Thats.... Not what I said. Everyone votes based on issues. Most gay people voted democrat because the religious right within the republican party hates them. Women voters skewed more democrat because of the lovely rape-alicious comments coming out of the religious fundies mouths that the republican party loves promoting, coddling and sheltering from criticism.

Wow that's quite an interesting interpretation of what I said. Come on, shelve the talking points and be real. The Republicans succeed in the South because of a certain strategy, and that strategy is racial anxiety and coded stoking of anti-black sentiment. Why would a black person vote for a party actively trying to denigrate and discredit them as a race? Democrats have definitely failed black people, but the Republicans are actively against black communities and people. They have no good options to vote for, because the USA is not and has never been a country that is friendly to black people

Turning away to where? The Republicans? Don't make me laugh. The Libertarians? I think not. Greens? Possibly. But in a two party system, there are only two realisitc choices for blacks. A Republican party whose southern stronghold must be pandered to via racebaiting or a Democrat party who have so long taken their vote as a given it doesn't even try to do anything for them.

Oh. I see.

As long as the religious right holds sway in the Republican party, no self-respecting gay person will vote republican. Also, thanks to recent revelations of how the religious right view women's bodies and autonomy (i.e, that they're just cum receptacles and baby vats), many women are not going to vote for them either.

This is a quote from Lee Atwater:

He was one of the Rpublican Party leaders in the 60's, and the party hasn't looked back from a lot of those positions. Do you think it is rational for black people to vote for a party that actively hates them (R) rather than a party that takes them for granted(D)? Because I certainly don't.

How about I name a few names for you: Todd Akin, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum... A quick google search of some of their quotes will tell you immediately why women and gays vote for any party they are not a part of. Being treated like a human being should be something everyone can expect from a politician they're going to vote for. Blacks have voted democrat for ages, it's not a new development due to Obama being on the ticket. And Mitt "flip flop" Romney and his "wait till I get elected, I'll tell you my plans then" sell just didn't move many people who might have voted red. Better the devil you know and all that jazz.

Maybe you should go back to grade school and learn the meanings of words like "tolerance" and "silencing". My assertion is that there is are reasons why blacks, gays and women are not voting for conservative candidates, and these reasons are not attached to any sort of "librul media propaganda". Maybe they think being treated like full human beings is worth more than getting tax cuts for rich people?

Also, given the results of the election, it would seem these "minorities" aren't so "minor" after all. Maybe the GOP planners and leaders will realize there are more human beings in the USA than just the white straight male ones.

Yeah, that's why so many gays, blacks and females voted for the right-wing candidates! Riiiiight...

Well, tell these "sensibles", if they even exist in significant numbers (I'm pretty sure the majority of such people either swung Democrat or refused to vote after the platform of rape and homophobia being promoted in the last election), that maybe the GOP needs to stop putting up with people like Akin and company. They shouldn't expect to be believed when they say "I'm only economically conservative, not socially conservative!" while at the same time voting for and promoting human waste like Akin, Bachmann and others.

No, it's not just the gross numbers and how much the raises would cost the company in dollars, but also in morale. Do you think the workers morale and trust in the company improved when they found out high level executives were getting raises while their pay was being cut? Even if they have minimal fiscal impact, they have symbolic impact that affects the outcome of worker actions.

Chances are they're either historically an Apple only shop, started by ex-Apple employees (some excellent stuff from here), or started as an iOS shop first. Nobody targeting the desktop would skip Windows and target Apple-only unless they're historically deep within the Apple ecosystem anyway.

O I C what U did THARR!

Libertarian, right? Fan of Ron Paul? Ayn Rand follower maybe?

The Nexus 10 uses a Samsung made A15 based processor. A15s are showing up in consumer hardware.

Oh I don't disagree that there are certain hardwired differences between males and females, just that they're not the same for every child, and we have no way of knowing what's naturally different, and what differences we've exaggerated or even made up just by rearing the two genders so differently. And of course, there are those kids who don't map to their biological gender, or who display traits of both.

And Richard Dawkins might not win with true believers because he's not having the same conversation they are having. Of course I agree with Dawkins about evolution and atheism, I just don't think whatever he's saying is convincing any of those mouthbreathers he's debating with.

It's much more subtle than I make it sound, and I've noticed it with a lot of parents, with boys you see it with their fathers, girls, their mothers. Gender policing is something innate and automatic to most people, and many people don't realize they're doing it, they just think their children magically acquire these traits out of the ether, and so jump to conclusions about gender that don't have all the data.

Kids are gendered from birth onwards. I have a little cousin being reared in the house next to mine, and he's treated roughly (not painfully, just roughly) because "he's a boy and he needs to be tough". He's only 6 months old. If that's the kind of conditioning he's receiving, of course he'll be a rough and tumble terror when he's a toddler. He's also encouraged, at 6 months old, to exert himself and roughly handle/break things. I don't think he'd be encouraged to do such things if he were a female.

It's interesting to note that the Razr M reviewed had LTE, while the Razr i does not. I wonder how that affected battery life between otherwise identical phones... Engadget is good for news and rumours, but they're not the best reviewers out there. I've read much more detailed reviews and write-ups about Medfield, and it DOES suck down the power compared to equivalent ARM SoCs. It's a very good showing, but still not there. Anandtech and Tom's Hardware both had a look at the Medfield prototypes and that Orange phone, and they seem to agree that Medfield is more power hungry. Also, Medfield's GPU is underpowered, and the next generation had better be a big improvement if they want to have any hopes of getting a design win for devices with retina-like displays.

It's not just the decoder that makes x86 inefficient, it's all the little design decisions that led them into the server room and into workstations. It took Intel several tries before they put out a decent laptop CPU.