Slashdot Mirror

In time, they'll probably realize what many throughout the ages have intuited. That the underlying nature of existence (foundations of at least this universe, if there isn't a multiverse) is a single thread, and that if you're skillful and clever you can pluck a note here, and hear it there. It may even be more interesting than that. The underlying reality, or layers of reality like onion skins (some religions consider at least the first layer a form of illusion), may apparently be accessible for manipulation. But, that is only the superficial view by the tinkerers in us.

Philosophical views may be more profound. As scientists start proving that existence isn't an experience shared by many individual minds, but is the byproduct of a single force that doesn't "unite", but cause perceived divisions amongst the sentients for the sake of calculation and experience. Perhaps, answers as to the nature of God could be answered by simply looking in the mirror. It is entirely possible that we are to what we nominally call God, as your fingers are to you. Are God's fingers any less sacred than the rest of God? In the end, being part of something larger, may be taken literally, and that death (the other preoccupying concern, aside from God's existence) isn't actually such an important matter. Particularly, if you die you don't actually go anywhere to be with God, you are simply withdrawn back into God (God being yourself). Except that withdrawn isn't the correct notion either. What are you being withdrawn from? From the rest of reality/God/yourself that represents you/God/reality? No, you may simply metamorph into something else useful/experimental, not standing aloof from your/our/my/God's creation/yourself/God, but changing into another part(no concept of "part" either as everything is One) of creation/yourself.

God/me/you/she/he/it/us may not be intelligent in the form we (humans here) take for granted, but like a general purpose computer/bacteria/amoeba/mother-nature/atoms/physi cs/us that has the ability to build very smart specialized analogs (us, and any alien life forms), in a sense making itself smarter/experienced by growing what it/we/I needs. Not really having a will of its/our own except whatever will we/it/God can give it/God/ourselves. And, arriving at us (sapiens sapiens) isn't an end point. We're/God/I'm all simply part of the experiment/experience/existance called natural-selection/God/existence.

The iterations and failures leading up to us, weren't failures at all, simply different perspectives to our/God's/its experience/growth/search. What are we/God/us/I looking for? An identity? A name? A reason? A purpose? These questions are all simply some of the results of my/our/God's specialized analogs/us in this particular iteration of ourselves/God.

If a 2-Dimensional picture is better than a thousand words, here's a simplification of the ideas I've/we've/God's proposed (and has been proposing to himself/herself/itself/ourselves). The picture is of "La Linea" from a children's television show from the 1980's called "The Great Space Coaster".

La Linea is depicted as an outline or line-drawing of a man, protruding from the ground/universe/existence drawn as a straight line. There is no discernable difference between him and the rest of the universe/everyting-below-the-line, except that instead of being a straight line he has a specific shape. Other than that, the universe/existance and he are one and the sam

In time, they'll probably realize what many throughout the ages have intuited. That the underlying nature of existence (foundations of at least this universe, if there isn't a multiverse) is a single thread, and that if you're skillful and clever you can pluck a note here, and hear it there. It may even be more interesting than that. The underlying reality, or layers of reality like onion skins (some religions consider at least the first layer a form of illusion), may apparently be accessible for manipulation. But, that is only the superficial view by the tinkerers in us.

Philosophical views may be more profound. As scientists start proving that existence isn't an experience shared by many individual minds, but is the byproduct of a single force that doesn't "unite", but cause perceived divisions amongst the sentients for the sake of calculation and experience. Perhaps, answers as to the nature of God could be answered by simply looking in the mirror. It is entirely possible that we are to what we nominally call God, as your fingers are to you. Are God's fingers any less sacred than the rest of God? In the end, being part of something larger, may be taken literally, and that death (the other preoccupying concern, aside from God's existence) isn't actually such an important matter. Particularly, if you die you don't actually go anywhere to be with God, you are simply withdrawn back into God (God being yourself). Except that withdrawn isn't the correct notion either. What are you being withdrawn from? From the rest of reality/God/yourself that represents you/God/reality? No, you may simply metamorph into something else useful/experimental, not standing aloof from your/our/my/God's creation/yourself/God, but changing into another part(no concept of "part" either as everything is One) of creation/yourself.

God/me/you/she/he/it/us may not be intelligent in the form we (humans here) take for granted, but like a general purpose computer/bacteria/amoeba/mother-nature/atoms/physi cs/us that has the ability to build very smart specialized analogs (us, and any alien life forms), in a sense making itself smarter/experienced by growing what it/we/I needs. Not really having a will of its/our own except whatever will we/it/God can give it/God/ourselves. And, arriving at us (sapiens sapiens) isn't an end point. We're/God/I'm all simply part of the experiment/experience/existance called natural-selection/God/existence.

The iterations and failures leading up to us, weren't failures at all, simply different perspectives to our/God's/its experience/growth/search. What are we/God/us/I looking for? An identity? A name? A reason? A purpose? These questions are all simply some of the results of my/our/God's specialized analogs/us in this particular iteration of ourselves/God.

If a 2-Dimensional picture is better than a thousand words, here's a simplification of the ideas I've/we've/God's proposed (and has been proposing to himself/herself/itself/ourselves). The picture is of "La Linea" from a children's television show from the 1980's called "The Great Space Coaster".

La Linea is depicted as an outline or line-drawing of a man, protruding from the ground/universe/existence drawn as a straight line. There is no discernable difference between him and the rest of the universe/everyting-below-the-line, except that instead of being a straight line he has a specific shape. Other than that, the universe/existance and he are one and the sam

Microsoft has had a couple of secure OS's out for years

Is it not nifty? Worship the inflatable space station.

Although I could only find this in regards to Java in the game, you'd be surprised how fast graphics can be in Java if you use the right graphics library. One which I have looked at is OpenGL for Java. It is essentially a Java language wrapper around the native OpenGL libraries. Given that more and more of graphics processing is done by the video card, then the graphics part of Java in this instance, would be as fast as your graphics card.

You think that's cool. Check out my ecrawler plug-in that can decode it.

And I'm sorry that I wished Mr. T would eat his balls.

Ok, not really. But then, I'm not under a court ruling to do so.

Then, read James Lowen's _Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your High School History Texbook Got Wrong_ to see how your mind has unknowingly been filled with nationalist and consumer crap (despite your technical proclivities). Also check out Howard Zinn. Learn to live simply and frugally so you have more options:

If you have started doing all that, by now you are primed to begin to question what education really means.

And further, to even question why people need to work and what it should mean to do useful things.

You'll have time to read great minds like Bertrand Russel and Freeman Dyson.

Then you can accept you are still stuck in a stupid system.

But you'll be positioned to make the best of it and yet still see how the world can be a made better place to for the bulk of humanity and other creatures.

Always remember in your darker hours to at least ask yourself the question, "Can life be made worth living?" And in your brighter hours, remember to ask yourself if you are playing a finite (to win) game or an infinite (to play) game?

And, finally, for continual inspiration, read _Voyage From Yesteryear_ by James P. Hogan.

Now go out and take some educated risks to try to make life worth living -- despite your future happiness possibilities already almost being ruined by being convinced you that you are "bright" just because you know some technical things (same thing almost happened to me).

here

Send a joyous shout throughout the land!
For Rocket Robin Hood!"

The linked article speculates that it might have been a Russian PG-7VR which has a dual warhead but it would not have to be in this case. A dual warhead is designed to pentrate reactive armour(explosive blocks designed to disrupt the jet). The first small charge on an extended probe sets off the reactive armour which allows the main charge to pass through the main armour.

In this case though the M1 does not have reactive armour. It has an advance form of Chobham armour which uses ceramic plates laminated in layers between layers of depleted uranium armour which can defeat shaped charge weapons and kinetic energy rounds. Unfortunately there are a small number of areas not covered by the special armour and this round appears to have found one. See a diagram here. The jet hit the top of the side protective skirt which denotated the warhead as it is designed to do. The jet then penetrated the thin side armour behind the suspension and entered the crew compartment missing the crew but damaging a number of turret controls. Technically it was not a 'mobility kill' as it only knocked out the turret but the crew was unharmed and the tank was able to drive back on its own power. It is worrying that an RPG jet could travel that far after hitting the side skirt but then again the tank is so well designed that any ammo that could have caused a catastrophic explosion was protected by further saftey systems. The worst that could have happened in this case was if one of the crew would have been in the path of the jet. It was in all likelyhood not a mystery projectile but just a regular RPG round whose gunner made a lucky shot to penetrate a vulnarable part of the hull. It is such a rare event that it is not worth worrying much about.

In a similar vain, I wrote up a scripting language comparison document, but focused more on features rather than particular languages. Comparison Link. I describe the various feature options, and then weigh the pro's and con's of each.

After years of debating language features, I generally conclude that a lot of it is subjective. No language will ever satisfy everybody.

Check out my site for some Ruby GUI stuff:
(the gotcha is it's mostly in Portuguese. So jump to the "Exemplos Meus" (My Examples) section. Or use babelfish: http://babelfish.altavista.com)
http://geocities.com/canalruby

Hey, web stuff is easy with Ruby as well. But I don't have such examples for you. You have to get a taste of Ruby to find about its web capabilities. I Know IOWA has an example:
http://enigo.com/projects/iowa/index.html

Further enlightening at:
http://www.ruby-doc.com
http://www.rubyforge.org
http://raa.ruby-lang.org

You know, once you get addicted, there is no going back! :-)

I have misgivings about our being able to get a real foothold in space using rockets (from the earth's surface) but is anybody working on any other approaches? Here's an article about the space shuttle, etc., that might elicit comment.

"When the Phantom moves, lightning stands still."
-Old jungle saying-

So all that is needed is:

1. Hire Phantom
2. Wait for lightning to strike charging equipment
3. Make Phantom move indefinitely
4. ???
5. Profit!

A real architecture security hole - who designed this place?

it wasn't a guy... it was a woman, and here's the link.

clicky-clicky

As discussed by the founder of neo-Darwinism, William D. Hamilton in "Innate Social Aptitudes of Man":

the benefits to fitness, such as they are, go to a mass of individuals whose genetic correlation with the innovator must be slight indeed. Thus civilization probably slowly reduces its altruism of all kinds, including the kinds needed for cultural creativity (see also Eshel 1972).

Until civilizations solve this problem of benefits not accruing to the genetic correlates of innovators, they will continue to oscillate. That is unless, during some cycle, such as the present, the consequences of a collapse are so great that it extinguishes the possibility of future recovery.

The more I read by and about Ken Brown, the more he resembles Mike Vandeman, the legendary kook who used to harass mountain bikers in rec.bicycles.off-road. He used the same procedure:

1. start with a conclusion
2. collect facts
3. ignore the facts that contradict the conclusion
4. when no supporting facts remain, affirm the conclusion

Coincidentally, even some British schools of grammar continue to use -'ize'. (Oxford, for example -- the traitors.)

ize

The Oxford English Dictionary argues that words which carry the sound iz whether from the Greek ending -izein or the Latin ending -izare should hold to the spelling with a z, there being no compelling reason to change.

Fowler notes that the following words need to be spelled with -ise:
advertise, apprise, chastise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, disenfranchise, disguise, enfranchise, enterprise, excise, exercise, improvise, incise, premise, supervise, surmise, surprise.

Did they find Turner Field, the Krispy Kreme, mermaids, and... the.. airport...?

Oh, wait, that's the fabled Lost City of Atlanta . My mistake.

"Given that early experiences shape brain development I think it's entirely appropriate to err on the side of caution. "

Not only is child sexual activity argued to be *not harmful* but two scientists have argued that it maybe beneficial. Of course their study was denounced in the United States Senate for trying to even suggest such an idea, without even reading it of course, but it seems that any harm that exists with child sexuality occurs in the after math. I give a brief example of what I am talking about, although I personally dislike anecdotes since they are a marginal form of evidence:

"A few years ago (on a talk show) a 16 year old boy said when he was 13 he had an affair with a female school custodian that lasted two years. He later stated that while it lasted it was great--he loved every second.... Well--his parents threw a fit. Boy was sent to a shrink and is told he was abused. A year of conditioning later he sits on this talk show and says what a horrible thing this woman did to him--and still stated that he thought it was great while it lasted--he didn't know he was being abused at the time. Now who the hell I ask you caused the damage here?"

If any damage or harm is seems to be done in the after math by parents, preachers, and therapists who abuse the victims a second time by brainwashing into them that sex and sexuality is evil.

"Please document that Bonobo adults engage in sexual activity with preadolescents and that this behaviour is culturally sanctioned."

http://www.narth.com/docs/debate2.html

Studies show that the bonobo has erotic contact with babies of its own species. And that behavior isn't likely harmful to the babies, Green says, because it's the babies themselves that often initiate the sex play.

"Pedophilia may have no genetic component at all. It could be a learned behaviour, as child molestation often is."

Sexual attraction is learned? That is far fetched. Either one becomes aroused or one does not at different people or objects. If it were learned, people would need to be taught arosal before they could have sex, clearly this is not the case.

Pedophilia seems even more common then homosexuality in the population

"Sorry, I'm going to call you on that one, because that's a hell of a claim to make (unless you broaden pedophilia to include attraction to underage adolescents). "

Yes, pedophilia is being mentioned, it really needed to be defined. In this case I was referring to anyone under the age of 18, but in other cases I use it to refer to exclusive attraction to prepubescent children. I think there is a case to be made to distinguish between those that are exclusively attracted to prepubescent children, and those that have a continum of attraction that spans from adults to children.

As for the number of people who are engage in sexual activity with people under the age of 18, there must millions of them. First because of the figures, here and here, that suggest that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused by the age of 18. As well this article indicates, there were 250,000 members on from one country (Britain) on one child porno website. This problem is quite large judging by the population of potential pedophiles (<18), but any attempts at looking at the problem scientifically is met with hostility unless the scientists tow the line. Progress cannot be made in such an environment.

"From 40 per year in the Eighties down to six last year. That's 34 children rescued."

Hmmm how big is Germany in terms of population? The statistics are usually (here, and here) that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are 'sexually abused'.

Out of 20% of all children (below 18), millions of children, only 32 were killed a year in Germany by pedophiles? I'd expect *more* just as a random percent of the population has larger homicide rates.

This pedophilia hysteria is bigger then I thought, anyone have any other murder statistics?

A band called Bananarama did a cover of a song called "Venus" in the eighties (1986). It was originally done by Shocking Blue* in 1970.

Lyrics here.

It is a bit of a stretch to go from from a story on a planetary event to a forgettable eighties band, but this is /.

Excellent... as long you make sure to put CAPS LOCK on the left!

> IRC, RMS wrote a piece encouraging developers to not use Java,...

I don't believe that.

If RMS wanted developers to stay away from Java, then why did RMS and the FSF create the GCJ Java compiler?

Do you have a link? Maybe RMS said something different, for example, maybe he was encouraging people to use an Open Source JVM instead of Sun's JVM.

There is no reason for people to avoid the Java _language_, any more than there is a reason for people to avoid C++. But you might want to avoid certain proprietary _implementations_ of those languages, such as, for example, Sun's JVM, or Microsoft's Visual C++.

> because Sun still wants to keep people under their thumb.

Bullsh**! Sun can't control what people do with Java. There is too much competition in the Java market for Sun to control it.

Sun licensed the Java spec to be open. Anyone can use it, and anyone can create their own Java Virtual Machine. There are no royalties to pay, and no contracts to sign.

You can even change or extend the Java spec if you want, though you can't use the word "Java" to describe the result. For example, HP created a modified-spec embedded JVM, and called it Chai. And Transvirtual added the Microsoft J++ extensions to their Open Source Kaffe JVM.

Only the _word_ "Java" is controlled by Sun. You can't use that word for your product unless you prove your product is compatible with the official Java spec. Sun reserves the word "Java" as a guarantee of compatibility.

But if you don't use the word "Java" -- if you call your product Chai, or Kaffe, for example -- then you can do whatever you want.

Of course, I'm not recommending for people to create incompatible versions of Java, because the whole purpose of Java is to provide cross-platform compatibility.

> That position is now kinda mitigated by GCJ but I still agree with RMS's position...

_Kinda_ mitigated? Only now? What nonsense!

There are dozens of Java virtual machines and compilers.

They come from many different companies.

Some of them are Open Source.

They're not controlled by Sun.

And you can switch between them.

Unlike Windows, there is competition in the Java market. As a result, no one is under Sun's thumb because they use Java.

In fact, Sun isn't even the biggest supplier of Java in the market. That would be IBM.

And Sun can no longer control the direction of Java. For example, the companies that make up the Eclipse group recently decided to continue with their own Java graphics library, instead of Sun's Swing.

> To be truly free [speech] software, your language cannot be under a corporate thumb like that.

That statement repeats your original error.

The Java _language_ is not under Sun's thumb.

Sun controls the Java _name_ (like Linus controls the Linux name), and Sun controls the source code for their own Java _implementation_ (i.e. Sun's JVM). That's it.

There is nothing stopping us from taking the Java _language_ in any direction we want, as long as we call it something different. For example, we could call it by the name of one of the Open Source Java implementations, such as JBoss.

In other words, we could fork Java.

But why would we want to?

People aren't forced to follow Sun's published spec for Java. But we do anyway, for the same reason that we continue to follow Linus for the Linux kernel -- because we want a single standard, and Sun is doing a reasonably good job as its custodian.

> Sun is opening Java! Wait, not yet...

Ah, I see you have fallen for Microsoft's recent FUD campaig

> IRC, RMS wrote a piece encouraging developers to not use Java,...

I don't believe that.

If RMS wanted developers to stay away from Java, then why did RMS and the FSF create the GCJ Java compiler?

Do you have a link? Maybe RMS said something different, for example, maybe he was encouraging people to use an Open Source JVM instead of Sun's JVM.

There is no reason for people to avoid the Java _language_, any more than there is a reason for people to avoid C++. But you might want to avoid certain proprietary _implementations_ of those languages, such as, for example, Sun's JVM, or Microsoft's Visual C++.

> because Sun still wants to keep people under their thumb.

Bullsh**! Sun can't control what people do with Java. There is too much competition in the Java market for Sun to control it.

Sun licensed the Java spec to be open. Anyone can use it, and anyone can create their own Java Virtual Machine. There are no royalties to pay, and no contracts to sign.

You can even change or extend the Java spec if you want, though you can't use the word "Java" to describe the result. For example, HP created a modified-spec embedded JVM, and called it Chai. And Transvirtual added the Microsoft J++ extensions to their Open Source Kaffe JVM.

Only the _word_ "Java" is controlled by Sun. You can't use that word for your product unless you prove your product is compatible with the official Java spec. Sun reserves the word "Java" as a guarantee of compatibility.

But if you don't use the word "Java" -- if you call your product Chai, or Kaffe, for example -- then you can do whatever you want.

Of course, I'm not recommending for people to create incompatible versions of Java, because the whole purpose of Java is to provide cross-platform compatibility.

> That position is now kinda mitigated by GCJ but I still agree with RMS's position...

_Kinda_ mitigated? Only now? What nonsense!

There are dozens of Java virtual machines and compilers.

They come from many different companies.

Some of them are Open Source.

They're not controlled by Sun.

And you can switch between them.

Unlike Windows, there is competition in the Java market. As a result, no one is under Sun's thumb because they use Java.

In fact, Sun isn't even the biggest supplier of Java in the market. That would be IBM.

And Sun can no longer control the direction of Java. For example, the companies that make up the Eclipse group recently decided to continue with their own Java graphics library, instead of Sun's Swing.

> To be truly free [speech] software, your language cannot be under a corporate thumb like that.

That statement repeats your original error.

The Java _language_ is not under Sun's thumb.

Sun controls the Java _name_ (like Linus controls the Linux name), and Sun controls the source code for their own Java _implementation_ (i.e. Sun's JVM). That's it.

There is nothing stopping us from taking the Java _language_ in any direction we want, as long as we call it something different. For example, we could call it by the name of one of the Open Source Java implementations, such as JBoss.

In other words, we could fork Java.

But why would we want to?

People aren't forced to follow Sun's published spec for Java. But we do anyway, for the same reason that we continue to follow Linus for the Linux kernel -- because we want a single standard, and Sun is doing a reasonably good job as its custodian.

> Sun is opening Java! Wait, not yet...

Ah, I see you have fallen for Microsoft's recent FUD campaig

> IRC, RMS wrote a piece encouraging developers to not use Java,...

I don't believe that.

If RMS wanted developers to stay away from Java, then why did RMS and the FSF create the GCJ Java compiler?

Do you have a link? Maybe RMS said something different, for example, maybe he was encouraging people to use an Open Source JVM instead of Sun's JVM.

There is no reason for people to avoid the Java _language_, any more than there is a reason for people to avoid C++. But you might want to avoid certain proprietary _implementations_ of those languages, such as, for example, Sun's JVM, or Microsoft's Visual C++.

> because Sun still wants to keep people under their thumb.

Bullsh**! Sun can't control what people do with Java. There is too much competition in the Java market for Sun to control it.

Sun licensed the Java spec to be open. Anyone can use it, and anyone can create their own Java Virtual Machine. There are no royalties to pay, and no contracts to sign.

You can even change or extend the Java spec if you want, though you can't use the word "Java" to describe the result. For example, HP created a modified-spec embedded JVM, and called it Chai. And Transvirtual added the Microsoft J++ extensions to their Open Source Kaffe JVM.

Only the _word_ "Java" is controlled by Sun. You can't use that word for your product unless you prove your product is compatible with the official Java spec. Sun reserves the word "Java" as a guarantee of compatibility.

But if you don't use the word "Java" -- if you call your product Chai, or Kaffe, for example -- then you can do whatever you want.

Of course, I'm not recommending for people to create incompatible versions of Java, because the whole purpose of Java is to provide cross-platform compatibility.

> That position is now kinda mitigated by GCJ but I still agree with RMS's position...

_Kinda_ mitigated? Only now? What nonsense!

There are dozens of Java virtual machines and compilers.

They come from many different companies.

Some of them are Open Source.

They're not controlled by Sun.

And you can switch between them.

Unlike Windows, there is competition in the Java market. As a result, no one is under Sun's thumb because they use Java.

In fact, Sun isn't even the biggest supplier of Java in the market. That would be IBM.

And Sun can no longer control the direction of Java. For example, the companies that make up the Eclipse group recently decided to continue with their own Java graphics library, instead of Sun's Swing.

> To be truly free [speech] software, your language cannot be under a corporate thumb like that.

That statement repeats your original error.

The Java _language_ is not under Sun's thumb.

Sun controls the Java _name_ (like Linus controls the Linux name), and Sun controls the source code for their own Java _implementation_ (i.e. Sun's JVM). That's it.

There is nothing stopping us from taking the Java _language_ in any direction we want, as long as we call it something different. For example, we could call it by the name of one of the Open Source Java implementations, such as JBoss.

In other words, we could fork Java.

But why would we want to?

People aren't forced to follow Sun's published spec for Java. But we do anyway, for the same reason that we continue to follow Linus for the Linux kernel -- because we want a single standard, and Sun is doing a reasonably good job as its custodian.

> Sun is opening Java! Wait, not yet...

Ah, I see you have fallen for Microsoft's recent FUD campaig

IT'S SPELLED MORANS, YOU DUMMY

Hey, I resemble that comment!

tmoran_depere

I can't see actually paying for any of it. It's the same stuff over and over. None of it is particularly compelling. Even when you travelled down the pr0n foodchain to the fetish/bondage/whatnot sites, you find content by people who wouldn't know erotic if it, well, bit them in the ass.

And the amateur porn... wassup with that? Dubious looking people in poor lit situations rehashing the six or seven basic porno poses. Somewhere there's a Porno For Dummies book these people are reading.

And then there's the crossdresser sites. Honestly, do I share the same planet with these guys? Some of them aren't even trying! I mean, what the fuck is this?. He's not even trying!!! What's the point?? Aaaa! Aaaa!

I had the same problem trying to connect this to my Thinkpad A31p. Didn't auto-repeat, & you can't have that, can you? Ended up having to get a port replicator. & I bet I'll have to do the same for every future laptop for ever (as I haven't found a better - & more modern - keyboard in 15 years).

Also, before someone mentions it, yes I have another model m with this mod, & that didn't work either.

Actually, as far as I know, Dadaism and Tristan Tzara came up with the idea of cut-up poetry. Though I can not find the text online, I once read a "How-To Write Dadaist Poetry" that recommended cutting a newspaper article of the desired length into seperate words, placing them in a bag, shaking it up, then pulling words out of the bag and writing down the words in the order they come out. Using this technique, I wrote Egging.

The information contained in this message and any attachment hereto is privileged, confidential and is for the sole use of the intended recipient.

But it begs the question, now that I got the email that was intended for me, can I use it any way I want?

I think most geeks became familiar with the term "amalgam" through the DC/Marvel Comics collaboration where two characters from their respective companies were combined into one. Like Batman + Wolverine = ??? Profit!

How would this apply to Sega/Sammy (Segammy)? Maybe they'll release Guilty Gear X vs. Sonic the Hedgehog as a fighter/platform hybrid. We can only hope.

Look up Christian Reconstructionism. Look up Rushdoony. Google is your friend. Christian Reconstrutionism is the core of the mass movement you couldn't find. The exoteric term for this is "the Religious Right". I presume you've heard of them? How far have they gotten in the past 20 years?

"All these atrocities continue in spite of the fact that we now have the 'right' people in places of power. Indeed, the occupant of the White House is a professing Christian. The U.S. Attorney General is believed to be a devout Christian. 'Conservatives' control both Houses of Congress, and Republican presidents appointed seven of the nine Supreme Court justices. Christian activists placed the right party in power, but are we now witnessing the return to moral and constitutional government that we have demanded for so long?"

This is from Christian Exodus explaining why they want to take over a state because they've effectively taken over the national government and the New Millenium hasn't started yet, i.e. the nation hasn't converted to an Old Testament legal regime comparable to sharia law quite yet. Their problem of their political leadership is that little things like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been standing in their way, though the work of dismantling is in progress. In the above, "conservative" and Christian mean "Religious Right"... those are the only people the Christian Reconstructionists recognize as real fellow Christians. Every one of the last several Presidents, Democratic and Republican have been "professing Christians". But except for George W Bush, not their kind of Christian.

For more information:

• Here are some interesting quotes that explain why some people are very concerned. You wouldn't think that responsible citizens would seriously discuss the return of slavery, would you? Don't bother with the TOC at the top, just scroll down the page.
• Here's a pretty good historical document on Christian Reconstructionis
• You've probably heard of at least some of these people.
• Where tax-exempt right-wing foundation money is going. Look towards the bottom of the list of people they've been funding. There are some very interesting Europeans on that list. More about these interesting people.

The real killer is that one has to get something useful going quickly; rather than the language itself. This helps to maintain interest in it.

Unlike BASIC, rexx is fairly easy to learn, while having structured programming, rather than goto's. Also, one does not have to invoke libraries for things.

If she has a mathematical bent, try also the rexx routines at the Album of Algorithmic Techniques.

Want to find out what the Left is all about? I am not talking about the Democratic party of the USA, by the way. I am talking about L-E-F-T-I-S-M. I am talking about the "Third Way" and Social Democracies. Want to find out about what Social Democracies are all about? Are you ready to fight for your Welfare State? Go here to find out about social democracies and welfare states, such as are common forms of government in Europe.

You too can raise good Christian girls like Jenna and Barbara Bush!"

Forgot to mention these: compatibility information on CSS3 Selectors. compares ie6, firefox 0.8, mozilla 1.7 rc1, safari 1.2 and opera 7.50 quick overview by Dante Evans since 2004-05-14

check google...

Thanks for your suggestion! Google turned up this bit of gallows humor.

xox,
Dead Nancy

U.N. Weapon Inspectors Gave Briefings on Iraq: Talks With Military Officials Violate Formal Policy Of Special Commission

Some of us enjoy vogon poetry :)

Now true, tuataras are burrowing animals, but they have to leave their burrows to feed on the insects they love so much.

Don't even get me started on birds. This theory has so many holes in it. If the Earth was grilled as the report suggest, then where's the geological evidence? A thin layer of carbon circa 65 million years ago representing all the burnt land flora?

Even the author admits it doesn't account for the mass extiniction that also took place in the ocean.

So what do we have? A theory that has no direct evidence to support it, has huge holes, does not fit with the observed evidence we've been collecting for the past two hundred years, and is incomplete according to the author. Nice one.

No OK your wrong you arrogant prick I don't use Winblow$$ HexP unlike you lamer and YOUR going on THE LIST too buddy WHAT'S YOUR IP? i will kikc your ass too. I was on a break cant you read? Dont make excuses for Taco he aint done shit and NOW I'M OUT OF A JOB. Fuck this website and fuck his "free speach" which lets hatecrime fuckers post their bile so HONEST people loose their jobs.

Self inflicted??? You arrogant prick, I bet you look at Slash at work you fuck and you don't help out with modding? I was 1)unlucky and any blame is on Taco and Gnaa I mailed Taco and he diodn't even reply. He doesn't fucking care about us, hes sold out whore. And you still lap it up. I put up my page with a picture of what you are here, so go look at it, pussy.

1. Odd initial launch lineup: TRUE. Both of the lower G5s had bad price/performance.
2. drastically reduced expansion options: TRUE. On a tower that size, I'd want more bays.
3. Saggy GPUs: TRUE. FX5200 is weak.
4. Product overlap: MAYBE. I still want a pizzabox Mac [geocities.com] though.
5. MHz stagnation relapse: TRUE. Where's the 2500s?
6. 1st gen issues haven't been fixed: TRUE. not enough independent peripheral busses, low-end G5 still uses Yikes-esque PCI mobo.
7. Regaining trust is hard: TRUE. Apple needs to reach out to the business market.
8. the 3GHz gap: TRUE. Steve said it. We're waiting for it.

apparently such things have been done for a long time by the US government in some capacity.

As a consequence, the military has chosen to provide the utmost camoflauge, while at the same time provide a uniform that simply scares the hell out of the enemy. HERE is the prototype. (I know geocities, I'm lazy it's the first imge I could find)

I hadn't ever heard of ctrl-enter auto-complete before, but it seems worthless considering Mozilla assumes http:// for any URL lacking a protocol and you rarely need www before a domain. CTRL-ENTER in Linux Mozilla opens links in new Tabs, Command-Enter in OSX Mozilla does the same thing, I don't have a Windows box.

I have been using middle-click set to command-click since to the days of Mac OS8, when Command-clicking a link in Netscape 4.5 would open it in a new window. If you haven't already got it, try out Side Track with your powerebook. It lets you set sections of your trackpad to do different things, like middle and left buttons or scrolling.

Of course, fusion is better than fission in this regard, but the same arguments hold in either case.

I dont think it does actually, a quick google turns up this site which states:

The waste product from a deuterium-tritium fusion reactor is ordinary harmless helium.