jcd11235

It is mostly made with desktop parts, but the Core 2 Duo models use mobile processors for energy savings. I'm not sure about the new i5 or i7 models. I don't believe Apple has ever shipped desktop Core 2 processors in any machine. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Did anyone else see the series pilot of White Collar? It reminded me a lot of Catch Me If You Can, only picking up about where the movie left off. (For those unaware, Catch Me If You Can was based on the true story of Frank Abignale Jr., and ends with Frank working with the FBI agent who was finally able to catch him.) I liked the pilot of White Collar and recommend it, but I tend to like con movies, so keep that in mind. You can watch the pilot on the USA Network site or on Hulu if you missed it and want to check it out. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Since it is the males that nurture the egg and raise the offspring, it's the male-mwle relationship that's permanent. Yes it is. But can you admit it? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

We have seen that very thing, so I guess you'll acknowledge that you've been wrong and homosexual marriage isn't wrong or unnatural after all. didn't you read the part where the male and female have an offspring together, before the male chases the female away ffs!!? Yes I did, and that in no way makes the male-male relationship any less permanent. By the standard of proof that you set forth, you've been proven wrong. Are you going to be mature enough to admit it? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

We have seen that very thing, so I guess you'll acknowledge that you've been wrong and homosexual marriage isn't wrong or unnatural after all. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Why not? Why is it wrong? Anthropology isn't my strong suit, but I seem to recall reading about how such marriages were acceptable among some Native American cultures. I did. You never made any posts offering such explanations, at least not in this thread. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Pragmatically, that's how I feel about marriage versus civil unions. I think it would cost a lost of time and money over semantics. More idealistically, I think the term stinks of separate but equal. I would not, however, be opposed to the government recognizing all marriages between consenting adult couples as civil unions, and leaving couples joined in civil unions to be "married" by their churches according to their own beliefs. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

There is everything right about two adults who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together being allowed to get married, whether they be the same sex or not. I don't see it as a gays versus straights issue; I see it as an equal rights for all people issue. In which post(s) did you offer such examples? Can you point them out? (Post numbers are fine; there's no need to link to them.) I missed them. Being gay is not unnatural; it occurs with many species naturally. It has also occurred among humans for millennia, predating any modern culture. If sex is between consenting adults, why does it matter whether the participants are of the same or different genders? Why is it fundamentally wrong if they are of the same gender? If I recall correctly, you're a religious person. Do you believe in Creationism or intelligent design? If so, please explain the prostate in God/the designer's grand design. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The significant difference that immediately comes to mind is that those in support of same sex marriage are generally supporting it only between two legally consenting adults. I'm curious as to how you came to your conclusion that same sex relationships are wrong. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I thought invading Afghanistan was a mistake before we did it, and I still feel the same way about the war there. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with LGBT people, either. They are no less fundamentally right than straight people. Humans are not the only species to have same gender sex, so one can hardly make the argument that being gay is unnatural. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The old man understood things just fine. No one is trying to force churches to allow same sex marriages. The controversy is about requiring the government to recognize same sex marriages. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

Consider the following pairs of sentences: The rock had a mass of five kilograms. The rock weighed five kilograms. An ounce of chocolate chip cookies contain more energy than an ounce of TNT. An ounce of chocolate chip cookies produce greater power than an ounce of TNT. The motorcycle traveled at a speed of 70 miles per hour. The motorcycle traveled at a velocity of 70 miles per hour. The car accelerated. The car sped up. For each pair, the two sentences appear to convey essentially the same meaning to many (or even most) people. However, for each pair, the second sentence says something significantly different from the first. For the first pair: The first sentence is fine. The second sentence states the rock weighed five kilograms. The kilogram, however, is not a unit of weight. The metric unit for weight is Newton, which is a unit of force. Even if we know the rock's mass, we can't know its weight without additional information. For the second pair, the first sentence is true, oddly enough (assuming we're referring to normal chocolate chip cookies such as Chops Ahoy or Nestle Tollhouse.) The second sentence, on the other hand is false. Energy and power are two different (albeit related) quantities. Energy is the ability to do work. By weight,chocolate chip cookies (and the air required to release their energy) have a higher energy density than TNT by a factor of almost four. Power is the rate of energy release. By weight TNT can produce much greater power, compared to chocolate chip cookies. The third pair of sentences seem to say the same thing, right? Nope. The second sentence makes no sense. Velocity is a vector quantity with a magnitude (speed) and a direction. We can't know what the motorcycle's velocity is without knowing in which direction it is traveling. Let's look at the last pair. Surely they mean the same thing, right? Everybody knows that accelerate means to speed up. Except it doesn't. To accelerate means to change velocity. That might mean the accelerating object is speeding up, slowing down, or turning. Of course, we all know that colloquially, kilograms are a unit of weight, we pay for power by the kilowatt hour, speed and velocity can be used interchangeably, and acceleration means an increase in speed. If scientists utilized colloquial definitions, they would never understand anything. Units wouldn't match up, and important equations would be nonsensical. Science requires more precise meanings for words than colloquial conversation requires. Without that precision, we wouldn't have the modern world as we know it. Let's consider one more pair of sentences: Low interest rates were the catalyst of the financial crisis. Low interest rates were the cause of the financial crisis. Again, colloquially, the two sentences might seem to say the same thing. But, if we want to learn the lessons from the financial crisis and prevent its recurrence, we need more precision than colloquial definitions provide. The study of economics is, after all, generally quantitative. Thus, we need to focus on the difference between cause and catalyst, not the similarities. Most words have synonyms. Rarely do two synonyms mean exactly the same thing. There is nearly always a subtle nuance that differentiates their meanings. Often, when writing, that subtle nuance is important enough that a particular word's intended meaning cannot be conveyed by a particular synonym because the precision of meaning is lost in the context of the writing. This discussion of the financial crisis and the role low interest rates played is one of those times. Low interest rates were not the cause; they were the catalyst. Insufficient regulation was the cause. We need to address the cause of the crisis more than the catalyst. (Until causes are adequately addressed, we do need to be wary of catalysts that could increase the rate at which causes have detrimental effects on the economy.) Low interest rates are not the enemy. Indeed, they can even be beneficial for the economy. Insufficient regulation and oversight, on the other hand, has proven once again to cause problems. I've done my part. I look forward to reading your post after you have done yours. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Could someone please tell Cheney that it didn't happen? I don't think he got the memo. Odd, how I can't seem to find that on the news - got a link? A Link Perhaps you missed: "Perkovic said Poplawski feared 'the Obama gun ban that's on the way' and 'didn't like our rights being infringed upon.'" Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not surprisingly, some of us realize that when eight years were spent making a mess of things, it will take more than nine months to fix it. To be fair to former President Bush, he really only screwed two things up badly: foreign policy and domestic policy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Could someone please tell Cheney that it didn't happen? I don't think he got the memo. Odd, how I can't seem to find that on the news - got a link? A Link Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Very good point.

Sorry, I just noticed that you added the "(causes to happen)" part yourself without any indication that it wasn't in the original definition on the Web page to which you linked. Yes I did, and the accusation stands, since you altered a definition in order to make it support your assertion. Exactly the same, except for the fact that I didn't alter the definition when I quoted it. You did. Why the desperation, Lucky? Are the facts getting in the way of your argument? So, are you going to address the questions I previously asked, or are you afraid the answers will highlight how incorrect your assertion is? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yep.. Have to agree.. Can't imagine being a sniper converts too well!! To be fair, some police departments (in the US) have uses for snipers. I don't think many have jobs for cannon crewmembers. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That wasn't what I was saying. Agreed. However, some opportunities offer benefits that carry over into the civilian world better than others. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Lucky, you quoted my cite. I put it in boldface above so you can easily identify it. More accurately, in addition to a dictionary definition, I offered an analogy to help highlight the difference between a cause and a catalyst. The causes would be the same as in my analogy, horny men and women meeting other horny men and women (of their preferred gender). The catalyst would be different. The catalysts would be whatever induced them to gather in a parking lot (if they just meet in the parking lot by chance, that would be an example of the reaction occurring sans catalyst, i.e. more slowly than with the catalyst) or the reason for the gathering around the bonfire (which could possibly be just to hang out around a bonfire). Yes, I emboldened it because that particular word was the perfect choice, and the nuance between it and cause was critical in the context of the discussion. I corrected it because I was trying to keep you from looking like you couldn't spell (i.e. I didn't car that it was misspelled, but leaving it that way and putting it in boldface would have given that impression.) If I wanted to point out the error, I would have quoted it as you wrote it and followed it with "[sic]". * * * * * I see you still avoided addressing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, as well as my questions about insurable interest, reserve requirements, and Lehman Brothers vs. AIG, Bear Stearns Companies, and the other financial institutions that received bailout funds? Understanding the answers to those questions will be very helpful in furthering your understanding of the financial crisis, and why low interest rates were the catalyst, not the cause. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If the kid doesn't know what he wants to do, he's better off in a branch like the Navy or Air Force, where he won't get to choose his own job specialty and has a decent chance of the skill set he picks up being useful in the civilian world if he decides to not make a career out of the military. He'll get placed where his test scores and performance indicate he'll do well. Most people tend to enjoy activities in which they can perform well or excel. Looking back, the biggest mistake I made when I joined the military was to enlist in the US Army with a combat arms MOS (i.e. a real soldier). Oh boy, I can operate a howitzer; there's a marketable skill. I had the line scores on the ASVAB to qualify for pretty much any entry level job offered in the military and wasted the opportunity they provided. If I had it to do over again, I would probably select the Coast Guard, since they actually do what they're trained to do during war and peace alike. Also, the CG arguably do more to protect Americans than any other branch. After the Coast Guard, I would likely choose Air Force or Navy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Nope, I'm not an authority on the subject. I have, however, sat in on a dozen or so lectures on the crisis given by academics and professionals working in the industry. I've also put in several dozen hours doing my own research on the crisis for various research projects for different classes. So, while I'm not an authority, I know enough about the topic to recognize that your claim is wrong. Humor me. Answer the questions I added in my last post (which I edited while you were writing your post, sorry about the bad timing). How many other people have complimented you on your accuracy and conciseness in Speaker's Corner in the past month? You really should have accepted the complement that essentially said that you were exactly correct. Instead, you felt compelled to argue to the point that you've exposed yourself as not really understanding the crisis all that well. I guess you don't like it so much when the shoe's on the other foot! Dude, I haven't once criticized your grammar (or spelling) at all in this discussion. That seems like your standard accusation when you are unable to address points that others make. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Congratulations, Lucky. You started from a post that was so accurate and concise that you were complimented for it and argued your way to a longwinded and incorrect diatribe. That's an impressive accomplishment. It would appear that you just got lucky, so to speak, with your choice of words in the post for which you were complimented and don't really understand the crisis as well as the post would otherwise indicate. * * * It seems you were intellectually dishonest with your quoted definition of catalyst. You had to cherry pick one definition from several, most of which don't support your assertion. Why, for example, did you not choose the first one that fit the context of our discussion? Here it is: cat·a·lyst (ktl-st) n. 2. One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences: "A free press ... has remained ... a vital catalyst to an informed and responsible electorate" (Robert O'Neal). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Think of a nightclub. People go to nightclubs all the time in order to increase the probability to get laid on the night that they go. The nightclub is a catalyst. It doesn't cause people to get laid. The people get laid because horny men and horny women meet (and often consume alcohol to lower inhibitions). Yet, without the nightclub many of those singles (and wannabe singles) wouldn't meet and spend the night together. Still, we don't consider the nightclub to cause the sex, do we? Of course not. It only serves as a catalyst. The low interest rates were to the financial crisis as nightclubs are to sex. The low rates weren't causal, they were catalytic. Those are pretty significant changes. At least one Senator foresaw the GLB Act leading to government bailouts. I also noticed that you failed to comment on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Was that more intellectual dishonesty, or do you not understand its relevance either? Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let anyone who wanted to buy an insurance policy on John Doe's house do so? Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let insurance companies sell insurance policies for which they are unable to pay the benefits if contractually required? Do you understand why the government allowed Lehman Brothers to fail while bailing out companies like AIG and Bear Stearns? After all, Lehman Brothers played in the market while the interest rates were just as low as when AIG were playing. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!