When he is not on the clock he is free to practice his religion however he wants.
The supreme court was wrong in its misinterpretation of the consitution saying there is a seperation of church and state. The only requirement is that the government does not create, or establish a state religion. Period.
NO! Don't say that! Bush wants to go to mars, we must resist. We must hate Bush first and foremost. If we do something Bush wants, well, well, well, I dunno, the world could end! No going to mars! No going to mars! Must hate Bush more than not going to mars!...
I thought the Euro's loved their taxes? What are they doing trying to skirt the law here?
Oh, like all socialists they like to take other people's money (not their own) and give it to causes that they deem more important than the true owner of the money.
From the mixing box I have connected an audio on the monitor channel (since we do not currently use that for the musicians) to the laptop record. I have the alsa drivers setup with the 2.6 kernel and fire up audacity.
Usually after the service (or before the next week) I will pull the songs out and run the noise removal filter on those (otherwise we get a lot of static sound since our mixer is pretty sad) then export as wavs. Then the sermon itself I usually export as 5 minute wavs from audacity.
After that, I use arson to burn the CD's off for handing out the next week.
Most of the folks love it since otherwise I can only make one tape a week and nearly everyone has a CD player somewhere they can use. My next project is to put together a website with mp3's since one of our member's daughter is going on an exchange program next year.
I handle the sound for our church, mainly recording sermons and music, and it certainly handles the job. The setup is simple enough to user right out of the *cough* box *cough* or package. Often I by the end of the service I have about 1.5GB of stuff to go through and clean up and put on a CD which audacity handles pretty well also.
Why the heck is the captain using it then? I mean really, if the risk is so minimal for Kirk to get beamed down to every planet with Spock and Bones and a couple red shirts (granted I guess they only count as one full trip since neither of them are coming back), have the captain mess around with the skimply clad green chic, then beam back, why did we never see a single accident? Personally I think Kirk needs to be in detox after every episode incase he caught some alien disease during his escapades, but that obviously is a different issue.
Why are transporters used to liberally if they are too dangerous to go from somewhere on the ship to the transporter room (so they have a pad at atleast one side), then transport down to the planet?
Why the heck is he *WALKING* to the transporter room? Why is he not transported from where he is to his destination? Or worst case senario, transported to the transport room then down to the planet?
Amazing, even Tom's Hardware thinks michael is full of crap. I noticed timothy posted this, that surprises me since timothy is like michael in training.
Re:Sedna, Sedna, Sedna ...
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 0, Troll
You mean its not just Kim Jong Il and Saddam that endorsed him? I mean why else wouldn't he tell us who supports him?
Do you seriously think you would have said that comment if the roles had been reversed? Or would you be praising the Dems for reading files and bashing Republicans for being stupid and not knowing how to secure a server?
Had it been michael posting instead of say pudge, you would have been marked troll. michael is all about freespeech, just not when it is criticizing him.
And that's about it, too. If we'd channelled all the cash that the world puts into nukes, tanks, fighter-jets, aircraft carriers etc... and instead used it to fund space exploration, or heck even undersea, we probably would be a lot farther today.
Actually, I would bet we might be further behind than today. You see, very little cutting edge tech has come out of nations like Iraq. However, Saddam has proven before he would rather annex land than develop a space program. Were we to simpley let men like Saddam continue while all our money is funneled into other programs instead of defense we would be at some point conquered by men like Saddam.
You could claim that Iraq is a small country and would not possibley be able to take over much of the world, but compare its size to Germany pre-WWII. Toss in folks like North Korea and who ever happens to support bin Laden and we have quite a few folks who would love to militarily take over the world and force their world view on everyone.
Now, you see it only takes one side to start a war. Being the biggest and strongest allows one side to end a war. I would rather be the side with the biggest and strongest guns since I know that my freedoms will be defended.
# I post on Slashdot # Trolls post on slashdot # Trolls watch TV # George W. Bush watches TV
* Movies have been on TV. * Tremors is a movie. * There were cows in the movie Tremors. * Cows are animals. * Pigs are animals. * There are pigs in soviet russia. # In Soviet Russian, TV watches YOU! # You breath air # Terrorists breath air # Terrorists see the stars at night
* There is a constillation of Orion made out of stars. * Orion was a hunter. * Hunters shoot deer. * Deer have meat. * Bacon is meat. * Bacon is meat is an anongram for, "bam! sit a cone." * I like to sit and eat ice cream cones. * I have seen a Kevin Bacon movie.
Worked wonderfully for 1812, WWI, WWII, pretty much every war up until the Cold War. No, it wasn't until the Cold War that your idea worked, where two sides equally powered actaully caused a stalemate. And you know what made the cold war work? Advanced tech. Basically we were at the point where each side was able to annihilate the other side and the rest of the world. MAD.
Remember that the folks who start wars are not the people who fight them. Soldiers are the ones who fight, I see no reason to not try and keep them alive.
However, in the event of wars like in Afghanistan and Iraq I would much rather have one side far more powerful to keep the casualties down.
Do you feel somehow better by posting twice to this comment?
As someone has rebutted you above, military applications do lend themselves to more advanced tech.
Would you rather have armies that are equal in strength fighting it out or one army grossely overpowering fighting a weaker army. Personally, if the goal is to minimize casualities all around, I think disproportionate armies save lives since the war is over much quicker.
I sure would be nice if everyone would lay down there weapons and be nice to each other, but the simple fact of the matter is that will not happen. So, it makes sense to have the biggest baddest army to shorten the wars that do occur.
Slashdot Mirror
No no no...
bork bork borky bork borky bork bork
When he is not on the clock he is free to practice his religion however he wants.
The supreme court was wrong in its misinterpretation of the consitution saying there is a seperation of church and state. The only requirement is that the government does not create, or establish a state religion. Period.
Read the 1st amendment again bud.
NO! Don't say that! Bush wants to go to mars, we must resist. We must hate Bush first and foremost. If we do something Bush wants, well, well, well, I dunno, the world could end! No going to mars! No going to mars! Must hate Bush more than not going to mars! ...
</endStandardSlashBotReasoning>
mikerowesoft.com
I believe it is about 17 centivbs (hundredths of a volkwagen bug). Granted my metric is not as good as it could be since I am an American.
I thought the Euro's loved their taxes? What are they doing trying to skirt the law here?
Oh, like all socialists they like to take other people's money (not their own) and give it to causes that they deem more important than the true owner of the money.
Nothing to see here, standard socialism.
Pretty simple over all.
From the mixing box I have connected an audio on the monitor channel (since we do not currently use that for the musicians) to the laptop record. I have the alsa drivers setup with the 2.6 kernel and fire up audacity.
Usually after the service (or before the next week) I will pull the songs out and run the noise removal filter on those (otherwise we get a lot of static sound since our mixer is pretty sad) then export as wavs. Then the sermon itself I usually export as 5 minute wavs from audacity.
After that, I use arson to burn the CD's off for handing out the next week.
Most of the folks love it since otherwise I can only make one tape a week and nearly everyone has a CD player somewhere they can use. My next project is to put together a website with mp3's since one of our member's daughter is going on an exchange program next year.
NNNOOOOOO!!!!!!
I didn't see Microsoft in that list! AAAAAAAAHAHHHHHHH!!!!!!
I'll put my vote behind audacity also.
I handle the sound for our church, mainly recording sermons and music, and it certainly handles the job. The setup is simple enough to user right out of the *cough* box *cough* or package. Often I by the end of the service I have about 1.5GB of stuff to go through and clean up and put on a CD which audacity handles pretty well also.
SO TRANSPORTERS ARE NOT SAFE!?!
Why the heck is the captain using it then? I mean really, if the risk is so minimal for Kirk to get beamed down to every planet with Spock and Bones and a couple red shirts (granted I guess they only count as one full trip since neither of them are coming back), have the captain mess around with the skimply clad green chic, then beam back, why did we never see a single accident? Personally I think Kirk needs to be in detox after every episode incase he caught some alien disease during his escapades, but that obviously is a different issue.
Why are transporters used to liberally if they are too dangerous to go from somewhere on the ship to the transporter room (so they have a pad at atleast one side), then transport down to the planet?
Why the heck is he *WALKING* to the transporter room? Why is he not transported from where he is to his destination? Or worst case senario, transported to the transport room then down to the planet?
Amazing, even Tom's Hardware thinks michael is full of crap. I noticed timothy posted this, that surprises me since timothy is like michael in training.
You mean its not just Kim Jong Il and Saddam that endorsed him? I mean why else wouldn't he tell us who supports him?
Anyone else find this humorous while thinking that California is also one of the most liberal states in the US?
Do you seriously think you would have said that comment if the roles had been reversed? Or would you be praising the Dems for reading files and bashing Republicans for being stupid and not knowing how to secure a server?
google rot13 javascript
What is the difference between an elephant and a loaf of bread?
If you don't know:
<rot13>
V'z arire fraqvat lbh gb gur tebprel fgber gb cvpx hc n ybns bs oernq.
</rot13>
Had it been michael posting instead of say pudge, you would have been marked troll. michael is all about freespeech, just not when it is criticizing him.
And that's about it, too. If we'd channelled all the cash that the world puts into nukes, tanks, fighter-jets, aircraft carriers etc... and instead used it to fund space exploration, or heck even undersea, we probably would be a lot farther today.
Actually, I would bet we might be further behind than today. You see, very little cutting edge tech has come out of nations like Iraq. However, Saddam has proven before he would rather annex land than develop a space program. Were we to simpley let men like Saddam continue while all our money is funneled into other programs instead of defense we would be at some point conquered by men like Saddam.
You could claim that Iraq is a small country and would not possibley be able to take over much of the world, but compare its size to Germany pre-WWII. Toss in folks like North Korea and who ever happens to support bin Laden and we have quite a few folks who would love to militarily take over the world and force their world view on everyone.
Now, you see it only takes one side to start a war. Being the biggest and strongest allows one side to end a war. I would rather be the side with the biggest and strongest guns since I know that my freedoms will be defended.
It's long been know that genius is "in bed" with madness.
Yes, and we know why my wife and I have such a good time...
Oh, nevermind...
You missed the obvious Kevin Bacon link here...
# I post on Slashdot
# Trolls post on slashdot
# Trolls watch TV
# George W. Bush watches TV
* Movies have been on TV.
* Tremors is a movie.
* There were cows in the movie Tremors.
* Cows are animals.
* Pigs are animals.
* There are pigs in soviet russia.
# In Soviet Russian, TV watches YOU!
# You breath air
# Terrorists breath air
# Terrorists see the stars at night
* There is a constillation of Orion made out of stars.
* Orion was a hunter.
* Hunters shoot deer.
* Deer have meat.
* Bacon is meat.
* Bacon is meat is an anongram for, "bam! sit a cone."
* I like to sit and eat ice cream cones.
* I have seen a Kevin Bacon movie.
See, you are within 22 degrees of Kevin Bacon.
Depends on the license.
That is what the GPL is about.
BSD is about sharing and not looking for anything in return.
Worked wonderfully for 1812, WWI, WWII, pretty much every war up until the Cold War. No, it wasn't until the Cold War that your idea worked, where two sides equally powered actaully caused a stalemate. And you know what made the cold war work? Advanced tech. Basically we were at the point where each side was able to annihilate the other side and the rest of the world. MAD.
Remember that the folks who start wars are not the people who fight them. Soldiers are the ones who fight, I see no reason to not try and keep them alive.
However, in the event of wars like in Afghanistan and Iraq I would much rather have one side far more powerful to keep the casualties down.
Do you feel somehow better by posting twice to this comment?
As someone has rebutted you above, military applications do lend themselves to more advanced tech.
Would you rather have armies that are equal in strength fighting it out or one army grossely overpowering fighting a weaker army. Personally, if the goal is to minimize casualities all around, I think disproportionate armies save lives since the war is over much quicker.
I sure would be nice if everyone would lay down there weapons and be nice to each other, but the simple fact of the matter is that will not happen. So, it makes sense to have the biggest baddest army to shorten the wars that do occur.
And here we have proof, that 80% of your moderators find green pickles and martians insightful.
Perhaps NASA TV needs to cover slashdot more often.