Don't panic
Mar 14, 10:29 PM
authorities just expanded evacuation steps, reflecting worsening situations/new leaks
iMikeT
Sep 20, 07:18 AM
I'm looking forward to iTV. [Wishful thinking] Too bad it doesn't run Mac OS X...
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 01:06 PM
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
UnixMac
Oct 9, 08:47 PM
Alex you have made some very cogent points. I hope someone at Apple will listen.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
ksegel
Nov 10, 07:07 PM
I agree that it is mostly AT&T, don't get me wrong I love my iphone 3gs, but i have heard that there were issues for many people who were using 3gs and upgraded their phones, some had more dropped calls (which i seem to be having) and some had more serious problems.
http://www.maclife.com/article/news/ios_4_update_problems_plague_iphone_3g_users
I would love to get a I phone 4 and I'd love it if half the people who were using Iphones were on verizon so AT&T may actually be able to handle the usage on its network.
It is the fault of AT&T, not the iPhone. Every call I make gets dropped. It makes no difference if I use my iPhone 4 or my LG phone.
http://www.maclife.com/article/news/ios_4_update_problems_plague_iphone_3g_users
I would love to get a I phone 4 and I'd love it if half the people who were using Iphones were on verizon so AT&T may actually be able to handle the usage on its network.
It is the fault of AT&T, not the iPhone. Every call I make gets dropped. It makes no difference if I use my iPhone 4 or my LG phone.
Backtothemac
Oct 7, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by TheT
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
Um, no. You are wrong. Just because the Intel machine is 2GHZ doesn't mean squat. Pipelines, stages, all of this matters. Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
Um, no. You are wrong. Just because the Intel machine is 2GHZ doesn't mean squat. Pipelines, stages, all of this matters. Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
GGJstudios
Apr 10, 12:19 AM
2. Many programs want you to manage files from within programs. Itunes does not want you organizing music folders. It wants you to organize in itunes. iphoto is the same. You just have to let go of folder management...except for documents. Its a hard habit to break. Let the programs do the organization.
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
keira knightley short messy
Edgy amp; Short Hair
Hairstyles For Short Hair
A short hair style
pictures of short blonde
Short hair
Pixie Short Hair Style 2011
Layered Short Hair Style
man curly short hair style
Celebs With Short Hair
Paris Hilton Short Hair
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
aegisdesign
Oct 26, 05:11 AM
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
I've used one. Back in the 1980s, beginning of the 90s. The low end model had 1024 processors and the high end model 4096 processors. It was a pig to program. When drawing on the screen you split the task at hand up into many parallel threads each drawing a part of the screen. Not quite 1 CPU per pixel but you get the idea.
I've used one. Back in the 1980s, beginning of the 90s. The low end model had 1024 processors and the high end model 4096 processors. It was a pig to program. When drawing on the screen you split the task at hand up into many parallel threads each drawing a part of the screen. Not quite 1 CPU per pixel but you get the idea.
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 01:06 PM
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
likemyorbs
Mar 27, 09:18 PM
You might want to learn a little about Courage, Fr. John Harvey's apostolate to people who feel same-sex attraction. His organization believes sexual orientation can change. But Courage doesn't try to change anyone's sexual orientation. Fr. Harvey and his colleagues try to help people who feel same-sex attraction live holy, chaste, celibate lives.
But why should they have to be celibate just because some religious nuts have a problem with them? His organization can do whatever they want, but the point of organizations is to try to improve life for the future. And making gay people celibate will not be the way of the future, i can promise you that. Actually, it's not even the way of the present, only unintelligent people would want to do that.
But why should they have to be celibate just because some religious nuts have a problem with them? His organization can do whatever they want, but the point of organizations is to try to improve life for the future. And making gay people celibate will not be the way of the future, i can promise you that. Actually, it's not even the way of the present, only unintelligent people would want to do that.
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 01:16 PM
Ok, replace "True" for "Orthodox". Mainstream Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox. Pretty much believe the same things. You can even throw some non-orthodox sects in there like the Mormons and still have a huge intersect on beliefs, especially on morality.
Except for the fastest growing contingent of Christians in the world, the evangelicals. Like I said, you are all finger pointing and being smug in your own belief as to the true interpretation. How laughable. If you are all true Christians, why is there more than one church?
Except for the fastest growing contingent of Christians in the world, the evangelicals. Like I said, you are all finger pointing and being smug in your own belief as to the true interpretation. How laughable. If you are all true Christians, why is there more than one church?
leekohler
Apr 24, 04:50 AM
Seriously? It's Santa Claus for adults. Lots of wishful thinking and not accepting reality. But we are definitely immortal in the sense that when we die, we feed the ground that helps feed other organisms. We may die as personalities, but everything we are feeds some other life form. I think that's beautiful. I don't want to live forever, that would be horrible. I would just like to think that while I was alive, I helped someone be happy or made others' lives easier.
I have been blessed with an athletic and healthy body. Other people are not so lucky. I see people with CP or Parkinson's or other illnesses, and all I can think about is how I can help those folks. You all know that hockey has become important to me in the last few months since I started playing-it has changed me in ways I can't explain. It's made me a new person. It is that one thing I thought I could never do, and now at 44, I am playing with guys who are 21 years old and I freak them out. And they have helped me out too. "Dude, no way, you are pretty damn good." I love that. :) I want to help other people do the same. I only have maybe what? 10 years to play this game at a competitive level if I'm lucky?
Lots of programs I want to get involved with for physically challenged kids and hockey. It is just such a great confidence builder:
http://www.mapetfoundation.org/prensa/angel_02_22_04/MAPET_Angels_eng.pdf
http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/national/disabled-kids-even-score-with-sled-hockey
Point is- for all we know, we get one time here. Let's make the best of it by having fun and helping everyone we can.
So screw a "god" or whatever. There is no such thing. We live and we should be thankful that we are here now. We only get so much time. Let's make the best of it.
I have been blessed with an athletic and healthy body. Other people are not so lucky. I see people with CP or Parkinson's or other illnesses, and all I can think about is how I can help those folks. You all know that hockey has become important to me in the last few months since I started playing-it has changed me in ways I can't explain. It's made me a new person. It is that one thing I thought I could never do, and now at 44, I am playing with guys who are 21 years old and I freak them out. And they have helped me out too. "Dude, no way, you are pretty damn good." I love that. :) I want to help other people do the same. I only have maybe what? 10 years to play this game at a competitive level if I'm lucky?
Lots of programs I want to get involved with for physically challenged kids and hockey. It is just such a great confidence builder:
http://www.mapetfoundation.org/prensa/angel_02_22_04/MAPET_Angels_eng.pdf
http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/national/disabled-kids-even-score-with-sled-hockey
Point is- for all we know, we get one time here. Let's make the best of it by having fun and helping everyone we can.
So screw a "god" or whatever. There is no such thing. We live and we should be thankful that we are here now. We only get so much time. Let's make the best of it.
Xeperu
Apr 26, 01:15 PM
The deal with religious people is to ignore them if you disagree.
I'm a devout (pun intended) atheist and find the entire notion of a "higher being" absolutely ridiculous.
HOWEVER! I do let religious people practice their religion in peace. An anecdote I tell people goes like this.
I had a friend whose mother was dying of cancer. She prayed to her god and that gave her hope and comfort. SHe believed that her prayers helped her mom and even I didn't try to defy her. It gave her strength and no matter how ridiculous it was, I was happy that it helped her cope.
tl;dr - Practice religion, but don't bother me with it.
I'm a devout (pun intended) atheist and find the entire notion of a "higher being" absolutely ridiculous.
HOWEVER! I do let religious people practice their religion in peace. An anecdote I tell people goes like this.
I had a friend whose mother was dying of cancer. She prayed to her god and that gave her hope and comfort. SHe believed that her prayers helped her mom and even I didn't try to defy her. It gave her strength and no matter how ridiculous it was, I was happy that it helped her cope.
tl;dr - Practice religion, but don't bother me with it.
henrikmk
Mar 19, 03:21 AM
I would be amused if this now leads to increased sales of music on the iTMS. DRM haters and/or Linux users will be allowed to buy music. It probably won't be noticable if they shut off access quickly enough, but it would be interesting. :D
DRM just doesn't work.
DRM just doesn't work.
NikeTalk
Mar 18, 09:40 AM
That guy that used 90GBs should be the first one converted.
Multimedia
Jul 12, 01:23 PM
What about BLU RAY?
Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean
Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella coolI hope for it. But only think it might be a long shot BTO option because Blu-Ray recorders are close to $1,000 so far. Even the players are almost $1,000. So this seems like an option for next year.
I also hope for a dual 5.25" external bay design.
Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean
Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella coolI hope for it. But only think it might be a long shot BTO option because Blu-Ray recorders are close to $1,000 so far. Even the players are almost $1,000. So this seems like an option for next year.
I also hope for a dual 5.25" external bay design.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 11:46 PM
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness
I don't know whether homosexuality is a mental illness. But I do know that doctors and other professionals sometimes make mistakes.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, they would blind me. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi disagrees. So does another psychologist who gave a lecture series called "Homosexuality 101." If the lecture series interests anyone here, I'll post links to its Youtube videos, or I'll try to explain the lecturer's theory. But I prefer to let the lecturer speak for herself because I'm not an expert in psychology.
Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
I don't know whether homosexuality is a mental illness. But I do know that doctors and other professionals sometimes make mistakes.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, they would blind me. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi disagrees. So does another psychologist who gave a lecture series called "Homosexuality 101." If the lecture series interests anyone here, I'll post links to its Youtube videos, or I'll try to explain the lecturer's theory. But I prefer to let the lecturer speak for herself because I'm not an expert in psychology.
Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
KidStallyn
Mar 18, 10:50 AM
They actually give you an extra 2gb of data now with the tethering plan. I suspect you argument is one of the main reasons that was implemented.
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
milo
Jul 13, 11:17 AM
Apple will offer a New Form Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower whether or not a single chip Woodie is in the lineup. They'll have no choice.
Not necessarily. They could also just put the conroe in the base model with the same form factor, although they probably wouldn't be able to get it as cheap. I don't really care if they go with the mini form factor or not as long as the price is low enough.
the single xeon configs i was refering to were netburst based ones.
(snip)
apple tried the powermac mini as it were and you did not buy it, it was called the g4 cube.
That's a $300 difference in list price. Even if apple pays half of that, it's a significant amount, not to mention that the difference goes higher the more ram you buy.
Sure, it makes sense for companies to offer a single woodcrest config IN ADDITION to conroe configs. It mostly makes sense for users who want to add the second chip themselves in the future. But all those companies also will sell conroe configs, and they will be cheaper. It just doesn't make sense to sell single woodcrest as a substitute for conroe, apple would likely be the only company doing that.
And the cube failed because it was simply outrageously overpriced (I would NOT consider it "powermac" by any stretch of the imagination, but it still cost almost as much as the full towers). They brought it back as the mini which has sold very well and demonstrated that people DO want smaller, cheaper alternatives.
Not necessarily. They could also just put the conroe in the base model with the same form factor, although they probably wouldn't be able to get it as cheap. I don't really care if they go with the mini form factor or not as long as the price is low enough.
the single xeon configs i was refering to were netburst based ones.
(snip)
apple tried the powermac mini as it were and you did not buy it, it was called the g4 cube.
That's a $300 difference in list price. Even if apple pays half of that, it's a significant amount, not to mention that the difference goes higher the more ram you buy.
Sure, it makes sense for companies to offer a single woodcrest config IN ADDITION to conroe configs. It mostly makes sense for users who want to add the second chip themselves in the future. But all those companies also will sell conroe configs, and they will be cheaper. It just doesn't make sense to sell single woodcrest as a substitute for conroe, apple would likely be the only company doing that.
And the cube failed because it was simply outrageously overpriced (I would NOT consider it "powermac" by any stretch of the imagination, but it still cost almost as much as the full towers). They brought it back as the mini which has sold very well and demonstrated that people DO want smaller, cheaper alternatives.
alfonsog
Mar 18, 10:11 AM
I believe nobody is abusing the system; instead, it's the system -unlimited, 2GB, 4Gb, whatever- that is unable to cope with the different needs. As AT&T can monitor the usage of the databand, just give us a plan where we pay based in usage, for example $5 for each block of 1GB, and be done with it!
That seems like the best and most fair system for users and the company. Pay for what you use. Of course the company makes a lot more profit by overselling plans and hoping people underuse the minutes and/or data.
As for the unlimited plan I'm sure they can phase out the grandfathering, they can choose not to renew your 2-year contract and force you to sign a new one. They just don't want to risk losing a customer for now, but then again where else can you go; Verizon said they will be dropping the unlimited soon as well.
The contracts are technically legal but at the same time probably the whole exclusivity is against some kind of monopoly law that is rarely enforced. Verizon hasn't affected pricing, so there is really no competition if you want an iPhone. Maybe if it was offered with every carrier. If we had some government regulation and oversight and a national based cell phone tower infrastructure we wouldn't be so far behind other advanced countries and be able to offer the iPhone on all carriers. Also I'd rather pay unsubsidized price and do what I want with it.
That seems like the best and most fair system for users and the company. Pay for what you use. Of course the company makes a lot more profit by overselling plans and hoping people underuse the minutes and/or data.
As for the unlimited plan I'm sure they can phase out the grandfathering, they can choose not to renew your 2-year contract and force you to sign a new one. They just don't want to risk losing a customer for now, but then again where else can you go; Verizon said they will be dropping the unlimited soon as well.
The contracts are technically legal but at the same time probably the whole exclusivity is against some kind of monopoly law that is rarely enforced. Verizon hasn't affected pricing, so there is really no competition if you want an iPhone. Maybe if it was offered with every carrier. If we had some government regulation and oversight and a national based cell phone tower infrastructure we wouldn't be so far behind other advanced countries and be able to offer the iPhone on all carriers. Also I'd rather pay unsubsidized price and do what I want with it.
sjo
Aug 29, 01:22 PM
Have you read what you just wrote? Who said anything about hunting whales? Eating whale meat? Or being poor?
No one.
Conclusion? You're bigoted.
There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.
-Clive
Whalehunting is sort of implied, but in order clarify: in Norway Greenpeace is discredited largely because they are against whalehunting which, for Norwegians, is part of their policy of trying to keep their large countryside inhabited. Greenpeace is against whalehunting so Norway, as many on this forum, see fit to try to discredit them as being "bigoted" or "extremists" or "treehuggers" instead of providing facts.
No one.
Conclusion? You're bigoted.
There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.
-Clive
Whalehunting is sort of implied, but in order clarify: in Norway Greenpeace is discredited largely because they are against whalehunting which, for Norwegians, is part of their policy of trying to keep their large countryside inhabited. Greenpeace is against whalehunting so Norway, as many on this forum, see fit to try to discredit them as being "bigoted" or "extremists" or "treehuggers" instead of providing facts.
Sodner
Apr 21, 07:37 AM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
What, did you steal that too?
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
What, did you steal that too?
ten-oak-druid
Apr 12, 11:34 PM
Now Steven Spelberg can tweek the Star Wars movies.