In the world of Metro, I can get the same app for $3.99
Says its free? Is there a plan to charge 3.99 at some point? I'm confused.
In the world of Metro, I can get the same app for $3.99
Says its free? Is there a plan to charge 3.99 at some point? I'm confused.
No. No, it doesn't.
Does anyone NOT using a touchscreen device use apps on windows 8?
Yes. It is pretty good on a home theatre PC. The start screen is infinitely better from the couch then the old start menu, and the apps (like netflix, and the video player are easier to operate as well - both to see the controls, and to operate)
I've been looking forward to VLC for a while. As the included video player app displays ads in some circumstances and I find it offensive.
I'd also really like a good free open source file browser app.
Overall, I agree there's few apps I'd want on a desktop laptop, but media playback / management for photos, video, music, etc... apps tend to work very well. Basically for situations where you generally want to single task full screen something anyway, the apps are great.
OK, buy me a new car or I'll get the thugs in blue to beat and arrest you and destroy your property and kill your dog.
Comparing health care to a new car is as laughably ignorant and idiotic as comparing taxes to armed theft.
If you don't get a new car, you can take the bus, or walk. Or find work closer to home, or find a home closer to work, or both. My brother is married with kids and doesn't have a car. Why should anyone buy you one?
But health? If you don't have that, what are your options? How is health anything remotely like a new car?
You hate authority except when you want to use it to take from minorities and the poor
I'm not sure how socialized healthcare is somehow a 'take' from minorities and the poor. I look forward to seeing how your clearly addled brains connects those dots.
When was the last time that a customer of a US bank requested a withdraw and was refused because the bank didn't have the funds available?
And a 2nd reply to the same post... if your placing 2-3 orders per week and sometimes more... your easily spending $1200+ on amazon and possibly quite a bit more even... so the price of prime as a percentage of your total purchases is quite a bit smaller than the post I was originally responding to.
You're completely ignoring speed.
Nope. I stipulated where I was I get 2-4 day shipping on free shipping anyway. Others in the thread have commented that free shipping has taken them weeks, but that's not my experience at all.
What do you order on amazon that you can't wait an extra few days for? The odd package sure, you need it next day... or better still
To each their own, and it's your money, but it seems steep to me. Then again, ordering something on amazon every 2-3 days already seems borderline compulsive behaviour to me too.
Not to mention, I would rather pay Google $0.02 per GB for the service of "storing my data",
And them going through it to profile you, handing a copy to the government, and the likelihood that they get hacked one day (either en masse or just your account or some disgrunted employee) and it gets out to someone/everyone else just free perks then?
You also eat some business risk that they may decide to discontinue the service, with little or no notice.
And they may lose it. Google's lost data before after all. They're far better administrators than the average joe consumer, but they aren't magical. You should probably still arrange for another backup.
That said, I don't object to making use of cloud storage where appropriate... but google storage? Really? Don't they have enough of your data already?
, compared to paying you anything for the service of "oops, all your data was lost because this crappy consumer level drive failed"
Of course, one could maintain a couple copies. So when the drives inevitably fail, you've got more copies.
And really most data isn't worth backing up. My music / movies -- not going to sweat 99% of them. Vacation photos etc? I replicate copies to my family (and they to me). Odds of all of us losing them at once are near enough to zilch -- that whatever catastrophe manages to do it will probably make the lost photos the least of our concerns.
Plus, my orders rarely exceed $35, so it might take weeks to accumulate an order that big.
Wait... so you pay $100 for prime gladly. Yet your average order is usually less then $35, and it will often take WEEKS to accumulate an order that big?
So... that suggests your average is about $8, once a week. Or $416/year. And you'll pay approximately 24% extra (total ~$515/year) for the convenience of not having to bundle your orders together. (In my experience the 5-8 regular ground shipping is usually 2-4 where I live anyway.)
Am I close? Is it worth it? That seems a bit steep to me.
Amazon Prime wouldn't be worth it to me unless it was 5% or even less. But then if I was spending enough on amazon that 99$ would be say 3%; I'd be spending $3300/year at amazon, or 60$+ per week, and would have little issue getting free shipping anyway, and wouldn't need prime.
Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right? You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon.
I'll bite. You just cut open the watermelon and proved it wasn't blue. Logic seems not a strong point here.
Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously.
What kind of idiocy is this? Theories are based on numerous hypotheses. These can be proven or disproven but it is never up to the theory to explain how to validate or falsify the claims. Scientists validate or falsify the hypotheses. For example, Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren overturned decades of medical thinking that peptic ulcers were primarily caused by stress and lifestyle. Instead they argued that it was mainly due to a bacteria named Helicobacter pylori. To prove, it they gave ulcer patients antibiotics and they were cured. For this, they won a Nobel Prize.
Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory
Neither did Newton, Galileo, Einstein, etc. No scientists is required to provide ways to falsify his theory. Faulty logic on your part. In fact, on the subject of Newton, his theory on gravitation was incomplete as it never fully described why Mercury wobbles. Yet it was accepted because it adequately described gravity for the most part. Einstein later refined Newton by showing that Newton's idea of gravity is a good approximation in situations of low mass and low speed (like on the Earth) whereas Einstein's General Theory of Relativity covered broader situations and adequately explained Mercury's orbit (and the rest of space-time).
which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest.
Only if you willing to ignore the collective work of many scientists in paleontology, biology, microbiology, genetics, etc.
So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method
Again, faulty presupposition and logic on your part.
So one must demonstrate a method to prove beyond any doubt that in the event that evolution is not true, it can be shown to be such.
No you are creating unreasonable demands on a theory you don't like. By your logic, Newton's idea of gravity must be thrown out as well as atomic physics and relativity as they conflict with each other.
If the creation model is true, we can make verifiable predictions that disprove evolution.
Bill Nye said it best when he said in the debate that it would only take one fossil out of place to disprove evolution. So far no one has done it. By your logic, you're wrong then.
In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined.
Ah, the creationists method of defining words to mean what it favorable to their argument.
A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!
That's not circular reasoning. That's your lack of understanding of science. If two species have Homologous structures (not homogeneous structures), then they are more likely to have a common ancestor. But that is not the only tool that scientists use. Genetics can also shows the relationship between lions and cheetahs are related and any common ancestors.
However, since lions and cheetahs are both clearly of the same family or design, and can potentially interbreed, we must be careful not to overlook the possibility of a very recent common ancestor.
If you mean scientific classification family (below order and above genus), then you're wrong. Lions belong to family Felidae and cheetahs belong to Felinae. As such their common ancestor would be about 11M years ago according to this abstract. Also lions and cheetahs are not known to interbreed.
It is therefore necessary to build an ancestral history based on verifiable evidence (not homogeneous structures in the fossil record) that can clearly demonstrate where exactly the cheetah and the lion had a common ancestor. If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias, and this test is performed between two or more of any plant or animal life without ever finding anything to the contrary, we can confirm with certainty evolution did not happen, and that kinds do exist.
Again, homologous structures do not absolutely prove that two species are related only that the likely they are related increases. Poor understanding of science. Second, genetics do exactly what you describe. Please read the abstract above. 11M years is the estimate. Thirdly, the lack of evidence is not proof of a negative. There are many families whose histories and heritages have been lost due to war, poor record keeping, etc. That does not mean that they didn't come from a certain place; it just means they can't prove their heritage.
The idea of kinds is in direct contrast to evolution theory which says all cats share a common ancestor, which the creation model does not hold to be true. If evolution theory is true, the word kind is a superficial label that does not exist, because beyond our classifications, there would be no clear identifiable division among animals or plants, since all plants and animals would therefore share a common ancestor. The word kind can only be applied in the context of the creation model, but can not be dismissed as impossible due to the evolutionary bias, simply because evolution has not been properly validated nor can it be held to be true until it can correctly be shown to be impossible to falsify.
Again lack of scientific understanding. Common ancestry does not mean there is only one common ancestor for all time. There are multiple common ancestors based which two species that are being compared. For example dogs are descended from wolves which is a direct lineage from about 100K. Common ancestor with a fox however goes back at least 7M and as high as 22M.
Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy) that the first lifeforms increased in complexity and size by introduction of new traits, slowly increasing step by step to more complex life forms. Notice that the addition of such traits can not be attributed to the alteration of old ones, for obvious reasons, since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.
It's interesting to see how creationists blinding ignore the parts of science that refute their claims. While mutations is one means of evolution, the addition of new genes is possible and has been observed. One of the looming world health crises is the spread of antibiotic resistant superbugs which is due in part to bacterium gathering new genes like ndm 1.
If evolution theory be true, we would expect that at least one animal or plant would contain a new trait or be in the process of growing such a triat over its known common ancestors (that is not simply a multiplication or alteration of a trait it already had).
Again lack of understanding of evolution and how traits are added. Please read above.
At this point, the fossil record can not be used as evidence to prove that evolution can produce new traits due to the fact that two animals that appear to be of the same family (T-rex and Brontosaurus, dinosaurs), while they do indeed exhibit distinct trait differences, may not have a common ancestor,
No it doesn't. Your lack of understanding does prove your point.
In conclusion, should any two animals or plants within a family (a palm tree and a coconut tree) be proven to not share a common ancestor, or if no provable increase of traits can be demonstrated to be in its beginnings or actively present in the animals and plants living today over their provable ancestry, then The Bible is correct when it says God created all the animals and plants as distinct kinds with their traits to begin with. This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.
So by your own points: we cannot prove evolution because there is no evidence of it (even though there is). The evidence cannot be trusted (because you misunderstood and misrepresented it). But we should trust only your word with no proof presented by you that God is the only true answer. That's what we call a contrived dualism.
My point is that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of regulation and the instances of massive fraud. Don't point to Bernie Madoff and assume that he was operating under the same rules as a commercial bank.
Because, you could have more of a say in how your state enacts or doesn't enact it.
That depends entirely on the state, and your views relative to the predominant view of the state.
If you didn't like that state's solution, you could move
If that's considered a valid option, their are plenty of other countries to choose from.
On the flip side, it being a federal program means there aren't as many douche moves available to corporations to play the states off each other; triggering interstate commerce conflicts, and leading to federal intervention anyway.
Except banks have multiple layers of safety nets to cover depositors and investors if things go bad.
Climbing a mountain with and without a rope are identical most of the time, but the difference is very important under certain conditions.
It may lose a third of its value on occasion, but at least it's pretty to look at.
The more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drain.