Don't forget Star Trek II (The Wrath of Khan)...probably my favorite of the Star Trek TOS movies. Granted, Star Trek I was a boring mess of a movie, so it was easy to top, but still, Khan was quite good.
Plus, it has the famous Shatner "KHAAAAAAAAN" line.
"Relations between the United States and Iraq remained tense following the Persian Gulf War. In April of 1993 the Iraqi Intelligence Service attempted to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush during a visit to Kuwait. Fortunately, Kuwaiti security foiled the car bomb plot. On June 26, 1993 the U.S. launched a missile attack targeting Baghdad intelligence headquarters in retaliation for the attack against President Bush."
That should have been reason enough to take out Saddam, in my book.
Yes, Jesus did claim to be God. See this page for a detailed list of places in the Gospels where Jesus made that claim.
Here are a few examples: The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple. (John 8:57-59)
"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." (John 12:44-46)
The question is not whether Jesus claimed to be God, because I think it's demonstrated that he indeed did make such a claim. Rather, the question is whether or not you believe it to be true.
If you don't think Jesus is God, then why believe anything else he said (in other words, why follow any of his teachings?) But if you do think he might be God, then you should dig deeper and learn more.
For someone who "works for a political consulting company and constantly work with voter history files", it's somewhat surprising to me that you don't know the difference between Arizona (AZ) and Arkansas (AR).
In other news, it was recently announced that due to the widespread use of email, street addresses would soon become obsolete. Out with the antiquated, in with the new!
Dude, I have no idea why you are so upset about this. However, let me just remind you that in any field of work there is going to be some jargon, if for no other reason than to avoid having to constantly repeat and fully explain commonly used terms. Maybe you found the terms used hard to understand, but maybe it's just because you don't have much experience in the particular field where content management is used and where those terms have specific meanings.
And when you get right down to it, there is no such thing as a "self-defining" word, as you seem to think important. Language only has meaning because of an agreement between people to use words to represent particular concepts.
It's a "content management and publishing system". Seems pretty clear cut to me.
This is the type of system used by people who have to manage a ton of documents, with workflow, version control, editorial review, etc., and then control which content goes live to a website.
Any large news or portal type website will have some kind of content management and publishing system in place, either home grown or off the shelf.
Content management systems are not new. My employer (Thomson West) has 20-30 year old home-grown mainframe-based systems that are used for maintaing the content for our legal research products. In the old days it was mostly book publishing, now it's increasingly web-based publishing.
There was a pretty good sci-fi book by David Brin called "Earth", written in 1991 or so, that had an artificial black hole escaping and threatening to destroy the earth.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
I actually think that Yahoo is much easier to read than the Twin Cities own site. You can zoom in or out and get a much more detailed view of the situation. I'm pretty sure I'll be checking Yahoo every day now before heading out onto 494 between Bloomington and Eagan.
I know you're just being a troll, but it is interesting to point out that there are "approximately five million first-language speakers and fifty million second-language speakers," according to Wikipedia. That's not a huge number but certainly enough to warrant a translation.
Most of one of the articles focused on the USA's attempt to make human cloning illegal world-wide, regardless of it's purpose. Now why can't Bush and his chronies simply focus on America? Stop bullying around the rest of the world and fix your own problems and legislate your own people.
So let me get this straight: when it comes to war in Iraq, it's really important to Democrats and other Lefties for the U.S. to get the entire world on board. But when the U.S. decides that human cloning is something that should be stopped, it's suddendly bad for us to try to get the entire world on board?
Those people are founding their opinion on religious beliefs that not everyone shares. I respect your beliefs, but don't legislate them on me.
Opposition to abortion does not have to be founded on a religious belief. There are many people who oppose abortion who do so out of a completely secular worldview.
On the other hand, why do you think that an opinion that is based on a religious belief is not permissible? Here's an example. I believe that incest is wrong because the practice clearly is a sinful one. Because I think it's wrong based on my religious views, you're going to say that I'm not allowed to try to promote legislation banning incest?
Furthermore, do you realize how many of our laws today are based on religious "opinions"? Who do you think it was that pushed for the abolition of slavery, for instance? If you've never read about the great abolitionist William Wilberforce, it might open your eyes a bit.
How about this biblical reference: Let he without sin cast the first stone. Wakeup call: It is not yours or anybody else's right, privelege, calling, or job to judge other human beings.
You're right that according to Jesus, we are not to judge one another, however, that's not the whole story. According to Romans 13:1, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." And in Romans 13:4 we read, "For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
So if you are going to quote the Bible to back up your arguments, you're also going to have to confront the fact that governments were established by God to establish order and peace, by force if necessary.
They're probably also happy that the US/UK-led UN sanctions are over now, sanctions which killed approximately another million Iraqis.
Wait, I'm confused. I thought we were supposed to keep waiting for the sanctions to work, instead of rushing to war?
So what you're saying is that we should have both lifted the sanctions and not have gone to war in Iraq? In other words, let Saddam do whatever he wanted? How responsible is that?
The first question I'd have you think about, is whether or not you EVER think war is worth it. If you are a person who believes that war is NEVER justified, then I'm not going to be able to convince you that this war is worth it.
If you do think that war is sometimes justified, then you have to consider what the possible benefits of this war are, and compare that to the cost that has been paid. Will the benefits outweigh the costs?
I believe the benefits will outweigh the costs, and within 10-20 years we'll be seeing lots of good results from this terrible war. I'm optimistic that Iraqis will seize the opportunity they've been given and will set up a democratic society that will help transform the entire Middle Eastern Arab and Muslim world by its example.
Says you, but that's your opinion only. Many people say that they are children.
It wasn't "we", the decision was that of the parents.
Yes, but "we" allowed that decision to be legal.
The term "innocent" means nothing except that it exposes the hypocrisy of the "sanctity of life" that's espoused by pro-lifers only goes so far: if they are judged guilty of something, kill 'em.
Let me get this straight: in your ideal world, the innocent should be killed and the guilty should go free? Nice.
It's easy to defend cute little babies and puppies and kittens but the real test of faith is when you have to love thy enemy.
Non sequitur.
The abortion fight is all bullshit, and none of your business.
It's not bullshit. It's anybody's business who thinks that killing for perceived convenience has no place in a civilized society.
...is what would the cost in lives have been if the U.S. had done nothing? In the short term I'm guessing more lives have been lost because of the war, but in the long term, will it have been worth it?
My guess is that history will prove that the war was worth it, not only for Iraqis but for the world as a whole.
I'm interested in seeing the new movie "Voices of Iraq" that just came out. From the reviews I've read, including one on NPR last night, it sounds like it provides evidence that the average ordinary Iraqi is grateful for what the U.S. has done (even though they want us to leave as soon as possible).
I think you're confused about the principles at stake.
For instance, take the abortion issue. You say that "reproductive choice" is a conservative position. I disagree. You are ignoring the civil liberties and right to life of the unborn child when you take that position. The right to life trumps the right of the parent to decide whether or not to have children.
And as far as "keeping out the daily lives of people", which party is it that promtes replacing the traditional role of parents with the welfare state and a nanny state? Certainly not the Republican party.
You're also confused about feminism. To start with, there is no amendment to the Constitution dealing with this. Perhaps you're thinking of the ERA, which never was ratified. And more importantly, Republicans are all about giving opportunity to anyone, regardless of gender. It's the far-left liberal Democrats who want to perform social engineering on our society and push their agenda, which by what I can see involves breaking the traditional connection between parenthood and marriage, pushing child care with tax incentives so parents feel useless unless they're bringing home a paycheck, and advancing their own version of morality (the new religion of Tolerance).
I could go on and on, but I've probably rambled enough...
I agree. I just happened to stumble on the option. I have a sort of obsessive/complusive tendency to check out every single possible option in a program, so I guess that's why I found it.
Not true. Winamp2 allows you to change the playlist display. From memory (I have WA5 so it may be different now): Preferences->Plugins->Input->Nullsoft MPEG Audio Decoder->Configure.
I always changed this to show the album like you mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
Yikes, how many DVD-Rs would it take to back that up? Hmmmm...let's see what Google says:
4 .7+gigabytes
http://www.google.com/search?q=1.2+petabytes+%2F+
Only about 268,000 DVD-Rs. Cut that in half if you're using dual-layer DVD-Rs.
Don't forget Star Trek II (The Wrath of Khan)...probably my favorite of the Star Trek TOS movies. Granted, Star Trek I was a boring mess of a movie, so it was easy to top, but still, Khan was quite good.
Plus, it has the famous Shatner "KHAAAAAAAAN" line.
From Wikipedia:
"Relations between the United States and Iraq remained tense following the Persian Gulf War. In April of 1993 the Iraqi Intelligence Service attempted to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush during a visit to Kuwait. Fortunately, Kuwaiti security foiled the car bomb plot. On June 26, 1993 the U.S. launched a missile attack targeting Baghdad intelligence headquarters in retaliation for the attack against President Bush."
That should have been reason enough to take out Saddam, in my book.
Yes, Jesus did claim to be God. See this page for a detailed list of places in the Gospels where Jesus made that claim.
Here are a few examples:
The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple. (John 8:57-59)
"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." (John 12:44-46)
The question is not whether Jesus claimed to be God, because I think it's demonstrated that he indeed did make such a claim. Rather, the question is whether or not you believe it to be true.
If you don't think Jesus is God, then why believe anything else he said (in other words, why follow any of his teachings?) But if you do think he might be God, then you should dig deeper and learn more.
For someone who "works for a political consulting company and constantly work with voter history files", it's somewhat surprising to me that you don't know the difference between Arizona (AZ) and Arkansas (AR).
Don'cha think?
In other news, it was recently announced that due to the widespread use of email, street addresses would soon become obsolete. Out with the antiquated, in with the new!
Dude, I have no idea why you are so upset about this. However, let me just remind you that in any field of work there is going to be some jargon, if for no other reason than to avoid having to constantly repeat and fully explain commonly used terms. Maybe you found the terms used hard to understand, but maybe it's just because you don't have much experience in the particular field where content management is used and where those terms have specific meanings.
And when you get right down to it, there is no such thing as a "self-defining" word, as you seem to think important. Language only has meaning because of an agreement between people to use words to represent particular concepts.
It's a "content management and publishing system". Seems pretty clear cut to me.
This is the type of system used by people who have to manage a ton of documents, with workflow, version control, editorial review, etc., and then control which content goes live to a website.
Any large news or portal type website will have some kind of content management and publishing system in place, either home grown or off the shelf.
Content management systems are not new. My employer (Thomson West) has 20-30 year old home-grown mainframe-based systems that are used for maintaing the content for our legal research products. In the old days it was mostly book publishing, now it's increasingly web-based publishing.
There was a pretty good sci-fi book by David Brin called "Earth", written in 1991 or so, that had an artificial black hole escaping and threatening to destroy the earth.
Or in Wisconsin...
Genesis 2:2-3 (New International Version)
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
I actually think that Yahoo is much easier to read than the Twin Cities own site. You can zoom in or out and get a much more detailed view of the situation. I'm pretty sure I'll be checking Yahoo every day now before heading out onto 494 between Bloomington and Eagan.
Most of one of the articles focused on the USA's attempt to make human cloning illegal world-wide, regardless of it's purpose. Now why can't Bush and his chronies simply focus on America? Stop bullying around the rest of the world and fix your own problems and legislate your own people.
So let me get this straight: when it comes to war in Iraq, it's really important to Democrats and other Lefties for the U.S. to get the entire world on board. But when the U.S. decides that human cloning is something that should be stopped, it's suddendly bad for us to try to get the entire world on board?
I'm so confused.
Those people are founding their opinion on religious beliefs that not everyone shares. I respect your beliefs, but don't legislate them on me.
Opposition to abortion does not have to be founded on a religious belief. There are many people who oppose abortion who do so out of a completely secular worldview.
On the other hand, why do you think that an opinion that is based on a religious belief is not permissible? Here's an example. I believe that incest is wrong because the practice clearly is a sinful one. Because I think it's wrong based on my religious views, you're going to say that I'm not allowed to try to promote legislation banning incest?
Furthermore, do you realize how many of our laws today are based on religious "opinions"? Who do you think it was that pushed for the abolition of slavery, for instance? If you've never read about the great abolitionist William Wilberforce, it might open your eyes a bit.
How about this biblical reference: Let he without sin cast the first stone. Wakeup call: It is not yours or anybody else's right, privelege, calling, or job to judge other human beings.
You're right that according to Jesus, we are not to judge one another, however, that's not the whole story. According to Romans 13:1, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." And in Romans 13:4 we read, "For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
So if you are going to quote the Bible to back up your arguments, you're also going to have to confront the fact that governments were established by God to establish order and peace, by force if necessary.
They're probably also happy that the US/UK-led UN sanctions are over now, sanctions which killed approximately another million Iraqis.
Wait, I'm confused. I thought we were supposed to keep waiting for the sanctions to work, instead of rushing to war?
So what you're saying is that we should have both lifted the sanctions and not have gone to war in Iraq? In other words, let Saddam do whatever he wanted? How responsible is that?
The first question I'd have you think about, is whether or not you EVER think war is worth it. If you are a person who believes that war is NEVER justified, then I'm not going to be able to convince you that this war is worth it.
If you do think that war is sometimes justified, then you have to consider what the possible benefits of this war are, and compare that to the cost that has been paid. Will the benefits outweigh the costs?
I believe the benefits will outweigh the costs, and within 10-20 years we'll be seeing lots of good results from this terrible war. I'm optimistic that Iraqis will seize the opportunity they've been given and will set up a democratic society that will help transform the entire Middle Eastern Arab and Muslim world by its example.
They weren't children at that point.
Says you, but that's your opinion only. Many people say that they are children.
It wasn't "we", the decision was that of the parents.
Yes, but "we" allowed that decision to be legal.
The term "innocent" means nothing except that it exposes the hypocrisy of the "sanctity of life" that's espoused by pro-lifers only goes so far:
if they are judged guilty of something, kill 'em.
Let me get this straight: in your ideal world, the innocent should be killed and the guilty should go free? Nice.
It's easy to defend cute little babies and puppies and kittens
but the real test of faith is when you have to love thy enemy.
Non sequitur.
The abortion fight is all bullshit, and none of your business.
It's not bullshit. It's anybody's business who thinks that killing for perceived convenience has no place in a civilized society.
Somebody always steps up to rationalize genocide. I guess it's your turn.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
...is what would the cost in lives have been if the U.S. had done nothing? In the short term I'm guessing more lives have been lost because of the war, but in the long term, will it have been worth it?
My guess is that history will prove that the war was worth it, not only for Iraqis but for the world as a whole.
I'm interested in seeing the new movie "Voices of Iraq" that just came out. From the reviews I've read, including one on NPR last night, it sounds like it provides evidence that the average ordinary Iraqi is grateful for what the U.S. has done (even though they want us to leave as soon as possible).
I think you're confused about the principles at stake.
For instance, take the abortion issue. You say that "reproductive choice" is a conservative position. I disagree. You are ignoring the civil liberties and right to life of the unborn child when you take that position. The right to life trumps the right of the parent to decide whether or not to have children.
And as far as "keeping out the daily lives of people", which party is it that promtes replacing the traditional role of parents with the welfare state and a nanny state? Certainly not the Republican party.
You're also confused about feminism. To start with, there is no amendment to the Constitution dealing with this. Perhaps you're thinking of the ERA, which never was ratified. And more importantly, Republicans are all about giving opportunity to anyone, regardless of gender. It's the far-left liberal Democrats who want to perform social engineering on our society and push their agenda, which by what I can see involves breaking the traditional connection between parenthood and marriage, pushing child care with tax incentives so parents feel useless unless they're bringing home a paycheck, and advancing their own version of morality (the new religion of Tolerance).
I could go on and on, but I've probably rambled enough...
Let me guess, in your Bizarro world, up is down and down is up. Am I on the right track?
I agree. I just happened to stumble on the option. I have a sort of obsessive/complusive tendency to check out every single possible option in a program, so I guess that's why I found it.
Not true. Winamp2 allows you to change the playlist display. From memory (I have WA5 so it may be different now): Preferences->Plugins->Input->Nullsoft MPEG Audio Decoder->Configure.
I always changed this to show the album like you mentioned.