en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/641949 Comments by JamesWestfall http://siliconangle.com/rizzn/2010/01/05/the-nexus-one-is-not-confusing-its-what-we-always-imagined-the-gphone-would-be/#IDComment50592605 What I hate even more than this poor excuse for "reporting" is all this naysaying and bubble-busting tech bloggers are doing now that the Nexus One isn't all they -- and only they -- hyped it up to be. I can't count the number of posts I've read about how this-or-that part of the phone is a letdown compared to "previous reports" which are all based on their own hype machine. Google let these nitwits build up their own wall of imagination and let them tear it down all on their own as well. CrunchGear, which is still written by a bunch of knobs who have no business as "writers", keeps harping on how let down they are by their own imaginative gPhone that they constructed out of thin air and are firmly convinced that ol' Goog let them down. Wed, 6 Jan 2010 04:09:28 +0000 http://siliconangle.com/rizzn/2010/01/05/the-nexus-one-is-not-confusing-its-what-we-always-imagined-the-gphone-would-be/#IDComment50592605 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/12/reason-is-needed-in-underpants-bomber.html#IDComment49591059 The other problem is that British Intelligence had more information than the CIA at the time and they chose not to act on it as well. This was a intelligence failure on all accounts for the people paid to keep us "safe". And the data exists (and has existed) that airplanes are a more unlikely terrorist attack vector than any large building in any metropolis. With hundreds of millions of miles flown since 9/11 and only a miniscule number of air-based attempts, the governments of the world are throwing money away at the least likely candidate instead of putting that money towards what really helps stop attacks: intelligence gathering and application, defensible and applicable regulations, and plain old cooperation with government entitites. Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:27:49 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/12/reason-is-needed-in-underpants-bomber.html#IDComment49591059 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/12/photography-is-not-crime.html#IDComment48849956 While information is very sparse, there was probably a reason the cop actually stopped him and it was not simply for taking a picture, as indicated by the officer's own comment. I'm more than sure there was a pre-existing circumstance that heeded this question, which is left out of Mojoey's account. Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:42:54 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/12/photography-is-not-crime.html#IDComment48849956 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/12/photography-is-not-crime.html#IDComment48795989 Mojoey's post is a clear example of why that girl is working at a gas station: she's absolutely ignorant. He may have been the first person all year (or ever, in her presence) to have taken a picture from inside the gas station but she made up a policy on the spot and called the cops. I offered him some advice on his blog that he may take with him in the future but I'll put it here too: Photography in a public area is 100% legal unless someone with legal authority tells you otherwise. Period. There's no questions about it. My girlfriend and I take cameras everywhere and I've yet to have anyone tell me I can't take a picture, except at places where it's been previously explicitly stated. @anton_kozlik: I'd love to take a few Nikons off your hands. I actually need a replacement for our N70. Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:32:29 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/12/photography-is-not-crime.html#IDComment48795989 http://mojoey.blogspot.com/2009/12/arco-pisses-me-off.html#IDComment48795323 Like you, Mojoey, I continue to take pictures when I'm told I can't. However, no one's ever called the cops on me and cower when I actually tell them that I know they're full of shit and there's no law (or store policy) against taking pictures wherever they are. Knowing your rights, guaranteed by law, will let you ignore idiots like the ARCO clerk and do what you please. If you were inside, it's private property and is a grey area. If you were outside at a pump, which would be considered public area, you can take to your heart's content. Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:26:31 +0000 http://mojoey.blogspot.com/2009/12/arco-pisses-me-off.html#IDComment48795323 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/12/should-atheists-celebrate-christmas.html#IDComment48591996 I observe Christmas as much as I'm basically forced to by my girlfriend. The last two years were spent with no celebration/observance, except for gifts. Needless to say, she hated it and the old saying goes "If momma ain't happy, nobody is". Avoiding Christmas is so much easier when you're single. Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:51:18 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/12/should-atheists-celebrate-christmas.html#IDComment48591996 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/12/what-atheists-could-learn-from.html#IDComment47447499 ----- The short version is that I am not a Satanist because I do not find the additional trappings that distinguish Satanism from atheism to be necessary for my happiness or my efficacy as an opponent of religion. ----- Glad to hear I'm not the only Satanist-cum-atheist for pretty much the exact same reason. Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:51:43 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/12/what-atheists-could-learn-from.html#IDComment47447499 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/12/do-twitter-auto-follow-bots-have-any.html#IDComment47447327 They typically have no real use except for spam purposes. There are few useful uses of these things, such as searching for keywords. Although, that can be done through other, less intrusive and easier means like "site:twitter.com keyword-here" in Google. Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:49:19 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/12/do-twitter-auto-follow-bots-have-any.html#IDComment47447327 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/10/us-founders-recognized-importance-of.html#IDComment38969702 Unfortunately, this article is nothing but a bout of rehashed arguments and circular reasoning. The falling back on the First Amendment is tired and boring because it had, at the time, absolutely nothing to do with what the actual states were going to implement at the state government level. Their use of the Declaration of Independence is laughable at best because, as they clearly didn't read it, it involves political separation between two parties -- this was about the separation of the colonies from England and was not directed at religious disparity. The language is clear and unambiguous and requires absolutely no amount of disentangling. I do admire them for writing the piece in the first place but they do not win any points for trying to have a stateful argument, or any argument at all. They start off strong and end with a whisper as the article, at the conclusion, has made absolutely no argument to the contrary of their original opening. Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:11:33 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/10/us-founders-recognized-importance-of.html#IDComment38969702 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/08/president-obama-do-ends-justify-means.html#IDComment32076241 You're absolutely right, this is not solely about retribution for the previous administration. It's about wanting to uphold the laws that our nation was built upon and is more than clearly stated in the highest law of the land: the Constitution. As you point out, he's really required by law to conduct this investigation but due to possible ramifications is hesitant about doing so. When people voted for Obama, they thought they were voting for a candidate who might actually have a backbone and would be willing to stand up to political injustices and try to adhere to our country's most sacred of laws. Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:53:57 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/08/president-obama-do-ends-justify-means.html#IDComment32076241