A sense of humor is paramount. Who wants to be stuck somewhere, maybe out for dinner for example, with a person who takes everything seriously? If all my jokes are dying on the table in front of my sooner or later I'm going to reach for the butter knife to jab in my eye for some semblance of entertainment.
I wouldn't lie to you and say that OS X never crashes, never has a kernel panic, and never beach-balls for hours until I'm ready to smash my iMac through a tree stump. But for myself, and those who use Mac around me, those moments are few and far between, much less than the hair pulling I experience using Microsoft software.
The thing is, as near as I can tell you're telling me that OS X runs well because of high-quality hardware (which isn't always true, I don't know about now, but there was a time when Apple was using the shittiest of shitty motherboards for their iBooks, the name of that manufacturer escapes me though) and Windows struggles as a result of poor or inconsistent hardware. I would assume you mean to say if Windows had the same hardware advantages as Apple they would be on par with the OS X. Okay, that's fair enough.
A writer from Demonbaby.com visited the Creation Museum in Kentucky and recorded a hilarious exploration into it's outlandish exhibits. In between the laughs he manages to make an excellent point regarding the state of the creationism debate, in that there shouldn't be one. Any debate simply gives Creationist a "disproportionately" larger voice and erroneously legitimizes a falsehood that the earth and it's people were created by God 6000 years ago.
It was somewhat of a revelation for me. We have seen over the past 8 years that all you have to do is institute a little doubt in the public consciousness and suddenly that doubt grows and spreads. Creationists don't have to win the debate, they only need smudge the theory of evolution just a little, enough to catch it with its pants down for just a moment. That will be enough to capture the minds of those who are already want to believe in creation.
I don't know enough about US history to be able to say that George Walker Bush is the worst president the country has ever seen, but quite honestly I have to believe that he is because the prospect of someone being worse than him is terrifying.
To the best of my knowledge atheist aren't prone to gathering in groups to discuss how awesome being an atheist is. But just because there are no atheist organizations to congregate and contribute to charities and the like doesn't mean that there are no individual atheists out there doing good work.
You raise some excellent points, but I'll have to disagree with your main opinion of favour for monoculture.
Multiculturalism is obviously where we are already headed, and it is something to embrace. Other cultures are interesting, and fun to explore, and through that exploration we can hopefully learn to have a great deal more tolerance for how other people live.
Whether you feel a culture or way of life is acceptable or not is irrelevant. If those culture can fit within the laws of your country, then they have every right to exist within your borders.
I do like the romantic thought of a renaissance of religious thought, however. Well said.
The title "Preservation of Favored Races" may sound racist, it's not of course. Races in this context is just a synonym for "species."
Hitler was a Roman Catholic, you know that right? And even if Hitler used evolution as the basis for the Aryan race, is that relevant? I mean, considering all the atrocities committed in the name of God, I think evolution wins in the "which is less evil" category.
Once again, Mr. 35-Year Journalist, you are super wrong.
Wow. Again I find you, the 35-year journalist, being super fair and balanced. Not to mention honest. If the Democratic Party was so racist, as you say, then the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a huge step in the wrong damn direction.
" . . . in the tradition of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-Il, etc. leftists HATE any message that conflicts with theirs. Their brains are all hard-wired to despise anyone to the right of Che Guevara."
A journalist of 35 years, eh? Sure sounds like your career has been as fair and balanced as Fox News. In fact that post was so pro-Fox News I almost suspect that LoneRanger here is, in fact, Rupert Murdock himself.
It might interest you to know that Keith Olbermann has finally beat O'Reilly in ratings. A changing of the guard, perhaps? Something for all us Che Guevara wanna-be's to celebrate about.
Here's what you said originally:
"OSX works very well on the hardware Apple supplies"
Here is what you're saying now:
". . . the reason many people think OSX is rock solid is that it runs on streamlined and often expensive hardware . . ."
You'll forgive me if I'm still confused.
You're assuming I believe OS X is a solid operating system based solely on my own experience, which is not the case. In addition to being a Mac user for 8 years I also sold Macs for a year and a half. I am also a graphic designer whose peers nearly all use OS X, so my opinions of the operating system are not just based on only my experience.
Having said that OS X isn't bulletproof, and hardly perfect. Some people will have bad experiences, and that's true of any product really. However, if your 25 MacBook Pro's at your high school are crashing because of Microsoft Word or Firefox then the IT staff at your school should be downloading updates for both OS X and the software in question, which would likely solve the problem. I should also point out that if Microsoft Word and Firefox are crashing the OS, and everything else seems to run peachy, isn't it possible that OS X is not the culprit?
As for Apple's hardware advantage, if that's what it takes to get a computer to run smoothly, well maybe that's just what makes Apple not suck and Microsoft suck.
Either way you're kind of arguing both sides of the issue. On one hand you're saying "oh, well OS X machines run awesome cause they're designed with specific hardware in mind" and on the other you're telling me OS X doesn't run well because your computers at school crash all the time. So which is it? Does OS X run well or run shitty?
Yeah, awesome. You know that anyone can sign this petition right? I downloaded the petition for myself, I could sign it if I want, all I have to do is put "Ph. D" at the end of my name.
Oh, also, Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, the first guy on the list is a creationist. Rad.
People who say "scientists have already proven" global warming is a hoax either aren't paying attention to any scientists or are listening to right-wing radio. The IPCC (Internation Panel on Climate Change) has put together four reports on the issue with contributions from over two thousand scientists. I defy you to find a comprehensive report with that many scientific minds saying climate change is a hoax. Seriously, go find it for me. When you give up let me know.
Also, no scientist is willing to conclusively say 100% that climate change is man-made and will lead to catastrophes, because they know that no matter how sure they are, their work is still a scientific theory, they are very careful about their wording. This last report from the IPCC was regarded as "the strongest wording yet" on climate change.
The point is, any scientist who says conclusively that global warming is a myth is a shitty scientist . . . and probably a dickbag.
The Toyota president Katsuaki Watanabe had this to say about the future of the auto industry:
" 'Without focusing on measures to address global warming and energy issues, there can be no future for our auto business,' he told reporters in Tokyo, adding, 'Our view is that oil production will peak in the near future. We need to develop power train(s) for alternative energy sources.' "
If auto industry is already changing it's focus because it believes peak oil will occur, I'd say this debate is over.
