. Ron has never voted to spend a single dollar from the social security fund. Ron voted against the Patriot Act. Ron votes to end the war on drugs. One could just go ON AND ON. I know, and am friends with people across the political spectrum. Hardcore socialists. And even they respect the man, even if they disagree politically. It's hard not too. edit: I apologize for the rant.

I just want to say that Joe, that is a lovely fruit basket in your avatar.

I never changed my argument. Go back to the beginning where I talked about context and how it was most likely that someone who did not know Latin was looking at original text and a translation and tried to rip text out and stick it together with the hope that it would make sense. That's how these things happen. You obviously do not know Latin at all. This is NOT debatable. You are wrong, I am right. Period. Take this to any person who has studied classical languages, and you'll get what I'm telling you. I've never ended a discussion like this before, but you really are a total idiot, and I want you to know that. An unintelligent moron. How can you be so stupid as to not only be wrong, but then to ARGUE once it's been explained to you by someone who is actually fluent in the language? And all you say is google it? And everything your precious google turns up has supported me. You are, and I really mean this, a complete idiot. I'm flabbergasted that someone could be SO stupid that even when they're GIVEN the answer, they still can't figure it out. Unreal. Before you respond, I'd like to repeat one thing: this is not now, nor was it ever arguable. There's no two right answers, there's no grey area, there simply is a basic sentence that has a meaning that you cannot wrap your little mind around even when I LITERALLY spell it out for you. I'm just astounded by your stupidity. Truly. I have NEVER before in my life ended a discussion, debate, argument of any kind in personal attacks; but here, I am hoping that you will be shamed into thinking first the next time such a situation arises, so that some other poor soul will not waste their time dealing with you as I have.