Lol @ me? I'm a PC user, but not a fanboy either way. I have never used Apple because (in the past few years) I find their marketing obnoxious and I like to tinker with my PC. I do have an iPad and an iPhone.

I was gonna list my PC specs and their costs and then realized what a waste of time that is. Just for one example my case cost $400+, not $250. It's a big giant black hunk of brushed aluminum. It's bad-ass. Never have I looked at an Apple product and thought "bad-ass."


>> ^jmzero:

Or you could buy good PCs and see the price is pretty much the same.

Lol @budzos. Mac people have always said this, and it has always been funny. They used to have some magic wiggle room because so many parts were different (different processor, especially) - but that's mostly gone now. OK, so here you can get a quad core Mac Pro for $2499. Let's see what those parts it lists are worth:
Processor: $316 (here's the specific model)
Graphics Card: $109 (here's actually a slightly better model)
6GB of RAM: $100 (good RAM for that premium)
1TB hard disk: $100 (decent hard disk for that)
Motherboard: $250 (let's get a nice one)
Case: $250 (let's get a nice one)
Optical drive: $100
So far we're at $1225. Maybe they've got some Apple magic (whoo! Superdrive!) to make up a couple hundred more dollars - but it's going to take a lot to spend another $1275 (ie. more than double). If you prefer a Mac, go ahead and get one - but pretending they're the same price is silly.
To be clear, I don't hate Apple and some of their products are reasonably priced now. A Macbook Air, for example, has been a good deal for a while and is still much nicer than its competitors. But their hardware has historically been way more expensive, and lots of it still has a significant premium attached.

When ever life gets you down Mr's brown, and life seems hard or tough, and people are stupid, obnoxious or daft, and you feel that you've had quite eno-ho-ho-hough...

THIS JUST IN.

>> ^EMPIRE:

I hope this is good as well, but I can't help but cringe at those shots so obviously made for the 3D version of the movie. It's just so damn gimmicky.
This is just a trailer and here's how many I could count:
00:04 - fire breather
00:21 - hat tossing
00:36 - floating objects
01:03 - the flying little creature
01:18 - the snapping plants
01:29 - the flying monkeys
I personally don't mind the 3D when done properly, but these shots are so made-for-3d that it becomes obnoxious.


QFT

I'm still waiting for a 3d movie to actually match Avatar. Nothing popping out of the screen, just 3d used as it should be, to create depth to enhance the movie going experience. I'm hoping The Hobbit is that movie, after all Weta Digital does the best CG in the world.

I hope this is good as well, but I can't help but cringe at those shots so obviously made for the 3D version of the movie. It's just so damn gimmicky.

This is just a trailer and here's how many I could count:

00:04 - fire breather
00:21 - hat tossing
00:36 - floating objects
01:03 - the flying little creature
01:18 - the snapping plants
01:29 - the flying monkeys

I personally don't mind the 3D when done properly, but these shots are so made-for-3d that it becomes obnoxious.

Looks like @kceaton1's getting serious.

You may not speak out but i've decided to. If anyone is concerned about the seemingly unfair statements i make about shinyblurry then my comment section can show the proof. I have engaged him in discussion a number of times of science/theism, and the results are poor. He doesn't offer you the same respect he expects you to give him, i find him egotistical and obnoxious and completely uninterested in serious discussion. Read my discussions with him if you don't believe that - there's proof which is the test of any theory as we all know.

People like shinyblurry don't even realise that their zealotism drives people away from the religion.

Let me make a statement regarding the big bang theory. Firstly, all scientific theories are put in place to explain the facts. A theory takes everything we know, balls it up into a bunch of connections, and offers us a way of understanding that phenomenon. The big bang theory is not "complete", that is why it's still an active field of study. There are so many scientists right now trying to improve on theories that it's hard to even imagine.

You read a web page like that - almost entirely signed by scientists from the US and mostly "independent researchers"? And suddenly you think you know about the big bang. And in it one person suggests the idea that rigidly adhering to old forms is harmful to scientific advancement, but you take it to mean something else as far as i can tell - shame on you.

The big bang predicts the initial distribution of elements that we see reflected in the universe today - mostly hydrogen, a bit of helium and trace other elements. It actually predicts using only PROVEN SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES (that are testable to anyone on earth) what time and at what temperature different particles were able to form. From that, it predicts what chemical composition the universe has, and finds that it's in agreement. Do you even realise the significance of that? I don't think you do, your brain has been trained by religion to look for things like that and see only design. And that's also why you can't understand scientific theories. You really need to open your mind to how other people think, blurry, and i mean that with kindness.

Do you really think the big bang is so far away from the truth, in your ignorance? Have you looked at it in the kind of depth you need to to understand it? If not, i kindly ask that you stop spouting rubbish in the same way i don't go about trashing your unfounded, ungrounded theories every time you mention theism.

i didn't intend to speak out on @kceaton1's behalf, but i'm pretty sick of blurry canvassing for converts with misinformation myself. His links and statements provide nothing of substance to the argument. It doesn't matter what religion kceaton is, as a theist yourself i'm surprised you act cocky about another's choice of religion. Doesn't your religious claptrap say something like do unto other as you would have them do unto you? In my opinion under your own religion you will be going to hell for being so manipulative and insulting to others.

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^shinyblurry:
That's quite a rant, Kceaton. Unfortunately, you cannot use the light travel time problem to falsify YEC. The SBB model also has a light travel time problem, specifically the horizon problem. Check out what some scientists published in New Scientist Magazine:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
I'm sorry you were indoctrinated into the Mormon church. My heart goes out to you, but you've thrown away the baby with the bathwater. It isn't too difficult to falsify the Mormon God, but neither does that make atheism the natural conclusion.
>> ^kceaton1

One:
I've known about this study since day one, does it surprise me, hahahahahaha. I think most people are morons. NO IT DOESN'T! I think we have one of the worst educations systems in the world, you may think your belief driven gospel knowledge may keep you safe, flying up there in the sky, BUT I'll take a damned engineer EVERYDAY over your damned God!
Two:
About my past. This is the THIRD time you've said this same thing. This is borderline abuse, FUCK YOU! Get off your high horse your are not an immortal moral high judge sent here to Earth to tell us what was a wrong or "sorrowful" mistake. I'm sorry, I'm being really damned aggressive right now, but I'm tired of your cockeyed charades and your imperative to make sure every Mormon that is or ever was KNOWS how "sorry" you are for them.
---
I'm tired of the targeted trolling!
That also means I will never qualify your "horizon" crap with a response, because it doesn't deserve one. I know this came off rude so sorry for that, on the other hand it was suppose too.

I have a question that maybe open-minded individuals such as yourselves might help me answer.

I don't give a shit if somebody is homosexual. Honestly I don't even care if you're open about it, kiss your S.O. in front of me, eat sausage seductively while looking me straight in the eye...whatever it's cool with me. What I do hate though, is what many would refer to as "fags". The obnoxiously flamboyant, gregarious type that needs to rub the fact that they're gay in your face. I know that guy is a stereotype, but he really does exist. I feel like if that type sees that I'm comfortable around homosexuals they feel safe and decide to take their anger for less tolerant "breeders" out on me. It's the the homosexual form of militant. In my book, they're the "tools" of the homosexual world: what rednecks are to white people, what gang-bangers are Hispanics/Blacks. How do I exist with that specific disdain without being a "homophobe"?

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Did he always feel superior?

Why is this always the first place the conversation goes when someone doesn't drink? It's really obnoxious.

@bareboards2

One of the things that I dislike the most about the Sift are the numerous times that words and intentions are put into my mouth that are utterly absent in what I actually say.
I have repeatedly said "unconscious" sexism. And I have applied that phrase to both men and women.
But suddenly I am being painted as some hysteric who is lashing out at the big bad men who have hurt me so bad by their big bad sexism.

Because you have a history of doing just that. I can think of at least 2 other times when I've seen you, and called you out for, attacking other people and then trying to play the victim. I don't need to wait for the end of the song to say, "That's Yankee-Doodle Dandy"; I can name that tune in 7 notes.

This entire culture is sexist. Anyone who has spent more than five minutes looking around them will agree with that statement. [...] Spend one day -- one day -- listening to how often women are called girls. Substitute the word "woman" if she is more than 18 years old, and see how that shifts your internal landscape. Spend one day -- one day -- substituting the word "boy" every time you hear the word "man" and see if it doesn't squeege you out.

I agree that sexism permeates not only our culture, but probably human nature. It's the sort of thing that we all need to constantly work on, but probably not something that will ever completely go away.

I became aware of the belittling use of "girl" about 20 years ago as a teenage comic book geek. If you go back to the golden and silver age, you see it a lot, but it's present more recently too: Superman and Supergirl, Batman and Batgirl, Invisible Girl, Marvel Girl. A lot of them who are still published have been renamed (Invisible Girl is now Invisible Woman and Marvel Girl goes by her "real" name, Jean Grey).

But that doesn't mean "girl" is always belittling. Neither is "boy". Often, it's just casual. If I go hiking with my friend and his wife says, "Where are you boys headed today?", nobody cares. It's casual conversation with familiar people. If someone calls me a boy the first time we meet, I might find them a little arrogant or obnoxious.

You can call this trolling if you want to. I call it my little attempt at education.

If that's your goal then I might suggest you rethink your approach. You are putting people off with your approach. Unfortunately, you've got a reputation to overcome as well, so you will have to be extra careful with your words around here if you want to get them heard.

In the case of this video, I don't think it particularly matters if "girls" was used in a belittling manner by the speakers (consciously or subconsciously) because the subjects of the story deserve to be belittled for how they behaved. I don't care if they want to call them "dumb bitches", something I normally find very distasteful, because they earned that shit.

Find me a case of someone calling a respectable, responsible, mature woman a girl or a bitch and I've got your back.

Your missing the part about how it was almost certainly her fault for being raped to begin with.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Yeah, it is pretty obnoxious that you talk outta your ass all the time.
Forcing a woman to give birth to a HUMAN PERSON is not the equivalent of making a child take care of pet.
Plus, you'd be the first motherfucker to complain when you're forced to pay taxes to provide healthcare and food assistance and public education to support that baby once it's growth.
"You'd better have that baby! Otherwise, it's murder.
You say you don't have the income or means to properly raise that child?
Well that's your own fault. Don't ask me for a handout!"
>> ^lantern53:
That's pretty obnoxious.
Why don't they let a Democrat abortion doctor stick a pair of scissors in their unwanted babies skulls?
After all, we don't want them to be punished...with a BABY!

Yeah, it is pretty obnoxious that you talk outta your ass all the time.

Forcing a woman to give birth to a HUMAN PERSON is not the equivalent of making a child take care of pet.

Plus, you'd be the first motherfucker to complain when you're forced to pay taxes to provide healthcare and food assistance and public education to support that baby once it's growth.

"You'd better have that baby! Otherwise, it's murder.

You say you don't have the income or means to properly raise that child?

Well that's your own fault. Don't ask me for a handout!"

>> ^lantern53:

That's pretty obnoxious.
Why don't they let a Democrat abortion doctor stick a pair of scissors in their unwanted babies skulls?
After all, we don't want them to be punished...with a BABY!

i love ted nugents music.saw him three times and he puts on one helluva show.
and @chingalera is right.nugent is a showmen.
look at me! look at me!
the man is a master of self promotion.
but he really should stay out of politics and/or talking about politics because he comes across as half retarded.
and i take issue with the man on calling the military "his people" when he literally shit himself to avoid vietnam.
i am not hating on his decision to do whatever he felt was right at the time but dont be such a blatant fucking hypocrite

he is loud,passionate and obnoxious and probably a fun guy to hang with but he is also a pussy.
all that tough talk is just that...talk,
and its also part of the show!

rock on nuge.

>> ^lantern53:

That's pretty obnoxious.
Why don't they let a Democrat abortion doctor stick a pair of scissors in their unwanted babies skulls?
After all, we don't want them to be punished...with a BABY!


Ah the standard judgmental hypocrisy of "it's ok for me to make a choice, but it's not ok for you to."

people of "faith" are the biggest demographic of those who get abortions. Betcha they thought they would never get an abortion either....until the day comes you have to put your obsolete rules to the test in the real world.

If you guys actually practiced what you preached, and thankfully, you don't, the nation, if not the world would be even deeper in it.

That's pretty obnoxious.

Why don't they let a Democrat abortion doctor stick a pair of scissors in their unwanted babies skulls?

After all, we don't want them to be punished...with a BABY!

Got in another debate with a hardcore conservative today. Different one this time. I learned some pretty awesome things.

1. If you spend more money on your military, it will always be stronger. No matter what! If you slightly reduce spending on your military while removing troops from conflicts such as Iraq, thereby freeing troops up for other things, your military will still be weaker.

2. Military might is virtually solely determined by number of people in it. China has a better military than the US. In fact, China could successfully land invade the US right now!!! When presented with the fact that China has not even attempted a land invasion of Taiwan because a portion of the US navy is sitting between the two, this was ignored. When I pointed out the US spends multiple times more than China does on military, and therefore he contradicted himself, this was promptly ignored because China apparently also has a better economy than the US, too.

3. When I disputed the proposition that China could successfully land invade the US by pointing out that amphibious assaults require air power, and China doesn't have sufficient aircraft carriers, I was told that air power is not required for a successful massive land invasion. For example, the only thing air power was used for during D-Day was patrols and to parachute some troops in behind enemy lines. They were not required to protect naval vessels carrying troops, nor did they participate in any significant bombings of Normandy. Also, the US successfully invaded Normandy without aircraft carriers, so the fact that China only has one aircraft carrier is irrelevant. I asked how China would get its air force over to the West Coast of the US without aircraft carriers, but that was ignored because an air force wasn't necessary.

4. When I pointed out multiple sources of info showing that air superiority was needed during D-Day, and was specifically sought out prior to even contemplating invasion, and the fact that I have a degree in History, taught it, and my concentration in college was WWI to the present, he responded that he knew more because he was in the navy for 8 years.

In the end, I was accused of thinking I knew more about everything than anyone else, and ridiculed for thinking I knew things because I went to college.

Sadly, this is a true story, and I'm related to this person.

I know there are idiots in every political group, but the amount of ignorance and idiocy coming out of the right these days is staggering, and so many of them are obnoxiously loud and proud about these kinds of views.