I agree that Bush is a "No-tax-and-spend-Republican". His budget is way out of line and he needs to cut pork (Teddy Kennedy would be a good start). There are a lot of things he needs to correct.
The Democrat he replaced had some very strong Republican Senators to keep him in line as far as budget. Newt Gingrich pushed a lot of really good things through.
I also agree with your sig. It is too true here on/. That's what I love about the hypocrites here.
You got a "4 Interesting" for this? What else can you expect on liberal/.
You must either believe in a very sad religion or have a very skewed perception on what religion should be. "God made man." "Man is that he should have joy."
We can't help it if your team didn't make it to the Super Bowl.
'Course, you're juxtaposing that to what Blue State Americans want... High taxes, welfare for everyone, and big government.
The first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Conservatives aren't into "abstinence only", we know that providing abstinence only sex education is not going to stop problems, but it may enhance them. The funny thing is abstinence is the only method to 100% guarantee that you don't get STDs, or get pregnant, etc from sex. The problem is that too many schools have scoffed at abstinence, saying that won't work, all kids are having sex. Funny thing, now that it is being taught in school teen-sex is on the decline, which means less teen pregnancy, which means fewer people who will go onto welfare for that. Studies have shown that a couple who have a child in their teens will generally be poor for all of their lives. Abstinence teaches self control, which those other methods do not.
Darwinism is a theory. Science is meant to be objective is it not? Should we look at all relevant theories on a subject or should we just scoff at those that don't fit our agenda? Intelligent design is another theory. The critics bash it because it takes into account that there might be a God and that things have happened due to design and not just accident.
This gets more at the heart of secularism, which IMO is an extremely repressive religion in and of itself. Secularism teaches that there should be no religion taught anywhere. There should be no reference to God in the public life. Honestly, it takes more faith to believe that there is no God, than to believe that there is a God. You have to believe, when you get down to it, that something comes from nothing - a contradiction to the known laws of physics. So you have the secularists who are trying to instill their religion (Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview.) This gets back to Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
So they are endorsing one religion and repressing another. This is a very serious breach of the first amendment. And all this comes before the "freedom of speech" section. You are right. People don't know the First Amendment.
We conservatives have a very strong love for the constitution and the bill of rights. And we see how you are so hypocritical about defending the first amendment. And we see how you liberals want to take away our freedoms.
I do this too, although I don't admin a lab anymore.
But, everyone I've talked too that has been frustrated about pop-up/unders, and having all these damn viruses, I've told them to download 3 things.
1. Mozilla Firefox 2. Spybot S&D 3. Adaware 4.... 5. Oh yeah and Profit!!!
These people have been at the point of junking their computers. There was "nothing" that they could do with them anymore. Now they can actually use their computers without all the problems like they did. They're happy with them. Then they tell other people what they did and how much they like it.
With the computers in our lab, I've removed all links from the desktop of IE and put in FF labeling it as Internet Browser. I even put it in the same spot that IE was. They don't know the difference.
I love FF and (since I'm on a mac) Safari. IE is something I will never touch again.
I think you've got some really great points. I will disagree with the raising of the retirement age.
I know. "You don't get old until you retire". But I don't buy that. When I reach 65 I want to be able to move on with my life. I don't want to be strapped down to a job all of my life. I don't want to live to work. When I hit 65 I want to travel the world (assuming it's still there then). I want to be able to go whereever and do whatever I want at that point. I believe I will have contributed at least my fair share by that point.
Many people do get old when they retire, but that could be because they are not active in doing other things. And that is precisely what I plan on doing. I'm going to be doing all sorts of things at that age. And hopefully, I will have invested and saved enough to allow me to do that.
But the problem is this: CBS has a huge credibility issue. As you can see from a lot of the posts here on/. There are the jokes about the "Rathergate", gah I hate that term, or the interest in the missing explosives that CBS wanted to release before election night.
In the first case, the bloggers opened that case up for what it was - a phony. This is what mainly hurt their credibility. When contradicting information about the weapons were brought forward this also hurt their credibility. It showed that they had an agenda - to remove Bush from office.
Now, CBS is upset. They know they're in it very deep. They are looking to point a finger at someone, to strike out at something (a childish temper tantrum). They know that the internet has provided another forum for information gathering, and because of these mess-ups it has put a greater emphasis on double checking the sources. People do that now. And they thank the bloggers.
So CBS is trying to destroy the bloggers' credibility. And it's not just CBS, but CNN is also in on the act. They're trying to reassert that they are the news information "gateway".
Personally, I think it is pathetic. But, CBS is hurting. So expect to see them try and "expose" some sort of bullshit about bloggers or other online information sites. They'll try and destroy their credibility to assert that CBS is "reliable".
One last note. George W. Bush didn't outwit anyone. His campaign manager did, perhaps, or Kerry has defeated himself.
A couple of comments on just that line. Wouldn't you say that Bush's campaign manager outwitted Kerry's campaign manager?
OR
Since Bush hired his campaign manager, who beat Kerry's campaign manager who he hired, Bush therefore hired the better campaign manager. Therefore since he hired the better manager, he made the smarter move and thus "outwitted" his opponent?
OR
Kerry defeated himself. Couldn't Bush have defeated himself just as easily? If Bush and Kerry can equally defeat themselves, yet Kerry in the end defeated himself more, wouldn't that mean that Bush "outwitted" him by defeating himself less, and allowing Kerry to defeat himself more?
Dr. Strangelove -- "I can be just as sorry if not sorrier than you can, Dmitri."
Not trying to troll, but I thought your last comment was interesting
to all the candidates who are running today. I sincerely hope that the "best" candidate wins.
One of my even greater hopes is that whoever loses will concede and allow the victor to take the publicly appointed position. Especially in the presidential race. I feel that this country should unite under the leadership of the president regardless of who they voted for, but whoever was elected. The electoral college, given power by the people, gets to decide who the president of the United States will be for the next four years, for good or ill. I hope and pray that whoever wins will have the courage and fortitude to lead us in the next few years. I also hope and pray the "loser" will have the courage to admit defeat and let the country move forward.
We may not particularly like the choices, but let's be the best people we can be and progress from there. Best of luck/karma!!!
Re:Hasn't Halloween passed its useful life?
on
Halloween Fun
·
· Score: 1
Not only that but if you are concerned about your kid's candy a lot of hospitals will x-ray your candy or do a few other tests to make sure they're safe.
Right now, I'm picturing a Homer-esque person sitting there "testing" the candy to make sure it's alright. *Howmp* Yes this candy was good! Oooooh Atomic Fireballs!
If you are killed by an undead wookie you will respawn in the Cantina on Tatooine forced to watch over and over as GREEDO SHOOTS FIRST until you finally succumb to George Lucas's 'vision' of Star Wars.
Then you will be forced to watch Jar Jar strip tease a Naboo audience. Oh the horror!!!
But that's the problem a three party system just wouldn't work. The two party system used to work here in the US, but now it is starting to fail. The reason is simple. Both sides have gone to the "You're either with us or against us" dogma. There is no middle ground for them anymore. And with our political process that is quite lethal.
A multi-party system would gridlock faster than traffic in LA on Friday afternoon. It would be almost impossible to reach a consensus. If you don't agree with me look at other major things like Klamath River. They've got several groups there vying for their own agenda and it is extremely hard to reach a consensus.
Personally, I would like to see a party that more closely fits my needs. So far the Independent and the Libertarian (except for a few key issues) Parties are the closest to my opinions.
A little OT but somewhat related... What we really need to do is get rid of the corruption. One of the ways to do that, IMO, would be to give more cajones to the GAO (government accountability office). Then politicians couldn't just dip into the public coffers anytime they felt the itch. Hold them accountable for the money. (examples of abuse - The Big Dig in Mass. and somewhat related UN Oil for Food). The GAO right now only comes in after the fact. But if we hold them responsible by listing specifically what the money is spent on then there is less chance for abuse such as both parties are exploiting now.
On Topic. I think the debates are going to be a farce. They've got the whole thing scripted so that we can't really decide. 'Course I can understand somethings like the way they had chairs with Ross Perot. He was really short and they had these tall chairs he had to jump down from. It looks terrible. But I would like to see both of the candidates at the same time. Split the screen so we can see them at all times. I want to see how the other reacts to what his opponent is saying.
circletimesquare hits some very good points on the anti-nuclear movement.
In order to create the hydrogen for our proposed hydrogen fueled vehicles where is the energy going to come from? Currently, it would come from petroleum. This would mean that you would have more pollution.
Biodiesel will require acres of plant material to produce enough to support a few vehicles. I forget the numbers, but we just don't have a viable solution to this right now.
The NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) crowd has effectively taken over California to the point that they cannot make any power plants. They have to buy power from Nevada, Utah, and a few other places, just to meet current demand.
Nuclear power is, right now, the only scaleable power source that we have. And if we want to break our dependence on oil we will have to switch over sometime.
Right now there is some real interest in bioreactors by the Gov't. One of the requirements of producing energy via these is to make other by-products. Biological synthetics, bio-polymers, bio-plastics that can be used as replacements for our current petroleum based products. It's going to be a very hot field in the next few years. Hmmm, maybe I might want to think of doing a doctorate in that field....
Well, if you want to get technical about how many people were affected by this why don't we compare it to other forms of energy that we have been using for a long time.
Let's take a look at coal power. We've been using it for a long time. How many people have died from coal powered plants? This includes miners from the coal mines, plant operators, then let's take a look at how many people have been affected by the by-products of the coal plant. This would include those who have had to breathe in the air that has been polluted by the burning of coal. Then let's look at other environmental effects. Acid deposition (acid rain), reduced visibility, fine particulate matter, etc. Not to mention how much clean-up expenses are now being imposed to take care of this problem.
Remember how when we had that blackout over the Northeast corner of the US just a short while back? Surprisingly, or maybe not, during those three days, they had the cleanest air in decades. Makes you think.
I do have to say of all the means of generating enough energy to supply our needs nuclear is the way to go. It does not produce the environmental hazards that the others do. There is no other current alternative that will meet the energy needs of the future. And yes I am considering the alternatives too. Solar power just doesn't have the efficiency to meet our needs, nor does wind power.
A nuclear plant may have the hazards of causing severe damage, but that is when there are not enough checks in place to keep it from going critical. They are currently designed to have at least triple redundancy, and only through gross negligence of operators overriding procedures can they go critical.
The waste can be bound up in several different processes. There are some reactors that recycle the waste, which current US law does not allow, that actually degrades them further and creates a less potent by-product.
Your joke about misspelling Chernobyl is distasteful, and honestly shows you to be an ass with your 'nucular' reference.
You can also convert the AAC to MP3 using iTunes. I've done that for my little brother's Rio Chiba. I've used the iTunes to upload the music onto his computer. I adjusted the settings to automatically convert to MP3 instead of AAC.
Now he can download it to his Rio Chiba and take that music with him anywhere.
I was just at the Amazon site listed by one of the parents here and the book has been rated 2 out of 5 stars with over 230 reviews. I've been through about a hundred of them so far and most of them have been about the strong arm tactics by Penguin. I've been marking them "Was this helpful?" -- Yes to those that are about the Katie.com incedent.
It wasn't until about 105 that I saw a positive review stating: I don't know what the reviewers are talking about when they mention property rights or strongarming. This book was an emotional pageturner that I could not set down. As someone who actually read the book and isn't concerned with the politics involved, I for one say this was an excellent book. That poor little Tarbox girl.
I do feel bad for the Tarbox girl, but as most of the other posts there put it: Penguins actions are reprehensible!
On the subject of killing. I know, it's OT but WTF (anymore anachronisms I can use now?).
Murder, at least as society defines it now, was perfectly acceptable in Japan for many centuries. The samurai class could walk down the street and the samurai could draw his sword and cut any person down, usually lower caste or lower than them, just to "test his blade". This was fine with most people. Eventually it became unacceptable and one band of samurai went to work to put a stop to it. Instead of going one on one with a person they would go in like a band of wolves and take the samurai who were doing this and cut them down. Their style consisted of I'm going to kill you even if it kills me.
Also, murder was acceptable at certain levels if it retained their honor, or the honor of the clan/family. But using the definitions of murder at that time.
Ok, if you want a scientific approach to the "Murder is wrong" then that would actually be a good thesis that a person could write this on. I think that anybody who could feasibly write a thesis on either 'Murder is wrong' or 'Murder isn't wrong' using only science and facts. I think that if you could prove either then maybe you could accomadate the most logical thesis.
That's what I'm holding out for. I actually went to have my eyes "frickin' lasered" a couple of years ago. I hate wearing glasses and the last time I tried to wear contacts it was like putting gravel in my eyes. And now I can't even hold my open when I try to put a lens in.
When I went they did all of their tests to see if I was a good candidate for it. Well, they determined that I am too far-sighted. I was pissed. I really hate wearing glasses and would like to be able to see when I don't have my glasses on. The option they told me was to wait for the interocular lens. It was still in the process for FDA approval for corrective surgery (it's already alright for cataract surgery).
So I'm waiting for that.
But, several family members have had it and they love it. That is, with the exception of my mom. She chose the option of getting the eyes done differently so she could use one eye for near and the other for far. She hates it. And I've heard from many people that have had that option done hate it. So, if you get it done do both eyes so they are the same.
True and what he was also saying was that these smaller companies cannot thrive in this climate. How many smaller news stations have we seen in the last ten - fifteen years that have gone on to become big?
We really don't have alternatives when they are owned by the same parent company.
Slashdot Mirror
You said it yourself.
blah, blah, blah
I agree that Bush is a "No-tax-and-spend-Republican". His budget is way out of line and he needs to cut pork (Teddy Kennedy would be a good start). There are a lot of things he needs to correct.
/. That's what I love about the hypocrites here.
The Democrat he replaced had some very strong Republican Senators to keep him in line as far as budget. Newt Gingrich pushed a lot of really good things through.
I also agree with your sig. It is too true here on
You got a "4 Interesting" for this? What else can you expect on liberal /.
You must either believe in a very sad religion or have a very skewed perception on what religion should be. "God made man." "Man is that he should have joy."
We can't help it if your team didn't make it to the Super Bowl.
'Course, you're juxtaposing that to what Blue State Americans want... High taxes, welfare for everyone, and big government.
Ok, I'll bite.
The first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Conservatives aren't into "abstinence only", we know that providing abstinence only sex education is not going to stop problems, but it may enhance them. The funny thing is abstinence is the only method to 100% guarantee that you don't get STDs, or get pregnant, etc from sex. The problem is that too many schools have scoffed at abstinence, saying that won't work, all kids are having sex. Funny thing, now that it is being taught in school teen-sex is on the decline, which means less teen pregnancy, which means fewer people who will go onto welfare for that. Studies have shown that a couple who have a child in their teens will generally be poor for all of their lives. Abstinence teaches self control, which those other methods do not.
Darwinism is a theory. Science is meant to be objective is it not? Should we look at all relevant theories on a subject or should we just scoff at those that don't fit our agenda? Intelligent design is another theory. The critics bash it because it takes into account that there might be a God and that things have happened due to design and not just accident.
This gets more at the heart of secularism, which IMO is an extremely repressive religion in and of itself. Secularism teaches that there should be no religion taught anywhere. There should be no reference to God in the public life. Honestly, it takes more faith to believe that there is no God, than to believe that there is a God. You have to believe, when you get down to it, that something comes from nothing - a contradiction to the known laws of physics. So you have the secularists who are trying to instill their religion (Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview.) This gets back to Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
So they are endorsing one religion and repressing another. This is a very serious breach of the first amendment. And all this comes before the "freedom of speech" section. You are right. People don't know the First Amendment.
We conservatives have a very strong love for the constitution and the bill of rights. And we see how you are so hypocritical about defending the first amendment. And we see how you liberals want to take away our freedoms.
I do this too, although I don't admin a lab anymore.
...
But, everyone I've talked too that has been frustrated about pop-up/unders, and having all these damn viruses, I've told them to download 3 things.
1. Mozilla Firefox
2. Spybot S&D
3. Adaware
4.
5. Oh yeah and Profit!!!
These people have been at the point of junking their computers. There was "nothing" that they could do with them anymore. Now they can actually use their computers without all the problems like they did. They're happy with them. Then they tell other people what they did and how much they like it.
With the computers in our lab, I've removed all links from the desktop of IE and put in FF labeling it as Internet Browser. I even put it in the same spot that IE was. They don't know the difference.
I love FF and (since I'm on a mac) Safari. IE is something I will never touch again.
I think you've got some really great points. I will disagree with the raising of the retirement age.
I know. "You don't get old until you retire". But I don't buy that. When I reach 65 I want to be able to move on with my life. I don't want to be strapped down to a job all of my life. I don't want to live to work. When I hit 65 I want to travel the world (assuming it's still there then). I want to be able to go whereever and do whatever I want at that point. I believe I will have contributed at least my fair share by that point.
Many people do get old when they retire, but that could be because they are not active in doing other things. And that is precisely what I plan on doing. I'm going to be doing all sorts of things at that age. And hopefully, I will have invested and saved enough to allow me to do that.
But the problem is this: CBS has a huge credibility issue. As you can see from a lot of the posts here on /. There are the jokes about the "Rathergate", gah I hate that term, or the interest in the missing explosives that CBS wanted to release before election night.
In the first case, the bloggers opened that case up for what it was - a phony. This is what mainly hurt their credibility. When contradicting information about the weapons were brought forward this also hurt their credibility. It showed that they had an agenda - to remove Bush from office.
Now, CBS is upset. They know they're in it very deep. They are looking to point a finger at someone, to strike out at something (a childish temper tantrum). They know that the internet has provided another forum for information gathering, and because of these mess-ups it has put a greater emphasis on double checking the sources. People do that now. And they thank the bloggers.
So CBS is trying to destroy the bloggers' credibility. And it's not just CBS, but CNN is also in on the act. They're trying to reassert that they are the news information "gateway".
Personally, I think it is pathetic. But, CBS is hurting. So expect to see them try and "expose" some sort of bullshit about bloggers or other online information sites. They'll try and destroy their credibility to assert that CBS is "reliable".
CBS is what it really is "See -- BS"
One last note. George W. Bush didn't outwit anyone. His campaign manager did, perhaps, or Kerry has defeated himself.
A couple of comments on just that line. Wouldn't you say that Bush's campaign manager outwitted Kerry's campaign manager?
OR
Since Bush hired his campaign manager, who beat Kerry's campaign manager who he hired, Bush therefore hired the better campaign manager. Therefore since he hired the better manager, he made the smarter move and thus "outwitted" his opponent?
OR
Kerry defeated himself. Couldn't Bush have defeated himself just as easily? If Bush and Kerry can equally defeat themselves, yet Kerry in the end defeated himself more, wouldn't that mean that Bush "outwitted" him by defeating himself less, and allowing Kerry to defeat himself more?
Dr. Strangelove -- "I can be just as sorry if not sorrier than you can, Dmitri."
Not trying to troll, but I thought your last comment was interesting
to all the candidates who are running today. I sincerely hope that the "best" candidate wins.
One of my even greater hopes is that whoever loses will concede and allow the victor to take the publicly appointed position. Especially in the presidential race. I feel that this country should unite under the leadership of the president regardless of who they voted for, but whoever was elected. The electoral college, given power by the people, gets to decide who the president of the United States will be for the next four years, for good or ill. I hope and pray that whoever wins will have the courage and fortitude to lead us in the next few years. I also hope and pray the "loser" will have the courage to admit defeat and let the country move forward.
We may not particularly like the choices, but let's be the best people we can be and progress from there. Best of luck/karma!!!
Not only that but if you are concerned about your kid's candy a lot of hospitals will x-ray your candy or do a few other tests to make sure they're safe.
Right now, I'm picturing a Homer-esque person sitting there "testing" the candy to make sure it's alright. *Howmp* Yes this candy was good! Oooooh Atomic Fireballs!
I think there's one of Nader here.
There's also a few others that are quite scary!
If you are killed by an undead wookie you will respawn in the Cantina on Tatooine forced to watch over and over as GREEDO SHOOTS FIRST until you finally succumb to George Lucas's 'vision' of Star Wars.
Then you will be forced to watch Jar Jar strip tease a Naboo audience. Oh the horror!!!
Only better if it comes with this.
But that's the problem a three party system just wouldn't work. The two party system used to work here in the US, but now it is starting to fail. The reason is simple. Both sides have gone to the "You're either with us or against us" dogma. There is no middle ground for them anymore. And with our political process that is quite lethal.
A multi-party system would gridlock faster than traffic in LA on Friday afternoon. It would be almost impossible to reach a consensus. If you don't agree with me look at other major things like Klamath River. They've got several groups there vying for their own agenda and it is extremely hard to reach a consensus.
Personally, I would like to see a party that more closely fits my needs. So far the Independent and the Libertarian (except for a few key issues) Parties are the closest to my opinions.
A little OT but somewhat related... What we really need to do is get rid of the corruption. One of the ways to do that, IMO, would be to give more cajones to the GAO (government accountability office). Then politicians couldn't just dip into the public coffers anytime they felt the itch. Hold them accountable for the money. (examples of abuse - The Big Dig in Mass. and somewhat related UN Oil for Food). The GAO right now only comes in after the fact. But if we hold them responsible by listing specifically what the money is spent on then there is less chance for abuse such as both parties are exploiting now.
On Topic. I think the debates are going to be a farce. They've got the whole thing scripted so that we can't really decide. 'Course I can understand somethings like the way they had chairs with Ross Perot. He was really short and they had these tall chairs he had to jump down from. It looks terrible. But I would like to see both of the candidates at the same time. Split the screen so we can see them at all times. I want to see how the other reacts to what his opponent is saying.
It's all garbage
Too bad they didn't shoot some of the poor actors and animate the background.
Yes, we'll have a whole lotta foreigners saying
"All your base..."
circletimesquare hits some very good points on the anti-nuclear movement.
In order to create the hydrogen for our proposed hydrogen fueled vehicles where is the energy going to come from? Currently, it would come from petroleum. This would mean that you would have more pollution.
Biodiesel will require acres of plant material to produce enough to support a few vehicles. I forget the numbers, but we just don't have a viable solution to this right now.
The NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) crowd has effectively taken over California to the point that they cannot make any power plants. They have to buy power from Nevada, Utah, and a few other places, just to meet current demand.
Nuclear power is, right now, the only scaleable power source that we have. And if we want to break our dependence on oil we will have to switch over sometime.
Right now there is some real interest in bioreactors by the Gov't. One of the requirements of producing energy via these is to make other by-products. Biological synthetics, bio-polymers, bio-plastics that can be used as replacements for our current petroleum based products. It's going to be a very hot field in the next few years. Hmmm, maybe I might want to think of doing a doctorate in that field....
Well, if you want to get technical about how many people were affected by this why don't we compare it to other forms of energy that we have been using for a long time.
Let's take a look at coal power. We've been using it for a long time. How many people have died from coal powered plants? This includes miners from the coal mines, plant operators, then let's take a look at how many people have been affected by the by-products of the coal plant. This would include those who have had to breathe in the air that has been polluted by the burning of coal. Then let's look at other environmental effects. Acid deposition (acid rain), reduced visibility, fine particulate matter, etc. Not to mention how much clean-up expenses are now being imposed to take care of this problem.
Remember how when we had that blackout over the Northeast corner of the US just a short while back? Surprisingly, or maybe not, during those three days, they had the cleanest air in decades. Makes you think.
I do have to say of all the means of generating enough energy to supply our needs nuclear is the way to go. It does not produce the environmental hazards that the others do. There is no other current alternative that will meet the energy needs of the future. And yes I am considering the alternatives too. Solar power just doesn't have the efficiency to meet our needs, nor does wind power.
A nuclear plant may have the hazards of causing severe damage, but that is when there are not enough checks in place to keep it from going critical. They are currently designed to have at least triple redundancy, and only through gross negligence of operators overriding procedures can they go critical.
The waste can be bound up in several different processes. There are some reactors that recycle the waste, which current US law does not allow, that actually degrades them further and creates a less potent by-product.
Your joke about misspelling Chernobyl is distasteful, and honestly shows you to be an ass with your 'nucular' reference.
You can also convert the AAC to MP3 using iTunes. I've done that for my little brother's Rio Chiba. I've used the iTunes to upload the music onto his computer. I adjusted the settings to automatically convert to MP3 instead of AAC.
Now he can download it to his Rio Chiba and take that music with him anywhere.
[I know this is late but just FYI]
Truly!
I was just at the Amazon site listed by one of the parents here and the book has been rated 2 out of 5 stars with over 230 reviews. I've been through about a hundred of them so far and most of them have been about the strong arm tactics by Penguin. I've been marking them "Was this helpful?" -- Yes to those that are about the Katie.com incedent.
It wasn't until about 105 that I saw a positive review stating:
I don't know what the reviewers are talking about when they mention property rights or strongarming. This book was an emotional pageturner that I could not set down. As someone who actually read the book and isn't concerned with the politics involved, I for one say this was an excellent book. That poor little Tarbox girl.
I do feel bad for the Tarbox girl, but as most of the other posts there put it: Penguins actions are reprehensible!
On the subject of killing. I know, it's OT but WTF (anymore anachronisms I can use now?).
.
Murder, at least as society defines it now, was perfectly acceptable in Japan for many centuries. The samurai class could walk down the street and the samurai could draw his sword and cut any person down, usually lower caste or lower than them, just to "test his blade". This was fine with most people. Eventually it became unacceptable and one band of samurai went to work to put a stop to it. Instead of going one on one with a person they would go in like a band of wolves and take the samurai who were doing this and cut them down. Their style consisted of I'm going to kill you even if it kills me.
Also, murder was acceptable at certain levels if it retained their honor, or the honor of the clan/family. But using the definitions of murder at that time
Ok, if you want a scientific approach to the "Murder is wrong" then that would actually be a good thesis that a person could write this on. I think that anybody who could feasibly write a thesis on either 'Murder is wrong' or 'Murder isn't wrong' using only science and facts. I think that if you could prove either then maybe you could accomadate the most logical thesis.
Reminds me of an old show about marketing, Crazy People.
"New York: It's cleaner than you think"
"New York: Fewer people were murdered last year."
"Sony, because Americans are too damn tall!"
I'm already signed up for PETA.
People for the Eating of Tasty Aliens.
Mmmmmm
That's what I'm holding out for. I actually went to have my eyes "frickin' lasered" a couple of years ago. I hate wearing glasses and the last time I tried to wear contacts it was like putting gravel in my eyes. And now I can't even hold my open when I try to put a lens in.
When I went they did all of their tests to see if I was a good candidate for it. Well, they determined that I am too far-sighted. I was pissed. I really hate wearing glasses and would like to be able to see when I don't have my glasses on. The option they told me was to wait for the interocular lens. It was still in the process for FDA approval for corrective surgery (it's already alright for cataract surgery).
So I'm waiting for that.
But, several family members have had it and they love it. That is, with the exception of my mom. She chose the option of getting the eyes done differently so she could use one eye for near and the other for far. She hates it. And I've heard from many people that have had that option done hate it. So, if you get it done do both eyes so they are the same.
True and what he was also saying was that these smaller companies cannot thrive in this climate. How many smaller news stations have we seen in the last ten - fifteen years that have gone on to become big?
We really don't have alternatives when they are owned by the same parent company.