Y2HH

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 06:57 PM) This was the moment that made me go "hmm..." There's nothing wrong with taking from a competing product that's better. Design-wise I like what iOS 7 has to offer. They finally got rid of the awful leather and gloss that was the look of something made in 2007 (you know, back when Vista was considered a pretty UI). Flat design is all the jazz these days. What's disappointing is that iOS still doesn't offer any real user customization like Android without having to jailbreak. They finally did get a better notification center and system toggles (FINALLY). But you could have gotten those things with jailbreak tweaks before. THIS post is a bit better and less fanboyish than your first post, and worthy of an actual response, but the comparison is still reaching. Apple still lacks the customization of Android, but it always will. Apple isn't shooting for this crowd, they never really have. They highlight simplicity over and over, especially with iOS7's key talking points. Adding massive customization, while nice for users like you and I, is NOT their target audience, who don't WANT to deal with anything like that. And despite widespread belief, there are a LOT of users out there like this, hence the money they're CONTINUING to make despite these overblown "declines". As for that lock screen, that's incredibly reaching and fanboyish as a comparison, as it's based entirely off the wallpaper being somewhat similar. What else is the same? The lock isn't the same, hell, nothing else is remotely similar, from the icons across the top, to the images on the bottom. And please, let's not pretend Google/Android invented the f***ing Helectiva font, which is one of the most commonly used/popular in the world. So...other than a somewhat similar but not really similar wallpaper...absolutely nothing is the same on that screen.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 06:57 PM) This was the moment that made me go "hmm..." There's nothing wrong with taking from a competing product that's better. That's about as dumb as possible. It's a wallpaper. Ooohhhhh, so similar. And, unoriginal, you stole that.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 04:11 PM) iOS7 - implementing things Android users have been enjoying for years while changing the look to make it seem like we did more than we actually did. As have jailbreakers, since about 2008, well before Android users. This comment shows you know little about the Apple mentality.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ May 25, 2013 -> 04:19 PM) Beat anybody up? On a side note, I just got done destroying legs today and following that up by treating myself to a steak bowl from Chipotle which actually fits in nicely with my weekly meal plan. I did hook one guy pretty good, but it was half an accident.

Played some 3 on 3 (one on the bench for each team), and after the initial nervousness passed after such a long break in playing it all came back pretty fast. Ended up with 1 goal and 2 assists. And I can feel how sore I'm going to be tomorrow. But it feels good.

QUOTE (Jake @ May 24, 2013 -> 04:18 PM) LAWDDD What is wrong with portillos?!?!

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ May 24, 2013 -> 05:26 PM) Man, I miss roller hockey. Besides basketball, it was definitely my favorite sport to play. I play rat for the first time tomorrow. Last time I played I was at gold league level, so it'll be humbling to get rocked by bronze leaguers, even if its only rat.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 02:51 PM) I was just making an argument to get a gun rights person to argue against stricter penalties. I knew that if I said jail time for failing to register it would immediately get pro-gun people to attack me and argue that penalty is to harsh. I just wanted to show that "not everyone agrees on making gun crimes harsher." That being said, I obviously agree that renewing your FOID card should be less of a penalty than actually having a gun while you commit a crime. I would also say that never getting a FOID card should have a greater penalty than forgetting to renew. But that wasnt the point of my statement. I merely was showing that when you try and create harsher penalties, you get blow back from gun rights people. Its also because Im so tired of hearing the nonsense "99.9% of gun owners are law abiding citizens". First of all its a made up number. Second of all almost everyone breaks the law at some point or another, gun owners non-gun owners a like. So when I hear a statement like that, I really just want to rip it apart, because its trying to create this magical world where gun owners arent real people. Yes, but that's playing semantics with what they mean when they say "law abiding citizen". I consider myself a law abiding citizen, despite the fact that I'll roll through yellow or stops. I think using a bit of logic applicable to each situation helps draw the line between a person like myself, and a gun toting banger.

So, I started rollerblading again, practicing playing roller hockey, something I haven't done in a decade, and I picked it up pretty quickly again. Not sure where my confidence level would be in an actual game, but it's added a huge amount of cardio to my life, which I've always found boring. This removes that boredom, and now I'm getting cardio + weight training. I've shed like 10lbs in the last month, with no dietary changes. IE, I still eat ice cream, portillos, etc.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 02:42 PM) Ive never said otherwise. I absolutely recognize different crimes have different penalties. But when you say "criminal", how in the world do I know what you mean? How am I supposed to guess you mean rapist, thief, drug addict, etc? They are all criminals. But I never said their crimes are equal nor that all criminals are equal, you cant find that anywhere, you are just making it up. To be perfectly clear then, we need harsher penalties on people that think carrying a gun around ok...and people that use guns in crimes, be they for show, or if they're actually fired during that crime, no matter how petty. Such as "armed robbery" where the gun is loaded, but only used to scare people. We don't need, however, to jail someone that forgot to renew their f***ing FOID card.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 02:37 PM) Where did I ever say that? I defined a word. If I used the word "weapon" it would encompass, knife, a-bomb, laser beam, brass knuckles. Please show me where I did that? In fact I took the time to actually go through that in one of my earlier posts: I have no problem recognizing that certain criminals are more dangerous. Show me where I said otherwise? To start over, we need harsher penalties on gun crime. And not all gun crime is to be treated equally.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 10:37 AM) Nope, that is impossible because their position is, as we know, based on hypocrisy. Either we recognize that certain weapons are inherently more destructive and thus should be subject to greater scrutiny, or we do not. The reason we know they are hypocritical is because almost no one is willing to argue that I should be allowed to have my own personal nuclear weapon. Its basically arguing there should be no speed limit because you can die in a car fatality even if the car is only going 1 mile an hour, so why have a limit speed at all? The inanity of the argument is mind blowing. Right. There. Let's recognize that certain laws should carry harsher penalties than others, too.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 02:24 PM) Not really the word means what it is intended to mean, if you break the law (regardless of how small or big) you are a criminal. I do not get into subjective arguments about what I really meant criminal to mean, because I have the power to put qualifiers in front of the word or use a more appropriate word. Perhaps you meant felons, that 99.9% of gun owners are not felons, but I wouldnt know, because you said "law abiding citizens", and that means "following the law". Otherwise the word means nothing. Because what does it matter if I dont think people who do drugs are criminals, they are. Its not my subjective opinion, its the state of the law today. I would never say Im a law abiding citizen and I admit that I am a criminal. That is the true definition of the word. Which is why I dont like arguments about how criminals should have less rights etc, because almost all of us are criminals in some way. Hence why my discussion is based not on whether a gun owner is a criminal or not, but on the fact that a gun is a dangerous tool and therefore there should be some responsibility that comes with owning that tool. Not about whether gun ownership is right or wrong, just about being reasonable to everyone. Gun owners and non gun owners a like. So you are saying there is a difference in a knife and a gun and a nuclear bomb...but there is no difference between a child rapist and a person that rolls through stop signs? Shark jumped. WTG Fonzie.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 01:33 PM) Y2hh, And as I said. They wont do that. I never said anything about writing new laws. In Illinois to own a gun you need a FOID card. It is already illegal to own a gun without one. So I said why not make the penalty harsher for that. You seemingly agreed, then completely changed your position just to disagree with me. Are you just not familiar with the law? http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/ So there is no need for a new law, just increasing the penalties on an old law. This is exactly what you are saying, yet somehow you disagree. Does not compute. That's a scarier area, because what if my foid card expires and I simply forget to renew it? I don't really consider that person a criminal like you seem too. I'm talking about outright criminals. People who carry guns around are breaking the law. People using guns in gun crimes. Things such as this. These are much more black and white crimes vs a person that doesn't have a foid card, who did when they initially bought the gun they haven't seen in 20 years that they locked in a safe and haven't looked at since. Focus on the criminals we have first...then create new ones with stuff like this.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 12:26 PM) People who are selling guns without a license, not registering are breaking the law. They are criminals. How can you legitimately argue that someone breaking the law obtained it legally? They arent law abiding citizens if they are breaking the law. If you dont buy a gun properly, you are not owning it legally. If you obtained the gun legally, you have nothing to worry about in my scenario. It would only apply to criminals who did not apply the gun legally. Thus when you are arrested, you either 1) have papers to show you bought the gun legally and thus you have no issue or 2) do not have those papers and thus have an issue. Pretty hilarious how youve immediately back tracked. As now you are arguing against yourself from earlier. lol (edit) Just explain how someone who bought or sold a gun illegally is a "law abiding citizen." If you can do that, Ill concede. I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. NY has harsher penalties when it comes to gun crime. Therefore, so can we. Though you claim we cannot, because pro gun people won't allow it. But they allowed it in NY. Licensing and registration is much more grey area, as these aren't national laws, but local, so I'm not even talking about that, and it's what you are focusing on. I'm talking about people who carry guns around (ALREADY illegal), and use them in crimes (ALREADY illegal). No new laws need to be passed to make those things illegal. What needs to happen, and what I'm asking for, is we make the penalty of those laws HARSHER, which is what NY did. This has nothing to do with writing new laws, or creating new laws that penalize people who didn't license their gun after buying it legitimately.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 12:19 PM) Y2hh asked why cant there be harsher laws. I answered because people will fight them. You then proved my point. Thanks for playing though. That's not why, and your point wasn't proven. At all. New York HAS harsher laws. The point of laws is to punish NON law abiding citizens, not those that follow the law. Legally obtaining a gun isn't the issue here. Do you honestly think these people murdering people with guns on the streets of Chicago obtained them legally? Try again. You target criminals, you don't pass laws that CREATE new criminals out of thin air. That's the difference in what I'm asking for, and the ridiculous solution you're coming up with.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 11:19 AM) They absolutely fight the consequences. Gun owners will not go for: "If you have an unlicensed gun 1 year mandatory sentence", they will not go for "If you buy/sell an unlicensed gun, 1 year mandatory sentence." These type of consequences wont fly in the current pro-gun environment. They fought the Brady Bill, they fight everything. If they didnt, why dont we have stronger consequences? This is giving IL politicians a pass. New York has WAY stronger consequences, therefore, so can we. A lot of places have very tough consequences on illegal guns. IL, who's politicians are supposedly anti-gun, don't seem to care. Or we'd have what NY has.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 11:09 AM) The problem is we cant make harsher gun laws because pro-gun people fight every gun law tooth and nail. I dont want to allow anyone to do it. I want the punishment to be so harsh that no one would ever consider doing it. But I cant do that, if people fight tougher gun crime laws. Especially when the argument against the law is "But then criminals will be the only ones to have them". Pro gun people fight the banning of guns and restrictions, not the consequences of using/having them illegally. The issue is, we never talk about consequences, we talk about bans or restrictions on legal ownership. That's backwards thinking. Put consequences on actions, if you have a gun/use a gun illegally, you pay a very VERY heavy consequence. The problem will solve itself. Banning them or restricting them hasn't worked, that much is obvious. Right now the consequences in Chicago, specifically, are weak to the point criminals don't care about them.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 10:53 AM) Terrorists may have a nuclear weapon, how can I protect myself without one? Terrorists may have bombs, how can I protect myself without one? We cant base our world on what criminals are doing. If we do, then we should have no laws, because the premise of the argument is that "criminals wont follow laws". So if they wont follow them, why have them? Like I said, its inane. The best argument is "I want a gun because it makes me feel safe." And my counter argument is "I dont want you to have a gun, because you having a gun makes me feel unsafe." At that point we have to make a societal decision. Right now we lean towards allowing someone to protect themselves at the risk to another. Maybe that is the best way, maybe it is not. But at least its a sound argument that I wouldnt be embarrassed to argue. Its why I cant take many pro-gun people seriously, they refuse to recognize the hypocrisy and discuss the issue on a meaningful level. I agree. But we need to start doing something about these criminals, especially around Chicago. The fact that Chicago has tough gun laws with no teeth isn't helping the matter. For all of our gun laws, we have no harsh mandatory minimal sentencing, and a vast majority of those arrested with illegal guns do almost no time whatsoever. When that changes, their argument of self-defense would be weaker, but right now, I can see their point. I don't own a gun, nor do I want too. But their point is valid at the moment. If you're going to allow them to do it, you'd better allow us to do it, too. Our laws, our judges, and our system is allowing these criminals to carry, because of the near lack of consequences.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 24, 2013 -> 10:37 AM) Nope, that is impossible because their position is, as we know, based on hypocrisy. Either we recognize that certain weapons are inherently more destructive and thus should be subject to greater scrutiny, or we do not. The reason we know they are hypocritical is because almost no one is willing to argue that I should be allowed to have my own personal nuclear weapon. Its basically arguing there should be no speed limit because you can die in a car fatality even if the car is only going 1 mile an hour, so why have a limit speed at all? The inanity of the argument is mind blowing. The bold point was the only necessary point. The rest of this is reductio ad absurdum. I think the argument you'll get from them is that if the criminals are going to have guns, so should those they target. Or knives. Or cleavers. It's the same argument non-hunters often pose to hunters. Would you be as willing to shoot that deer if that deer also had a rifle and a scope it could use to shoot back?

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ May 23, 2013 -> 05:06 PM) Nah, if the guy had a cleaver, he would have been able to defend himself and/or this never would have happened. If he had any sort of weapon when a knife/cleaver wielding maniac approached him, he would have had more of a chance to defend himself than he did completely unarmed. Just remember what you said if/when someone ever breaks into your home. Don't arm yourself with anything, because, you know...it doesn't help anyway, at least, according to your sarcastic reply here.

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 23, 2013 -> 09:23 PM) The original post was something along the lines of how some radio station is switching over to all Macs and all Firewire TODAY. There is no point to do that TODAY. The fact that USB 3.0 is a decade younger than Firewire means absolutely nothing in the context of my post. If this is the case, they're not using new computers, but buying used ones, which would be the reason you seek. They have to be using legacy Apple hardware, as new iMACs don't have firewire ports on them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 23, 2013 -> 02:07 PM) I've actually used punchcards. Once.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 23, 2013 -> 12:18 PM) None of them can touch Wrong.

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 23, 2013 -> 09:36 AM) But not USB 3.0. I just don't see the point of going with a technology nearly nobody uses when there is a standard tech out there that is actually faster. I can't tell if this is a serious statement or what, from a usually knowledgeable poster. You know damn well that USB3 didn't exist when Firewire was ousted against a vastly inferior USB2. Yes, USB3 is faster than a decade old technology. And Thunderbolt, just like Firewire before it, blows USB3 away with relative ease.