appleguy123
Mar 24, 06:56 PM
The Catholic Church doesn't hate homosexuals
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council....
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said."
Is this not exactly what the Catholic Church has done to homosexuals? Do they not have "Fundamental human rights"?
Sounds like hate to me.
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council....
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said."
Is this not exactly what the Catholic Church has done to homosexuals? Do they not have "Fundamental human rights"?
Sounds like hate to me.
yoak
Apr 13, 07:59 AM
It looks promising in my book, but I�m a DP/cameraman that sometime edits (for broadcast), not a "proper" editor.
I have used FCS enough to know of many of it�s short comings though.
For anyone interested have a look at what Larry Jordan says in his blog from after the event. It�s a very interesting read from someone I know it�s a pro at least.
Leathal has good points (as always) though, but I don�t think they bothered with all the "trivia".
For one, I would almost bet my life that you can still do multiclip editing
http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/
I have used FCS enough to know of many of it�s short comings though.
For anyone interested have a look at what Larry Jordan says in his blog from after the event. It�s a very interesting read from someone I know it�s a pro at least.
Leathal has good points (as always) though, but I don�t think they bothered with all the "trivia".
For one, I would almost bet my life that you can still do multiclip editing
http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 08:00 PM
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
There is absolutely no need to be insulting. Quote your "studies", first of all, but I find your assertion pretty bizarre as originally stated - mostly because Death Valley is almost entirely subsumed within Death Valley National Park. Unless you something we don't know, there is zero chance that you are going to be installing a 100 square mile solar array in the park. Not to mention the mountainous topography.
Solar panels are a useful supplement to other power sources in certain regions where favorable environmental conditions exist. But no more than that I'm afraid. In fact, it is obvious to me that there is no direct replacement for fossil fuels and nuclear energy - replacing them will require both 1) an increase in global energy efficiency in order to reduce power demands, and 2) aggressive implementation of wind, hydro, geothermal, and solar sources, among others. No single magical technology improvement is going to come along to alleviate our energy crisis.
Finally, there is tremendous social, political, and economic pressure to continue using fossil fuels and nuclear energy rather than the alternatives. Even though alternatives are now more prevalent than before and enjoy increasing popularity, fossil fuel and nuclear energy are going to be used heavily until all the fuel is exhausted.
There is absolutely no need to be insulting. Quote your "studies", first of all, but I find your assertion pretty bizarre as originally stated - mostly because Death Valley is almost entirely subsumed within Death Valley National Park. Unless you something we don't know, there is zero chance that you are going to be installing a 100 square mile solar array in the park. Not to mention the mountainous topography.
Solar panels are a useful supplement to other power sources in certain regions where favorable environmental conditions exist. But no more than that I'm afraid. In fact, it is obvious to me that there is no direct replacement for fossil fuels and nuclear energy - replacing them will require both 1) an increase in global energy efficiency in order to reduce power demands, and 2) aggressive implementation of wind, hydro, geothermal, and solar sources, among others. No single magical technology improvement is going to come along to alleviate our energy crisis.
Finally, there is tremendous social, political, and economic pressure to continue using fossil fuels and nuclear energy rather than the alternatives. Even though alternatives are now more prevalent than before and enjoy increasing popularity, fossil fuel and nuclear energy are going to be used heavily until all the fuel is exhausted.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:21 AM
Kind of like Anti-Obama = Racist.
Yep. As Liberal as I like to take my rantings some times...I absolutely agree with what you folks are saying. You can be a Tea Party Republican White NRA member Evangelical Christian...and be an amazingly wonderful and loving person. I know too many to cite. Disagreeing is not hatred.
Yep. As Liberal as I like to take my rantings some times...I absolutely agree with what you folks are saying. You can be a Tea Party Republican White NRA member Evangelical Christian...and be an amazingly wonderful and loving person. I know too many to cite. Disagreeing is not hatred.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:42 PM
Again, how can you prove something that (in theory) exists outside of time and space?
It's a never-ending speculation.
Even if we managed to explore every square inch of time and space you can always ask, "but what if something exists beyond that?"
The question remains, what makes an atheist?
The desire to see some form of proof before believing in an extraordinary explanation.
It's pretty simple really.
It's a never-ending speculation.
Even if we managed to explore every square inch of time and space you can always ask, "but what if something exists beyond that?"
The question remains, what makes an atheist?
The desire to see some form of proof before believing in an extraordinary explanation.
It's pretty simple really.
gopher
Oct 9, 01:59 PM
Even more interesting was the advertisement from Apple when the Blue and White G3 came out, and how cool the case was when it opened so simply, they said the "Mac was more open-minded." What amazes me though is there are still just as many Windows users who are biggots in this world as Mac users who are, or even more so. Being though in the minority as we are, Mac users feel all the more need to defend themselves against this biggotted crowd. Apple is trying its hardest to level the playing field by its Switch campaign, and show that it is on the same playing field so that Windows users can't ignore us and demean us with lies, fabrications, and these myths. Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose? How do we fight ignorance? I work with PCs only because the job I enjoy the most is run by an organization that is biased against Macs, and I'm not in the position to decide how to move Macs into the organization. But it certainly doesn't help to have people who would bad mouth the Mac. It makes us feel more in the minority and feel more the need to defend ourselves. Let's stop this attrocity. Show them what the Mac can do, and it is a viable solution. And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
Huntn
Mar 13, 06:34 PM
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:09 PM
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
It is impossible for me to display any ignorance of a topic of which I have not addressed. I challenge you to find a post from me where I use the phrase "professional broadcast industry".
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
It is impossible for me to display any ignorance of a topic of which I have not addressed. I challenge you to find a post from me where I use the phrase "professional broadcast industry".
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 11:49 PM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis
I find that statement extremely ironic given that there's a thread two below (as of 12:49am on March 25, 2011) that is on the decline/ death of organized religion. :p
and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Proof? Or is this amateur hour on PRSI and we're allowed to make baseless claims/ assertions?
I have no doubt some of the listed were/ are mainstream Catholics.
However, without proof, 'some' could mean 99% or 10%. IMO that's a big difference.
I find that statement extremely ironic given that there's a thread two below (as of 12:49am on March 25, 2011) that is on the decline/ death of organized religion. :p
and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Proof? Or is this amateur hour on PRSI and we're allowed to make baseless claims/ assertions?
I have no doubt some of the listed were/ are mainstream Catholics.
However, without proof, 'some' could mean 99% or 10%. IMO that's a big difference.
Gators Fan
Jun 19, 11:55 AM
It'd be great if we could get an engineer-type on here that actually knows how all this stuff's supposed to work. Not a flack from AT&T;, or another pissed-off complaining customer, but someone who can say "It isn't working properly because. . ." in a fashion we can all understand. Just saying.
wpotere
Mar 18, 01:31 PM
They will never make me switch!!!!!! I will never give them any money!!!!!
No Service...
WTF???
:p
No Service...
WTF???
:p
DanielCoffey
Apr 15, 09:28 AM
What's LGBT?
I believe it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (or something similar).
I believe it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (or something similar).
Photics
Apr 9, 11:32 AM
I do think the market can sustain 4 companies, perhaps even especially the casual market which is significantly larger. I would challenge you to answer why you think the smaller top-end console market can sustain 2 large players, but the broader casual market could not?
I think the difference here is that Apple represents casual gaming, perhaps on a level that's greater than Nintendo. It was divide and conquer last generation. The "hardcore" players chose between the XBOX 360 and the PlayStation 3, while Nintendo opened a new market with casual gaming.
Like mentioned in my previous post, Radio survived the invention of the television. Nintendo could survive Apple's entry into gaming. Yet, I think it means harder times for Nintendo. In addition to competing over price, Nintendo has to compete for the player's time.
With the Internet, free casual games like FarmVille / CityVille, cheap iOS games, cheap Android games... even Microsoft trying to make something happen in Mobile... there are a lot of big guns in this arena.
I bought Super Mario Bros. Wii and I thought it was a great game. But soon after, having completed every possible objective in the game, I realized that it was expensive. The game just sits idle now... a $40-$50 dust collector. That's basically the overall fate for my Wii. It's not because I'm a casual gamer. It's because I'm tired of spending so much money for such a short entertainment experience.
While you might look down on the nine games I got for less than $10, I think it's great. I'm more likely to play Fruit Ninja and Tiny Wings than Super Mario Bros Wii. So, for approximately $40 less, I got more entertainment value from my iOS games... and many of these games are being updated. Is Nintendo going to go back and release a patch for the pixelation problem I see in the background of Super Mario Bros Wii?
I think Apple is better for the gaming industry... and I think the results of future competition will reflect that. I don't see the logic in how Nintendo stays the dominate player in the industry when Apple is making so many smart moves for gaming.
Game Center... GREAT!
iTunes App Store games... Awesome for me, as a developer and a consumer
iPhone 4... awesome!
Xcode / GameSalad... great!
I think the difference here is that Apple represents casual gaming, perhaps on a level that's greater than Nintendo. It was divide and conquer last generation. The "hardcore" players chose between the XBOX 360 and the PlayStation 3, while Nintendo opened a new market with casual gaming.
Like mentioned in my previous post, Radio survived the invention of the television. Nintendo could survive Apple's entry into gaming. Yet, I think it means harder times for Nintendo. In addition to competing over price, Nintendo has to compete for the player's time.
With the Internet, free casual games like FarmVille / CityVille, cheap iOS games, cheap Android games... even Microsoft trying to make something happen in Mobile... there are a lot of big guns in this arena.
I bought Super Mario Bros. Wii and I thought it was a great game. But soon after, having completed every possible objective in the game, I realized that it was expensive. The game just sits idle now... a $40-$50 dust collector. That's basically the overall fate for my Wii. It's not because I'm a casual gamer. It's because I'm tired of spending so much money for such a short entertainment experience.
While you might look down on the nine games I got for less than $10, I think it's great. I'm more likely to play Fruit Ninja and Tiny Wings than Super Mario Bros Wii. So, for approximately $40 less, I got more entertainment value from my iOS games... and many of these games are being updated. Is Nintendo going to go back and release a patch for the pixelation problem I see in the background of Super Mario Bros Wii?
I think Apple is better for the gaming industry... and I think the results of future competition will reflect that. I don't see the logic in how Nintendo stays the dominate player in the industry when Apple is making so many smart moves for gaming.
Game Center... GREAT!
iTunes App Store games... Awesome for me, as a developer and a consumer
iPhone 4... awesome!
Xcode / GameSalad... great!
Rt&Dzine;
Mar 13, 03:43 PM
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
Probably, but it's speculation.
Probably, but it's speculation.
gugy
Jul 12, 01:38 AM
The new Powermac or Pro Mac, seems to be a nice machine. It will be interesting to see how much faster than the quad G5.
The big question is.
Would any professional that depends on Adobe apps going to buy this machine right away?
Adobe apps are not universal, i doubt that the new Pro Macs will be faster than the current Quad G5 using these apps. Plus, it seems scary to jump on rev. A for this machine.
Everyday, I feel safer for buying my Quad G5 last October and wait for Rev. B for the Pro Mac Intel. I bet the the Quad G5 will retain their value for awhile.
The big question is.
Would any professional that depends on Adobe apps going to buy this machine right away?
Adobe apps are not universal, i doubt that the new Pro Macs will be faster than the current Quad G5 using these apps. Plus, it seems scary to jump on rev. A for this machine.
Everyday, I feel safer for buying my Quad G5 last October and wait for Rev. B for the Pro Mac Intel. I bet the the Quad G5 will retain their value for awhile.
arkitect
Apr 15, 12:01 PM
ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.
Really? ;)
So I can have same-sex sex and it is just as OK (in the eyes of the Catholic Church) for me and my partner as it is for a straight couple to have sex?
Kewl.
I don't think so… But nice try anyway.
Ah, semantics.
Of course most people (and I am sure good Catholics) equate it with sexual abstinance.
Really? ;)
So I can have same-sex sex and it is just as OK (in the eyes of the Catholic Church) for me and my partner as it is for a straight couple to have sex?
Kewl.
I don't think so… But nice try anyway.
Ah, semantics.
Of course most people (and I am sure good Catholics) equate it with sexual abstinance.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 13, 04:35 PM
Did I say at any point time that we should rely on just wind? or solar, or tidal for that matter? A combination of all three is in order here. On top of that re-thinking infrastructure so that at least some of the power can be generated from the home or building itself is in order. i.e. putting solar panels on all new construction. This would reduce the amount of energy needed from centralized sources. Also shifting towards smarter energy consumption would help as well, i.e. using geo-thermal to generate heat instead of oil or electricity and mandating more efficient lightbulbs and appliances.
I might like to point out that CFL have other problems like mercury that is in them and dealing with the desposal. On top of that some people are really badly effect by the flickering of the lights because yes they do flicker at I believe 120hz. Most people not an issue but to some it causes some major head aches. Lovely flaw of AC power to those things.
Now if we can get LED down in cost and get be able to get them to work at that warm color that most of us use in our CFL and incondences we would be great but those are a long way off at being cheap and bright enough.
For energy wind is not considered a back bone power supply due to it not reliable enough. Solar can be consider good backbone due to it is reliable and we can store the heat energy to power us threw the night.
I think we need to pull from a lot of different sources like put solar arrays on the roofs of houses, wind farms if possible but those have limitations.
Right now Wind is about break even in terms of cost for most of the US. (not in Texas it is a money loser here) Solar is production is about 3 times what they can make selling it per MW. (information from someone I personally know in the industry and he is in those spots and is finding and building it. High enough to see all sides of it and has been in the power industry over 30 years and alternative for a very long time as well.)
I might like to point out that CFL have other problems like mercury that is in them and dealing with the desposal. On top of that some people are really badly effect by the flickering of the lights because yes they do flicker at I believe 120hz. Most people not an issue but to some it causes some major head aches. Lovely flaw of AC power to those things.
Now if we can get LED down in cost and get be able to get them to work at that warm color that most of us use in our CFL and incondences we would be great but those are a long way off at being cheap and bright enough.
For energy wind is not considered a back bone power supply due to it not reliable enough. Solar can be consider good backbone due to it is reliable and we can store the heat energy to power us threw the night.
I think we need to pull from a lot of different sources like put solar arrays on the roofs of houses, wind farms if possible but those have limitations.
Right now Wind is about break even in terms of cost for most of the US. (not in Texas it is a money loser here) Solar is production is about 3 times what they can make selling it per MW. (information from someone I personally know in the industry and he is in those spots and is finding and building it. High enough to see all sides of it and has been in the power industry over 30 years and alternative for a very long time as well.)
ender land
Apr 26, 01:32 AM
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.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
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.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
�algiris
May 2, 08:58 AM
About as huge as most windows ones!
"Bigger".
"Bigger".
DeathChill
Apr 20, 09:28 PM
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
Naimfan
Apr 24, 11:25 AM
Well in that case anything could be classed as Christianity. Frankly I find that absurd. What's the point of identifying as a Christian if any interpretation of Christianity is considered OK? You may as well just call yourself a spiritualist as it would be closer to the truth.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
Lau
Aug 29, 04:52 PM
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
It's definitely true that educating people how to (and actually convincing them to) make a difference is incredibly important. And I'm not a huge fan of Greenpeace, but if the figures are true, Apple (along with a lot of other companies could do better, and should.
However, I think environmentalists should be pointing fingers everywhere. At the same time. In my opinion, half the reason we're in this state is people saying "Well, big compainies pollute, so why should I care", "Well, other countries pollute, so there's no point in me bothering", "Well, the supermarket's easier to shop at, so it's not my fault", etc. If we all just got on with it, at the same time, without worrying about whether so and so was better or worse, we'd be a hell of a lot better off.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
It's definitely true that educating people how to (and actually convincing them to) make a difference is incredibly important. And I'm not a huge fan of Greenpeace, but if the figures are true, Apple (along with a lot of other companies could do better, and should.
However, I think environmentalists should be pointing fingers everywhere. At the same time. In my opinion, half the reason we're in this state is people saying "Well, big compainies pollute, so why should I care", "Well, other countries pollute, so there's no point in me bothering", "Well, the supermarket's easier to shop at, so it's not my fault", etc. If we all just got on with it, at the same time, without worrying about whether so and so was better or worse, we'd be a hell of a lot better off.
gnasher729
Apr 9, 02:47 AM
You summed it up beautifully. You're not a gamer. You're what is called a time passer, which are what 99 percent of IOS games are, mind numbing time killers.
So what exactly is the difference between a "gamer" and a "time passer"?
So what exactly is the difference between a "gamer" and a "time passer"?
paul4339
Apr 28, 11:51 AM
Yes, I strongly disagree that students need to learn Windows in order to thrive in the workplace. ... Kids need to learn how to use a computer. Which one is not that important any more. ...
I agree, students need to learn to use a/any computer and how to *think*. If they can do that they can learn any computer and adapt to change.
P.
I agree, students need to learn to use a/any computer and how to *think*. If they can do that they can learn any computer and adapt to change.
P.
