Gelfin
Mar 27, 09:23 AM
If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
If homosexuality has no genetic component, why do twins raised separately have a greater chance of sharing an orientation? Why do homosexuals disproportionately display a variety of physical traits from handedness to hair whorls? I suppose lack of masculine identification at precisely two years of age makes men left-handed as well.
But I forget, you're Catholic. You probably still favor beating children until they stop using "the devil's hand" too.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
You're damned right it is, because sometimes the person earns the attack. Nicolosi is a monster who encourages homophobic parents to commit their children involuntarily to a regimen of religiously-themed brainwashing. He can legitimately claim almost negligible success rates, and his organization is staffed by convicted con artists and desperately self-hating homosexuals who crash spectacularly in public. The "new discoveries" he claims sound strangely identical to rejected post hoc rationalizations of stereotypes formerly applied to homosexuals back when they were a disparaged and poorly understood group. We now understand that homosexuality is not effeminacy, and that when not being tormented by people who hate them and encourage them to hate themselves, homosexuals show no independent signs of psychological distress related to their orientation.
This man is a charlatan. And it is clear you believe him because he tells you what you'd like to hear. You are following the pattern of every follower of quacks and quackery: you cling tenaciously to obscure and debunked ideas, hearing and accepting them without question, but then defend them against criticism by suddenly becoming almost comically hypercritical, citing the slim chance that not only that the overwhelming scientific consensus might be wrong, but that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by a massive conspiracy to prevent your huckster from selling his snake oil to the world. Your responses in this thread make it clear you have no intention of undertaking any critical thought. You'll just accept whatever somebody tells you if you feel like it makes it okay for you to not like gay people.
Notice, your APA contradiction contradicts Gelfin's opinion the homosexuality has no psychological/environmental causes. Gelfin says there's no evidence that it has those causes.
Notice, Gelfin said no such damned thing. Do not put words in my mouth.
If homosexuality has no genetic component, why do twins raised separately have a greater chance of sharing an orientation? Why do homosexuals disproportionately display a variety of physical traits from handedness to hair whorls? I suppose lack of masculine identification at precisely two years of age makes men left-handed as well.
But I forget, you're Catholic. You probably still favor beating children until they stop using "the devil's hand" too.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
You're damned right it is, because sometimes the person earns the attack. Nicolosi is a monster who encourages homophobic parents to commit their children involuntarily to a regimen of religiously-themed brainwashing. He can legitimately claim almost negligible success rates, and his organization is staffed by convicted con artists and desperately self-hating homosexuals who crash spectacularly in public. The "new discoveries" he claims sound strangely identical to rejected post hoc rationalizations of stereotypes formerly applied to homosexuals back when they were a disparaged and poorly understood group. We now understand that homosexuality is not effeminacy, and that when not being tormented by people who hate them and encourage them to hate themselves, homosexuals show no independent signs of psychological distress related to their orientation.
This man is a charlatan. And it is clear you believe him because he tells you what you'd like to hear. You are following the pattern of every follower of quacks and quackery: you cling tenaciously to obscure and debunked ideas, hearing and accepting them without question, but then defend them against criticism by suddenly becoming almost comically hypercritical, citing the slim chance that not only that the overwhelming scientific consensus might be wrong, but that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by a massive conspiracy to prevent your huckster from selling his snake oil to the world. Your responses in this thread make it clear you have no intention of undertaking any critical thought. You'll just accept whatever somebody tells you if you feel like it makes it okay for you to not like gay people.
Notice, your APA contradiction contradicts Gelfin's opinion the homosexuality has no psychological/environmental causes. Gelfin says there's no evidence that it has those causes.
Notice, Gelfin said no such damned thing. Do not put words in my mouth.
asphalt-proof
Sep 21, 10:40 AM
I think the opposite. iTV is just another "pod" using a single computer as a separate node. The Apple paradigm here would be to release iTV and then to have a separate cable-in device (EyeTV essentially) at your computer that would serve as the DVR to load and control shows on your central computer, which could then be wirelessly distributed to iTVs throughout the house. Just buy one giant hard drive rather than having a bunch all over the place.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
This explanation makes so much sense to me. I was thinking about this today. I am not a A/V person at all. I can barely hook up my DVD player to my TV. But I am pretty good with my iMac, getting content on it and off it to my iPod. THe model that makes sense to me is I get the content from my computer and watch it on my TV. (note: I don't have cable so I don't worry aobut getting content from my TV to my computer. But the elgato system seems pretty easy to use.) I wonder if I would be able to use the elgato Hybrid TV to hook my xbox up to my computer but still play it on my TV though the iTV system? The reason I ask is it would cut down on clutter in the living room.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
This explanation makes so much sense to me. I was thinking about this today. I am not a A/V person at all. I can barely hook up my DVD player to my TV. But I am pretty good with my iMac, getting content on it and off it to my iPod. THe model that makes sense to me is I get the content from my computer and watch it on my TV. (note: I don't have cable so I don't worry aobut getting content from my TV to my computer. But the elgato system seems pretty easy to use.) I wonder if I would be able to use the elgato Hybrid TV to hook my xbox up to my computer but still play it on my TV though the iTV system? The reason I ask is it would cut down on clutter in the living room.
skunk
Apr 23, 04:01 PM
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.It's good to hear that, unlike anybody else, you have a reason for your stance. Otherwise we might have to put you down as "intellectually lazy", too.
latergator116
Mar 21, 06:44 AM
My comments were about the people who wrote the software, not those that just use it. It's the PyMusique programmers that may face legal troubles, while those who merely use the software may or may not face consequences (I suspect that the worse for them might be termination of their iTunes account, in which case they won't have to worry any longer about iTunes DRM).
Thanks for clearing that up, but I still don't undertsand why the creator(s) of PhMusique sohuld face legal charges. What have they done illegaly?
Thanks for clearing that up, but I still don't undertsand why the creator(s) of PhMusique sohuld face legal charges. What have they done illegaly?
Evangelion
Jul 12, 12:53 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Pony. You forgot the pony.
I would say that the CPU would be 2.33GHz to 2.66Ghz Conroe an prices would start at $1499.
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Pony. You forgot the pony.
I would say that the CPU would be 2.33GHz to 2.66Ghz Conroe an prices would start at $1499.
PCUser
Oct 8, 09:54 AM
What? No Dynamic Link Libraries in the MacOS X? You've got to be kidding me. That's a very bad choice on Apple's part. Especially since UNIX has their own type of DLL's. The whole point of a DLL is to make it so that programs don't need to load the same exact libraries into memory and waste space... the standard C library alone is about 2 megs. And the speed benefit from static libraries versus dynamic in *nix is nill. I know, I've compiled the same library both ways just to test that fact. (For those that don't know, static libraries are compiled into an app, and dynamic libraries are stored only once in memory.)
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
takao
Mar 13, 03:48 PM
As per the typical anti-nuclear sentiment; much of these issues can be resolved rather easily. New reactor designs are far safer, and if you really want safety (as in you can't melt down, ever) then PBR or MSR with thorium is the way to go. Waste an issue? Shouldn't be-- the US needs to complete the fuel cycle with breeder reactors. Furthermore, spent fuel rods can be used locally for power via thermal couples-- this is how NASA powers most of it's spacecraft. As thermal couple efficiency increases, this will become a much more viable solution. If thorium is used (and it should be), the overall lifespan of the byproducts is greatly decreased, meaning waste is even less of an issue.
oh the "thorium pebble bed is superiour" discussion ... i think over the years i had that one a dozen times(even on macrumors) ... a technology developed since the 60ties with spectacular failures regarding safe operation and economical total disasters for the german tax payers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_Reactor
the AVR test reactor alone: construction costs adjusted for inflation did it cost 180 million euro... deconstruction + decommisioning 1 billion euro over the last 22 years (and still not finished)
the highest contaminated facility regarding beta-radiation in the world
There exists currently no dismantling method for the AVR vessel, but it is planned to develop some procedure during the next 60 years and to start with vessel dismantling at the end of the century
that said the german government was still set on that reactor type and built actually a full scale power station:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
-14 years to build, 3 years of operation
-had a release of nuclear material just days after Chernobyl
-bankrupted it's operational company, required a bail out
-in 1997 was put into 'safe enclosure' until decommision can start in 2027 (costing 6.5 million euro per year until they can even start)
thorium pebble bed reactors, the nuclear power plant for the future generations ... to clean up ;)
oh the "thorium pebble bed is superiour" discussion ... i think over the years i had that one a dozen times(even on macrumors) ... a technology developed since the 60ties with spectacular failures regarding safe operation and economical total disasters for the german tax payers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_Reactor
the AVR test reactor alone: construction costs adjusted for inflation did it cost 180 million euro... deconstruction + decommisioning 1 billion euro over the last 22 years (and still not finished)
the highest contaminated facility regarding beta-radiation in the world
There exists currently no dismantling method for the AVR vessel, but it is planned to develop some procedure during the next 60 years and to start with vessel dismantling at the end of the century
that said the german government was still set on that reactor type and built actually a full scale power station:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
-14 years to build, 3 years of operation
-had a release of nuclear material just days after Chernobyl
-bankrupted it's operational company, required a bail out
-in 1997 was put into 'safe enclosure' until decommision can start in 2027 (costing 6.5 million euro per year until they can even start)
thorium pebble bed reactors, the nuclear power plant for the future generations ... to clean up ;)
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 03:00 PM
if anyone was wondering, Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.
Dont you think people can google it for themselves if they feel a need to know?
Dont you think people can google it for themselves if they feel a need to know?
gmcalpin
Apr 15, 10:31 AM
Perhaps those groups should make their own videos.
Thank you. (I mean, no ****, right?)
Thank you. (I mean, no ****, right?)
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 11:03 PM
I just don't really get why people who label themselves agnostic try to separate themselves from Atheists. Almost no atheist wouldn't fit under the aboved defined 'gnostic atheist' label. We're all in the same boat here.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:46 PM
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
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.
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.
thatsallfolks
Apr 5, 09:40 PM
I'm was a complete Mac virgin when I switched a couple of months ago but some of the small things that still annoy me.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
I do love the magic mouse and obviously Macs look slicker than PCs so overall I guess I'm satisfied and I'm sure any reasonable person would be as well but from what I've seen of Windows 7 I would think most reasonable people would be happy with that too.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
I do love the magic mouse and obviously Macs look slicker than PCs so overall I guess I'm satisfied and I'm sure any reasonable person would be as well but from what I've seen of Windows 7 I would think most reasonable people would be happy with that too.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 09:51 PM
Just passing through... an interesting test would be finding the determinants of large matricies of floats and ints. And I mean finding them by the straightforward stupid computation method, none of the simplification stuff.
Reasons:
1) Too large for all data to be in registers but easily small enough to fit in L1.
2) Takes a long time for surprisingly small matricies (20x20 is a huge number of calculations).
3) Stresses multiples and adds.
4) No massive-yet-trivial compiler simplifications, even for int.
5) The result has meaning.
Reasons:
1) Too large for all data to be in registers but easily small enough to fit in L1.
2) Takes a long time for surprisingly small matricies (20x20 is a huge number of calculations).
3) Stresses multiples and adds.
4) No massive-yet-trivial compiler simplifications, even for int.
5) The result has meaning.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 24, 12:36 PM
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return. ;)
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
Evangelion
Mar 20, 12:39 PM
We've had this dictionary discussion before.
And apparently it needs to be had again, since people STILL don't understand what the word means!
But when a book author finds somebody using a photocopier to make a copy of their book instead of buying it, the word used doesn't matter as much as the fact you got something they were selling without paying.
The word does matter, since the word carries with it certain meaning and different acts (described by different words) carry different penalties. If you hit me in the face, could I claim that you were trying to murder me? after all I could have died. Or are you saying that all of a sudden the word does matter?
Copying copyrighted material against the will of the copyright-holder is wrong, I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the notion that it's stealing. It's not, fair and square.
Same logic: Musical artists aren't selling you round bits of plastic. They are selling you a copy of their music. Same logic: When you buy PhotoShop, you are buying more than the CD and some packaging. You are buying a license to use it, and even if you download a copy without taking something away from somebody else, you are getting something worth money and the owner/producer has reason to expect payment.
What you are describing is copyright-infringment, not stealing. Of course, RIAA and the like would just LOVE to label those who download music as thieves, since that word has such strong negative connections. But they are not thieves and they are not stealing no matter how much RIAA tries to claim that they are.
And apparently it needs to be had again, since people STILL don't understand what the word means!
But when a book author finds somebody using a photocopier to make a copy of their book instead of buying it, the word used doesn't matter as much as the fact you got something they were selling without paying.
The word does matter, since the word carries with it certain meaning and different acts (described by different words) carry different penalties. If you hit me in the face, could I claim that you were trying to murder me? after all I could have died. Or are you saying that all of a sudden the word does matter?
Copying copyrighted material against the will of the copyright-holder is wrong, I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the notion that it's stealing. It's not, fair and square.
Same logic: Musical artists aren't selling you round bits of plastic. They are selling you a copy of their music. Same logic: When you buy PhotoShop, you are buying more than the CD and some packaging. You are buying a license to use it, and even if you download a copy without taking something away from somebody else, you are getting something worth money and the owner/producer has reason to expect payment.
What you are describing is copyright-infringment, not stealing. Of course, RIAA and the like would just LOVE to label those who download music as thieves, since that word has such strong negative connections. But they are not thieves and they are not stealing no matter how much RIAA tries to claim that they are.
r.j.s
May 2, 09:16 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
There has been malware for years, and IIRC, it all requires the user to do something to install it.
Basic user awareness will prevent this from becoming an issue.
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
There has been malware for years, and IIRC, it all requires the user to do something to install it.
Basic user awareness will prevent this from becoming an issue.
Peterkro
Mar 12, 05:11 AM
I agree it's a bit early to be speculating.However as shown by investigations into Chernobyl and Seven Mile Island in these situations small errors in design and human mistakes can all add up to unknown territory.It looks like a hydrogen explosion,super heated water = hydrogen and oxygen + ignitor = big bang.The presence of Caesium indicates some core damage.I hope those in Japan get through this with the least amount of pain possible.
Multimedia
Oct 25, 10:42 PM
If it's a simple swap of processors, then I would believe the rumors. :) 8-cores, wow! Much much faster than anyone anticipated.Bulletin. Many thousands of us knew it would be this soon. :)
firestarter
Apr 24, 11:40 AM
Trust me, Islam far outshines Christianity and Judaism in the anti-scientific murder and vandalism. The difference is, as I said somewhere else, in Christianity it was the clergy who ordered it without recourse to the Bible, whereas in Islam it's in the texts to severely punish blasphemy and heretics.
Great, let's have a race to the bottom to see which faith is the more bigoted.
If you're being burnt at the stake, it doesn't make much difference whether that's because of a story someone made up 2000 years ago, or a story a priest made up today. Faith is still the excuse, and the result is the same.
Great, let's have a race to the bottom to see which faith is the more bigoted.
If you're being burnt at the stake, it doesn't make much difference whether that's because of a story someone made up 2000 years ago, or a story a priest made up today. Faith is still the excuse, and the result is the same.
AP_piano295
Apr 22, 08:21 PM
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
There is no reason to imagine that god does exist, one doesn't need to provide a reason for not believing in god.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
EDIT: It is not reasonable to imagine that something does exist just because there is no evidence to support its existence (in case this isn't obvious :/ )
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
There is no reason to imagine that god does exist, one doesn't need to provide a reason for not believing in god.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
EDIT: It is not reasonable to imagine that something does exist just because there is no evidence to support its existence (in case this isn't obvious :/ )
mac jones
Mar 12, 10:35 PM
Well it appears thing have gotten worse. I guess now all we can do is wait and see what can be done. I have the greatest confidence in the Japanese ability to deal with this, and the international communities contributions.
mr. who?
Apr 13, 07:48 AM
What are the chances that Logic X will be released around the same time?
Would be awseome, but I doubt it.
Would be awseome, but I doubt it.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:18 PM
I think it's pretty safe to say that Nicolosi is anti-gay.
What does "anti-gay" mean? Is it a vague synonym for "homophobic?"
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
I agree: There's a place for that kind of therapy. I even know people who felt conflicted about their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the conflict caused them some of the severest emotional pain I could imagine.
What does "anti-gay" mean? Is it a vague synonym for "homophobic?"
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
I agree: There's a place for that kind of therapy. I even know people who felt conflicted about their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the conflict caused them some of the severest emotional pain I could imagine.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 11:55 PM
The whole point is that it is not a single "bang." You're trying to conflate how most people view their god with how people conceptualize science. They simply aren't the same.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
0 comments:
Post a Comment