Jenksismyhero

Get Hamilton on the f***ing bench. So worthless

Sigh, refs putting their stamp on the game. You know its bad when they won't show the replay of that Taj foul

Bulls playing well to start

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 10, 2012 -> 04:16 PM) Mounting holes usually aren't the same for proprietary cases. MicroATX boards have the same mounting pattern as ATX but just a few less screws since they're smaller. The Gateway case I have literally could not fit the board in there. The two expansion bay slots for the hard drives and optical drives got in the way. New question re: overlocking. I got that gigabyte mobo and it looks like the overclocking is pretty easy to do. Is there a danger that overclocking ruins components/wears them out faster? And by danger, I mean like a proven danger where it's expected that a component will lose 20% off its life? Seems like all of these parts are specifically marketed to be overclocked. Is it just a matter of making sure the temperatures stay within the acceptable range?

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:48 PM) Bro, I warned you that companies like Dell/gateway make proprietary cases. They don't want you making anything for yourself. Oh well, now you can get a new case which will almost certainly look nicer than the Gateway box. Honestly I thought I could just jerry-rig the thing in there. I probably could have if i bought the micro board, but oh well. I got a pretty cool looking case for $50 bucks that came with like 4 fans. This way I can keep the old machine up and running as a movie server or something for the TV, so win-win I suppose.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:46 PM) But Obama didn't appear to believe that homosexuality was morally wrong, he just believed in an ahistorical "one man, one woman" definition of marriage. He still ended DOMA and DADT, hired a transgendered staff member and never expressed any antagonism or derision towards the LGBT community. True, we don't know what he truly believed, but what he said is a pretty good indication that he viewed marriage as a separate, religious tradition that was designated for a man and a woman, not same sex couples. To me that's still a fundamental belief change. If he had said "you know i'm personally against this, but it's not the government's role" then it would be a different story.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:18 PM) I hope I am never as rigid in anything I do as that statement just made you out to be. Because I'm sure you'd be so open minded to someone telling you that homosexuality is wrong. GMAFB. People have beliefs about moral and ethical issues and it's rare for them to change without some sort of personal reason to. You don't get to a point of believing that homosexuality is wrong or abortion is wrong or whatever without having a pretty solid conviction that your belief is the right one (and why you think that way). Otherwise you'd let people know up front that you're not 100% sure.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) Why cant it just be some one articulated his position in a way that was a "eureka" moment and thus he realized that by being against equality for gays, he was no better than "separate but equal." For better or worse, I have changed peoples opinion with argument. On the internet its hard, but in person, when you know someone, they dont want to be the only guy in the room with a terrible ideology. Opinions about what you personally believe is right or wrong, unless you're young, don't get swayed by arguments. It takes a personal experience IMO to change that view. Especially for a guy who is what, 50? and makes his living telling other people what he believes and why on a daily basis.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:05 PM) You realize it's a s***ty position to hold that violates equality before the law, something you're pretty concerned with based on your past history of community organizing? The thing is judging on how "firmly" someone held a certain position in the past. The FRC reversing their opinion on gay marriage would represent a complete ideological shift on homosexuality in general. Moving from ending DADT, abandoning DOMA and supporting civil unions to supporting gay marriage isn't some tectonic shift. So fine, he didn't believe what he said before, which just means he was, again, selling out on his beliefs to get votes. Still reflects poorly on him and it's ridiculous that people are applauding what he's just done (even while agreeing that the end result is what they want).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:46 PM) You don't have to have one of your family members come out gay to be in favor of same-sex marriage. Yeah, personal experiences are the greatest motivators, but they aren't the only ones. If you firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, unless you have some personal experience, why would that view change? He could be (and appears to be) pro civil unions, but not marriage. I don't see a logical reason for that opinion to change except to get some votes, especially in the time frame we're talking about here.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:33 PM) I changed my opinion on abortion (was pro-life when I was young), I know another poster on this board changed his opinion the opposite way. People change their minds, and you cant define what another persons "core" beliefs are. My"core belief" is utility, sometimes I change my opinion on something because after reexamining the issue I believe that the utility has changed. That does not mean I changed my core belief, it means my core belief caused me to change a less important belief. I wouldnt call abortion a core belief of mine, its actually pretty irrelevant. My core belief on the issue is limiting govt power/intrusion, so I would be as against a rule that forced people to get abortions as a rule that restricted abortions. Its hypocritical if you look at it as abortion versus abortion, its perfectly acceptable when you look at it as a "anti big govt" position. The problem in this case is nothing has changed but Obama's need to fill his war chest. Different story if one of his daughters turned out to be gay and he decided it was acceptable (hey, like Cheney in 2009!). But this is just "oh, yeah I should probably make that statement to help my campaign." Edit: And not to derail the thread, but SB, you've said this libertarian stance on gov't intrusion before, yet a lot of your viewpoints from what I can remember are pretty pro-government intervention. The gun issue from the Trayvon Martin stuff comes to mind.

The glass half full in me says that this series should be over and the Bulls should be waiting for Boston/Atlanta. They got crushed in game 2 but gifted games 3 and 4. I still think that if they can get over this hurdle, they have a good shot to beat Boston. They play the same slow game (Philly playing at a fast pace is what caused them to lose games 3 and 4) and they are TERRIBLE on the glass. But first things first. Get this series back to Chicago.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) Except when it was that marriage was only between a man and woman. But SS2k5, he didn't really MEAN that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 12:07 PM) If you are willing to lower yourself to "they have no standards, so why should I" level, that is fine. I'm not really interested. That's part of the problem too. People just accept that as par for the course.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ May 10, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) Frank Rich on the Obama flip-flop. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/frank...as-evolved.html Isn't this Kap's point? The fact that people are applauding Obama for finally seeing the light when it's so clearly obvious that he did it not because of some new understanding of the issue, but just to get $$? I mean, I agree with those that say regardless of how he did it, the end result is the result they wanted. But i'm not sure how you can't also look at Obama a little differently - someone without much of a backbone and who will whore himself out to win votes. Edit: though really that's almost by definition of what a politician is these days so....maybe it's not that big of a deal, even though it should be.

Sigh, got all my parts yesterday, took it home and meticulously dismantled/cleaned my old computer case......and then realized the mobo doesn't fit. Thanks Gateway. Assholes.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ May 9, 2012 -> 04:08 PM) ? It means they basically automatically lose. But if the overwhelming majority of people are religious and consider religious belief to be a "must," why isn't that number closer to 80-85% (the number of people in the US who consider themselves religious)?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 9, 2012 -> 04:10 PM) Exhibit B Apparently it's only wrong and smarmy when it's your religion that's attacked. Yeah that was a joke.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 9, 2012 -> 03:26 PM) Pretty regularly polls show that athiests are the religious(or religion absent) group people would have the most problem voting for out of any in this country. From the Wiki: For something so "important," 50% seems like a small number.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 9, 2012 -> 03:22 PM) Mormonism is a branch of christianity. I know, a crazy one though. Magical underpants and all.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 9, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) It doesn't have to be "out of nothing" because "nothing" is only defined within the space of the dimensions of the universe, so until that collision happened, it wasn't nothing, it just was what it was. It's difficult to put into words what the concept of a 12 dimensional membrane where time doesn't really exist actually represents, but it's at least a fascinating set of math and I'm looking forward to where it goes in the next decade. We might well have some evidence for it based on the wMAP analysis. You're still ignoring that at some point "something" existed to start the ball rolling. "Something" doesn't appear from nothingness.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ May 9, 2012 -> 03:05 PM) Was there anything inaccurate in my post? It's not the right or wrong of it, it's coming off as smarmy that gets annoying and frankly I just don't get the need for it. All it does is get the right to be even more stringent in their position and doesn't advance the ball at all.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 9, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) not being openly in-your-face religious about everything isn't the same as being anti-religious. Christians enjoy a huge majority in this country and this is built into our culture everywhere. Could an openly non-christian person be elected president? I think a candidate could run a campaign of being agnostic and win yes. It's becoming less and less important for voters under the age of probably 40. Edit: and you do know that polling shows a mormon beating a christian right now right? I mean, mormons are more ridiculous than athiests, amiright?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 9, 2012 -> 02:53 PM) I don't believe that. I don't believe that the initial state of the universe is well known or understood. You have made this mistake before. Absolute knowledge of how everything started isn't claimed. However, we know more than enough to know that young earth creationism is simply wrong. That isn't calling anyone a dummy. Well i'm sorry, you have no facts, so creationism and evolutionary thought are apparently on equal footing. No facts = no belief. Right Soxbadger?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 9, 2012 -> 02:51 PM) You ought to try living in the South. I get at least one "a church is doing this good thing" story on the news per night. In Chicago it's rarely, if ever, a story. You hear about religion when there's a scandal.