DaveGee
Feb 9, 01:21 PM
Why is a calling feature tied to a messaging one?
Silly.... Messaging and Voice Calling go together just like .... Vodka and Prune Juice! :D
Silly.... Messaging and Voice Calling go together just like .... Vodka and Prune Juice! :D
mdlooker
Mar 27, 06:16 PM
So at what point will the buyer see it's a scam??? It will seem to be after mail delivery because if he didn't read the description during the auction, he surely won't after he sees that he won! .. A picture! lol
lol..just wrong!
lol..just wrong!
GGJstudios
Apr 11, 04:06 PM
Either way is fine.
Mal
Dec 3, 11:49 AM
Here's another one, and I reworked my Adium setup to fit with the lights better.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12428034/Screen%20shot%202010-12-03.png
I probably didn't get it from here originally, but you can find the desktop here: http://macmastersoftware.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/more-wallpapers-apple-christmas/
jW
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12428034/Screen%20shot%202010-12-03.png
I probably didn't get it from here originally, but you can find the desktop here: http://macmastersoftware.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/more-wallpapers-apple-christmas/
jW
Huntn
Mar 3, 03:13 PM
You indicated that the rich weren't paying their 'fair share.' I responded by pointing out that the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of the tax burden. That is completely separate (although obviously relative and related) from the tax 'rate' which they pay.
Then adjust it down and make the top 60% of wage earners pay 90% of the burden.
Let me get this straight... your definition of 'fair' is that people who make the right decisions in life, who invest in the right ideas, who don't waste their money on immediate pursuits so they can benefit in the long-term, who work hard and earn success, and yes... have a little luck should have their money confiscated by the state? By mob rule? Since you've determined that 'they don't need it', that translates to them not 'deserving' it and you being able to steal it from them via taxation?
Yes it is completely fair. What is your definition of steal? We could call taxation stealing. We could call exporting a million jobs out of the country stealing couldn't we? We could call breaking the union so executives, executives who all ready have a lot of money, can have more of labor's pay stealing.
This has been one of my long term themes. You live in a society for a reason. That reason is mutual benefit. Because you are smart (or lucky) and make the right decisions, and you end up with all most more money than you can spend or put another way, so much money to life like a King, should you? Oh, sure some people after living that way for years, start feeling guilty, and start a charity to ease their guilty conscious.
But my point is from a moral standpoint, how much money does an individual and his immediate family need to live a comfortable life? In this case of the successful business person, they should be at the top of the income scale. But I have proposed that scale be capped and a 90% income tax rate at a high level, say over $1 million a year is completely fair. "Damn it's so unfair. I only have $1M per year to live on, when I could have $10M, $20M, $50M, bastards!" Obviously you think it's fair if you are allowed to live in excess while others do without or do even you have a cap? ;)
Now you can muster up all of your capitalistic indignity and tell me why it's not fair. Which brings us back to my original premise. How much do you need to live on and still be considered a 'moral' person? What is your definition of moral, being a glutton? That is what the excessively rich are.
BTW, I don't hold anything against them, I don't envy them as I live what I consider to be a very comfortable life in the range of 150k per year income. But I am in the minority. A whole lot of people scrape by in this country. There is 'smart' and then there is 'opportunity'. Right now large multi-national corporations are doing there best to take away 'opportunity' from average citizens so they can increase their profits. Not only do they not give a damn about society, they have absolutely no national loyalty. Call them carpet baggers.
So in conclusion, I don't think excessive wealth is moral and I have no problem with the Federal government setting the top tax bracket at 90%. Call me a suedo-socialist. :)
I really like that quote where the Brit said it was easier being rich in the U.S. because instead of envying the fat cats, many Americans want to be like them. The inference being that they are cheering them on in hopes of one day being fabulously rich when in reality that is not going to happen for most of us, but we still support federal policies that hurt average people like lemmings heading off the cliff.
Then adjust it down and make the top 60% of wage earners pay 90% of the burden.
Let me get this straight... your definition of 'fair' is that people who make the right decisions in life, who invest in the right ideas, who don't waste their money on immediate pursuits so they can benefit in the long-term, who work hard and earn success, and yes... have a little luck should have their money confiscated by the state? By mob rule? Since you've determined that 'they don't need it', that translates to them not 'deserving' it and you being able to steal it from them via taxation?
Yes it is completely fair. What is your definition of steal? We could call taxation stealing. We could call exporting a million jobs out of the country stealing couldn't we? We could call breaking the union so executives, executives who all ready have a lot of money, can have more of labor's pay stealing.
This has been one of my long term themes. You live in a society for a reason. That reason is mutual benefit. Because you are smart (or lucky) and make the right decisions, and you end up with all most more money than you can spend or put another way, so much money to life like a King, should you? Oh, sure some people after living that way for years, start feeling guilty, and start a charity to ease their guilty conscious.
But my point is from a moral standpoint, how much money does an individual and his immediate family need to live a comfortable life? In this case of the successful business person, they should be at the top of the income scale. But I have proposed that scale be capped and a 90% income tax rate at a high level, say over $1 million a year is completely fair. "Damn it's so unfair. I only have $1M per year to live on, when I could have $10M, $20M, $50M, bastards!" Obviously you think it's fair if you are allowed to live in excess while others do without or do even you have a cap? ;)
Now you can muster up all of your capitalistic indignity and tell me why it's not fair. Which brings us back to my original premise. How much do you need to live on and still be considered a 'moral' person? What is your definition of moral, being a glutton? That is what the excessively rich are.
BTW, I don't hold anything against them, I don't envy them as I live what I consider to be a very comfortable life in the range of 150k per year income. But I am in the minority. A whole lot of people scrape by in this country. There is 'smart' and then there is 'opportunity'. Right now large multi-national corporations are doing there best to take away 'opportunity' from average citizens so they can increase their profits. Not only do they not give a damn about society, they have absolutely no national loyalty. Call them carpet baggers.
So in conclusion, I don't think excessive wealth is moral and I have no problem with the Federal government setting the top tax bracket at 90%. Call me a suedo-socialist. :)
I really like that quote where the Brit said it was easier being rich in the U.S. because instead of envying the fat cats, many Americans want to be like them. The inference being that they are cheering them on in hopes of one day being fabulously rich when in reality that is not going to happen for most of us, but we still support federal policies that hurt average people like lemmings heading off the cliff.
elhungarian
Apr 24, 11:36 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Why not just wait for iPhone 5?
Why not just wait for iPhone 5?
AppliedVisual
Oct 31, 12:14 PM
Laser=L.A.S.E.R.=Light Amplified by Stimulating Emissions of Radiation.
Actually, LASER = Light Ampilfication by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. ;)
Actually, LASER = Light Ampilfication by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. ;)
rhett7660
Apr 7, 04:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Awesome. Some might be Coleco exclusives, but I'd probably buy these if available:
Burger Time
Frostbite
Keystone Kapers
Mouse Trap
ZaxxonRiver Raid
Empire Strikes Back
Carnival
Centipede
Kool-Aid Man (lamest game i can remember, but so funny)
Venture
Donkey Kong Jr
Bumper Jumper
Yar's Revenge
Frogger
Missile Command
Zaxxon was a great game!
Frogger was Konami, however it was licensed to just about everyone at the time. Or so it seemed.
Missle Command is included in this Atari release isn't it?
Awesome. Some might be Coleco exclusives, but I'd probably buy these if available:
Burger Time
Frostbite
Keystone Kapers
Mouse Trap
ZaxxonRiver Raid
Empire Strikes Back
Carnival
Centipede
Kool-Aid Man (lamest game i can remember, but so funny)
Venture
Donkey Kong Jr
Bumper Jumper
Yar's Revenge
Frogger
Missile Command
Zaxxon was a great game!
Frogger was Konami, however it was licensed to just about everyone at the time. Or so it seemed.
Missle Command is included in this Atari release isn't it?
likemyorbs
Mar 15, 10:58 PM
So you have absolute 100% confidence in our "justice" system?
Of course not. However, there are certain cases where the death penalty should be applied. The arizona shooter for example who killed a 9 year old girl and many others, he should be fried. It's not like there's any possible chance he could be innocent. While i don't buy the argument that the death penalty costs more than life in prison, even if this argument was factually true, i would still support the death penalty. There's just no reason for some people to be alive after what they've done.
Of course not. However, there are certain cases where the death penalty should be applied. The arizona shooter for example who killed a 9 year old girl and many others, he should be fried. It's not like there's any possible chance he could be innocent. While i don't buy the argument that the death penalty costs more than life in prison, even if this argument was factually true, i would still support the death penalty. There's just no reason for some people to be alive after what they've done.
Ambrose Chapel
Apr 4, 11:24 AM
That ability is there. But rather than give its customers a choice of opting in, FT would rather sell your information without your approval.
Right, I was just responding to the poster who didn't think Apple allowed users to opt-in.
Personally, I don't know why anyone would want to...
Right, I was just responding to the poster who didn't think Apple allowed users to opt-in.
Personally, I don't know why anyone would want to...
a104375
Jun 28, 09:42 PM
okay i have decided that price does not matter and have edited the original post so feel free to offer whatever you have
ten-oak-druid
Apr 6, 12:59 PM
My first computer had a tape drive. A Commodore Vic 20. I wonder how long a cassette tape needs to be to hold a TB not to mention a PB?
mad jew
Sep 24, 06:59 PM
I believe their words contained the phrase "ignorance is bliss".
They must have been confused. My 'tar is bliss. :p
They must have been confused. My 'tar is bliss. :p
robbieduncan
Apr 19, 04:51 AM
I imagine it's linked to the spy not working (and the attachments server being funky)...
Prom1
Mar 23, 06:53 PM
Serlet, is a pure (if you will) technical computer engineer... He get enjoyment about scientific computation, advanced algorithms, multi-threaded efficiency. The guy was nicknamed the "mad scientist" by Jobs himself, not because of his appearance, but because of he advanced studies in engineering and scientific computation.
He's like the man in the tech French community.
I can understand why he may want to leave, he's been gradually selling off his stock of Apple in recent years as well, so this makes sense.
Apple is more iOS then OS X and since Forstall heads the iOS development, there was no viable way Bertrand could have stayed on when Apple decided to merge the OS's.
I say it's a big loss for Apple. Though Craig should be a pleasant transition, and maybe a more frequent keynote speaker, since he's more understandable to the public.
Serlet will be missed. He's pretty much one of the Core brains behind OS X
I completed agree - except the part about being understandable. The ENTIRE audience got many of his jokes with Vista at the Leopard announcement and even with Snow Leopard. Just cause your ears cannot focus out the intricacies of a slight french accent doesn't mean the generic public cannot.
He's like the man in the tech French community.
I can understand why he may want to leave, he's been gradually selling off his stock of Apple in recent years as well, so this makes sense.
Apple is more iOS then OS X and since Forstall heads the iOS development, there was no viable way Bertrand could have stayed on when Apple decided to merge the OS's.
I say it's a big loss for Apple. Though Craig should be a pleasant transition, and maybe a more frequent keynote speaker, since he's more understandable to the public.
Serlet will be missed. He's pretty much one of the Core brains behind OS X
I completed agree - except the part about being understandable. The ENTIRE audience got many of his jokes with Vista at the Leopard announcement and even with Snow Leopard. Just cause your ears cannot focus out the intricacies of a slight french accent doesn't mean the generic public cannot.
Philalbe
Mar 21, 03:50 AM
You went back to school and you didn't learn how to bill or control a client? Your very first mistake was booking a $75 job with a 3 hour time limit. If that is all someone can afford, then don't work for them. In my experience, the cheaper they are, the more demanding they usually are. Your second mistake was giving the power to your client and not billing him for phone time. You didn't manage the job and you paid the price. I bet you didn't even have a signed contract. :eek:
Hi. You're right about my lack of pricing knowledge. I remember when I was in school I would often ask instructors about pricing and they would kind of cryptically shy away from it. It would be good if they added a class about pricing and ethics to the curriculum, or at least provided students with a packet containing basic pricing guidelines.
Hi. You're right about my lack of pricing knowledge. I remember when I was in school I would often ask instructors about pricing and they would kind of cryptically shy away from it. It would be good if they added a class about pricing and ethics to the curriculum, or at least provided students with a packet containing basic pricing guidelines.
mscriv
Apr 6, 12:49 PM
Worth quoting, given the back-and-forth that's gone on since this was originally posted.
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
Rodimus Prime
May 4, 01:58 PM
still wrong. How we treat our worst enemies speak volumes about who we are.
ShiftClick
Nov 11, 03:32 PM
For feature films? I call BS! Maybe for independent "features" and even that is debatable.
The 8 major network shows that have post at my workplace 1 FCP, 1 Avid on Windows, 6 Avid on Mac.
I call bs too.
The 8 major network shows that have post at my workplace 1 FCP, 1 Avid on Windows, 6 Avid on Mac.
I call bs too.
inkswamp
Mar 31, 02:57 PM
Wow! Impressive work from Adobe. :eek:
You know, I was around in the mid-80s when the mouse and GUI first hit the market, and I recall the bickering amongst my fellow computer geeks about whether one could do real work with these new "toy" computers (which didn't phase me as I was also interested in desktop publishing and could sense where it was going.) Back then, there were merits to both sides of that debate, but over time, it's become clear that the mouse+GUI was far more powerful and flexible than at first perceived by the geek crowd.
I'm starting to see a lot of parallels between the touch interface devices and those days in the 80s. Every time I see/hear some geek declare the iPad a toy and useless for real work, I just think back to those days when my geek friends sneered at the Macs with the silly mouse and pretty GUI and wonder if history is repeating itself.
And then I see things like what Adobe is doing and I know it for a fact. We're seeing another revolution in computing happen, but most people won't acknowledge it for many years, until it's beyond obvious.
You know, I was around in the mid-80s when the mouse and GUI first hit the market, and I recall the bickering amongst my fellow computer geeks about whether one could do real work with these new "toy" computers (which didn't phase me as I was also interested in desktop publishing and could sense where it was going.) Back then, there were merits to both sides of that debate, but over time, it's become clear that the mouse+GUI was far more powerful and flexible than at first perceived by the geek crowd.
I'm starting to see a lot of parallels between the touch interface devices and those days in the 80s. Every time I see/hear some geek declare the iPad a toy and useless for real work, I just think back to those days when my geek friends sneered at the Macs with the silly mouse and pretty GUI and wonder if history is repeating itself.
And then I see things like what Adobe is doing and I know it for a fact. We're seeing another revolution in computing happen, but most people won't acknowledge it for many years, until it's beyond obvious.
withnail
Nov 1, 10:39 PM
You should only use that option to convert AIFF CD Audio files NOT mp3 files. Your quality will go in the toilet if you try to convert mp3 directly to AAC at any bit rate. Plus it does take a long time to make that crappy conversion.
True - I imagine that it would indeed. I already turned the option off because it didn't seem like it would be too helpful...
True - I imagine that it would indeed. I already turned the option off because it didn't seem like it would be too helpful...
rprebel
Sep 1, 12:07 AM
Nothing much. A little geektool and a modified bowtie theme. Original on the right.
dgirl
Sep 27, 05:14 PM
HiRez wrote:All I can say is its about freakin' time. Next, how about a dynamic web-based interface for iDisk, so Windoze users don't have to install an application to use it from the desktop...
if i understand what you're asking for, i think it might already exist. try idisk.mac.com/username. :)
if i understand what you're asking for, i think it might already exist. try idisk.mac.com/username. :)
macsaregoodmkay
Apr 27, 06:12 PM
For the record, it's really easy to access the file. Didn't even need the phone, the file is on your computer. The iPhone Tracker software finds the file for you. Literally took me 2 minutes to do.
Can't wait to get 2 minutes alone with my EX's computer! -kidding, I could care less, but you get the idea.
Can't wait to get 2 minutes alone with my EX's computer! -kidding, I could care less, but you get the idea.
0 comments:
Post a Comment