I agree with what you are saying (especially the bit about a knee-jerk reaction). We cannot isolate ourselves and create an environment that stifles competition. And certainly attacking the high health costs and the sue-happy will help.
However, the problem I have with outsourcing and international competition is that it is not a level playing field. We have many requirements on companies that run in the US -- environmental standards, insurance requirements, minimum wage, etc. (I am sure that others can come up with even better examples) -- that many of the countries we are dealing with do not have. I agree with the parent poster in that I think there should be a tax to compensate for the differences in requirements for employees. How can we expect an American firm who has to spend millions to be environmentally friendly to be able to compete with an Indonesian firm with absolutely no attempts to be good stewards with the land?
This is not an easy problem, but I think attention needs to be given to the requirements on our companies. I do not propose that we lower our standards. Rather, perhaps we should require companies working in foreign countries to either meet our standards or apply a financial penalty for failing to do so.
Our countries companies cannot hope to compete with other countries given the current environment in America. Maybe this means that America itself needs to change to keep up.
If you notice my response to that post, you will note that the BBC also speaks to the ineffectiveness of condoms. Many African countries have similar usage statistics for condoms, but only Uganda has been successfully able to turn the epidemic around. Though you will not hear about it directly in the secular press, the real reason is because the president of Uganda and his wife are both outspoken Christians who warned their people of the dangers of the promiscuous life style. Thus, it was a change in the people's life style -- being faithful to their spouses -- that turned the tide.
Sadly, the media has an aversion to printing anything that casts Christians in a positive light. The incredible changes in Uganda are not getting the attention they truly deserve, and millions of people are dying around the world because of it.
Yes, that is what some sectors are saying about Uganda, but it is far from the truth. I would like to point you to the following article: Uganda Aids education 'working'. Note some of the quotes from this article:
This has led to a reduction in the number of people having casual sex, as well as the willingness of Ugandans to openly discuss HIV issues.
This led to a fall of 60% of people reporting they had casual sex.
Other African countries studied have similar levels of condom use as Uganda, but little reduction in the number of sexual partners. According to the scientists, only a vaccine - as yet undeveloped - that worked in 80% of all cases would have a similar effect.
Uganda is the
only African country which has successfully managed to reverse the tide of Aids infections...
This is the real reason why Uganda has been so successful, and it is the evidence that those addicted to sex in this world do not want known. Notice that other African countries have the same amount of condom use, but their infection rates have not changed like Uganda -- because Uganda went after the behavior.
there is definitely something wrong with trying to control them if the only ones they can hurt are themselves.
But they are not just hurting themselves. The problem in Africa is that they saw it as the man's right to live as he pleased. He would have his family back home and several mistresses in town. As he picked up AIDS from his mistresses, he then brought it home to infect his family. Only by teaching men to become faithful to his wife and abstaining from casual sex was the tide turned with AIDS. They are, in fact, teaching people to "control" their behavior.
Porn in this country is having a devestating effect as well. Whatever you want to say, if a husband is found looking at porn by his spouse, a rift does result in their marriage. It breaches the trust that is so essential to a strong marriage because the wife now wonders just how far his sexual experiences go. Man's sexual drive and energy should be saved from the marriage bed where he can give all of his attention and devotion to his wife. This is what fuels strong families and good examples to children on how to behave. Unfortunately, men are spending all of their energy on porn so they can no longer perform in their marriage. Thus, Viagra has become a huge item as men try to keep up their addiction to sex. Viagra was intended for men with real health problems not to fuel addiction, and while there are other contributing factors, I believe that this addiction is a very large reason why there are so many divorces today.
Only the sickest person could honestly say that homosexuality or free-love or atheism or hip-hop or whatever is more morally wrong then the enslavement of man.
Now that is a very narrow world view. While I agree that slavery is wrong, that is very much a western philosophy. Most of Asia believes very strongly in a class-based system in which it is morally wrong to try to be anything other what you were born to be. This is, in our view, border-line slavery, but for them, it is the right thing to do.
As for homosexuality, if it degenerates the fabric of the family and confuses the natural functioning and innate differences of the sexes, then, yes, it is morally wrong -- according to nature and religious views.
Free-love? Well, if you don't find it morally objectionable to sit idly by while people live lifestyles that will lead to an early death from AIDS, then okay, its not morally wrong. Fortunately, Uganda did not take this view point, and through the teaching of abstinence, has turned from having one of the highest rates of infection in Africa to having one of the smallest. To use a parellel, if you knew a bridger had been washed out, would you not try to warn drivers heading toward that bridge?
Atheism? Well, the same reasoning can apply. If you believe, as I do, that people who do not believe in God and His son Jesus Christ are going to spend an eternity in hell, would it not be morally irresponsible for me to not at least try to warn others of the impending danger even if they won't agree with the problem.
The often touted "every way is the right way" philosophy would actually come to my defense. After all, it only matters on your sincerity not on your accuracy, right? (sarcasm off) Just because we in America hold personal libery in very high regard does not mean that everyone sees that as the highest virtue. Christianity would teach that our slavery to sin, not man, is our critical issue.
I do not expect you to agree with me on any of these points.
Not true. The Nazi party gained power through democratic means, and while not all of the German people were directly to blame, as a society they turned a blind eye the situation and allowed the persecution to grow until it reached the point of slaughter. Thus, in a sense, the entire nation shares the blame of the holocaust.
Disclaimer: I am not asking for apology or trying to start a flame war against Germany. Every nation and society has sins to atone for. As for the US, we have both the way we treated the Native Americans in 1800s and the Japanese Americans in World War II (among many others, I am sure). We cannot hope to make reparations for these things that happened in the past -- especially if we ourselves did not do them, but we can learn from past mistakes and improve.
Very true, however, any society is established on a set of principles with which to guide its decisions. In the United States, it is the Bill of Rights. There are also other basic priniciples that have formed the society known as America: strong families, hard work, being considerate of others, dignity of life. If you sacrifice these principles, you being to erode the basis on which your society lives. Once this foundation is gone, the society falls into anarchy (do that which most benefits you as an individual).
The foundations that have made America what it was are rapidly disappearing. The standard beliefs and ethics, while never perfectly met, are no longer even being attempted to be followed by many Americans. If we as a people cannot agree on foundational principles, then we as a society will degrade to anarchy. It has happened repeatedly throughout history, and we are showing every sign of this transition right now in America.
Principles and foundations do not preclude change. This is where the compromises of government come into play, and there is quite a bit of room to maneuver. However, once you start encroaching on those principles on which a society rests, you are asking for far bigger changes than you may realize. And you may not like the results.
The voters have decided, with their dollars, and with their observed behavior, that pr0n is A Good Thing.
Disclaimer: I do not wish to enter into a debate over whether or not porn should be allowed, but rather to point out the dangerous assumption in the parent post.
A very high number of people have the observed behavior of driving while under the influence of alcohol. This does not mean that this action is "A Good Thing". This is exactly the cause of many of the problems in our society: justification without considering the ramifications on society. Many kids have sex while still in Junior High or High School. This doesn't mean we just "let kids be kids", because there are many dangers to consider: teenage pregnancy, abortion (and little publicized fact that there are medical dangers in addition to any moral considerations), and sexually transmitted diseases.
This is why the United States is not a pure democracy. A true, pure democracy is an evil thing because then whatever... I repeat whatever the majority rules, that's what we get. So if the majority of the people in country believed that every Linux programmer should be taken out and shot, well, then a whole lot of us would be dead or running away to New Zealand. Therefore, the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights to protect against abuses and instituted a representative republic to make it harder for drastic changes. There are times when absolutes and standard codes (do not murder, do not steal) can protect us from ourselves. It was when such laws were forgotten that the German society was led to murder millions of innocent people in World War II.
Now granted, this is an extreme example, but once you start down the slippery slope of justification and compromise, where does one draw the line? Think about it.
This is exactly the problem I see with most of the big companies right now. They have forgotten to listen to their customers. Instead of asking what their customers want, they are telling customers that they, not the customers, really know what the customers want. They are basically trying to force their product down their customers' throats.
You see this in technology (Microsoft, SUN) and even in the music industry. It is far easier for them to try to force their product on customers than spend the time and effort to determine how to actually make the customer happy. Sometimes, they take it even further by developing a new field that no one really wants. For an example, take Internet appliances. They are trying to say that this will make life so much better, but are there actually a lot of people out there asking for these things? Also, look at a large number of the new "features" of Windows and Microsoft office. Did anyone actually ask for Clippy? Are there millions of customers demanding that there be more animation on their desktop? Most of these features are more annoyances than helps, and they certainly don't help people be more productive in their day-to-day work.
It really comes down to simple economics: supply and demand. They are trying to create demand for which they already have the supply, but as they continue to ignore the real demand, they are simply alienating their customers. It may not be as profitable in the short term, but if you can show customers that you can truly meet their needs, you will reap the rewards of loyalty and then ultimately... profit.
This really brings up an interesting debate. Do we really want to close off all of our wireless networks? Would it not be great to have free Internet for everyone funded by various businesses in the city who provided high speed wireless? The thought of being able to walk around with a laptop and get Internet everwhere is very inviting. It also makes it much easier, as another poster pointed out, for friends to share the Internet when they come over to visit. Do we want to sacrifice this flexibility? Are there other ways to secure our PC's and laptops than through network security?
I have to argue against your point because you are ignoring where the films are made. Gojira is a Japanese film, so logically the monster is attacking Tokyo. When they made the American remake, obviously the monster would attack America. It comes down to who the primary audience is for the movie. I am sure that if a Canadian film company decided to make a monster movie, you would see downtown Toronto in flames, but for now, most monster movies have been either Japanese or American. You might as well make the point about monsters attacking any skyline in any other city in any other country of the world.
Hmm... will the new King Kong be attacking Auckland?
In John 8:58, Jesus said "Before Abraham was born, I AM." The usage of "I AM" is a direct reference to what God said His name was to Moses in Exodus ("I AM that I AM"). Throughout that entire chapter, he continually takes a position of equality with God. In Matthew 26:62-64, the priests ask Him point blank if He is the "Son of God" to which He replies, "You have said it yourself" and that He would sit at the "right hand of power". In Luke 20:70, they ask him the same question, and he replies, "Yes, I am" afterwhich they make their decision that He should be crucified.
In addition, he makes statements through the gospels that could only be made by God Himself. For example, he forgives the sins of a lame man (Matthew 9:6), a thing that all Jews knew could only be done by God. He also claimed to be "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8). There are many more passages like these. In fact, the book of John is filled with claims of deity and equality with God.
In regards to the Messiah being a Christian idea, I would have to do more research to find the passages in the Old Testament that speak to His deity. I recall on passage in the Psalms where David refers to Jesus (who is his descendant) as his Lord. David could never refer to his offspring as a lord unless He was God. If you are interested, I can get to you with more.
The Bible does not claim to be an instruction manual. It claims to be the very Word of God. On the same token, Jesus is not just a good teacher. He claimed repeatedly to be the Son of God. This was the real reason why the Pharisees crucified him, because he was being blasphemous. If he is not correct -- if he is not the Son of God -- then he is a lunatic or a devil. Would you listen to a man who claimed to be a poached egg?
The reason why Christians "hide" behind the Bible is because they believe it to be the inerrant Word of God. It is not so we can tell others how to live their lives, but so we can understand why God made us and how we were intended to work. It is also not a vehicle for vengence and wrath, but rather a warning from a holy, loving God who would rather of us change our ways and follow Him than have us suffer our just and proper punishment. Just as a parent warns their child of the impending spanking in the hopes of avoiding it altogether, so God tries to warn us.
As for thinking for yourself, is it better to just blindly follow the world's pattern of greed, selfishness, anger, and lust or to seek obedience to God's command in that we love the Lord our God with all of heart, soul, mind, and strength and love our neighbors as ourselves?
Easy, man, easy. It was meant as a joke. However, if you wish to take it seriously, then consider this: when one compares how we are living our lives in the world today compared to how life was laid out to be lived in the Bible, God certainly does have just cause to be angry.
Either there's an ever increasing number of asteroids coming ever closer to Earth (unlikely methinks) or this is truly indicative of how blind we have been all thse years to what was happpening in space.
Or God is sending us warning shots across the bow.
I have "gotten over it" myself. So over it, in fact, that I do not plan on even watching the first three movies (episodes IV-VI) ever again (and certainly not the third episode). I have come to the conclusion that there is more than enough good movies out there that I don't need to waste my time with Lucas anymore. Call it being ornery or being a smarter consumer... I don't know... but I don't care if I have anything else to do with the franchise -- past or future.
At least for my company, the primary reason for using MySQL is the native support for Windows. These other solutions are only currently supported in Linux (Postgres supports Windows only through Cwgwin).
Agreed. I might add one more thing: Sam turning around in Mordor in ROTK. Not only was this not in the book, but it is a complete reversal in the character developed so well in the movies themselves. I do not feel that it is true to Sam's character in the least. If you are going to have a rift between Frodo and Sam, at least have Sam wait for a bit and then follow from a distance.
Imagine this scene if you will. Frodo tells Sam to leave and continues up the stair. Sam sits down and cries. He finally gets up and starts to look down the stairs. He stiffens and mutters, "I made a promise." He then sets his shoulders and begins the climb up the stairs. You still have the rift, but at least Sam stays true to himself. While this is certainly not from the book, it would at least lend consistency within the movies.
That was a very good analysis, but I do have one possible correction. I thought that Sean Astin's acting stood out as well. He played a character that showed a lot of emotion while not becoming cheesy or overdone. He matched the tone of Samwise Gamgee perfectly, and if any one actor could possibly garner a nomination for Best Supporting Actor, it would be him (and quite fitting for the role of Sam).
Also, I think ROTK (really, at this point, any awards will be given in honor of the trilogy) also deserves credit for costumes. I know that this is a generally ignored category, but the work in LOTR has been phenominal. I can think of no other film that has gone to such levels to make their costumes perfect -- down to the insignia on the inside of King Theoden's armor. They also, of course, have a very good chance at Visual Effects, Sound, Art Direction, Film Editing, Sound Editing, Makeup, and possibly Best Adaptation (Two Towers won for Visual Effects and Sound Editing). Given the fact that the movies have not garnered a terribly high number of awards in the past, the Academy may decided to give appreciation for the trilogy by rewarding ROTK. In this case, there are a lot of awards that they could rack up before the night is through.
After 1993, though, he brought us Radioland Murders...
Strange, but personnally that is one of my favorite comedies. I think, perhaps, you need to be a real fan of music (especially the music of that era) to really enjoy the humor and creativity of the show. It was a fun, creative show that I frequently recommend to my friends. No, it wasn't sci-fi, but that does not mean it is a terrible film.
I agree with the Star Wars prequels and special editions however.
You forgot to count in the cost of production: design, development, documentation, and marketing. This includes salaries, benefits, equipment, and general maintainence (usually roughly equivalent to double a person's stated salary unless we are talking about upper management). Take this value and divide it by the number of copies produced and you would have a pretty good idea of the cost of the software. You can then add additional cost to actually turn a profit, and you get a reasonable wholesale cost.
This is basically what.NET does. It has a graphical user interface that allows the user to place controls either with coordinates or in a flow layout (your choice) and then provide code for the controls using C# or VB.NET for the backend. Whether you like Microsoft or not, they have put together a pretty good toolset for this kind of web development.
With all of the tools and libraries that have been developed in a multitude of languages (not too mention the development tools of.NET), do XForms have any real advantage. In just glancing through this book, it looks to be a rather complex process to learn the new paradigm. Granted, with current HTML, it is often a very tedious process to perform validation, etc. However, the work has already been done in the creation of the libraries and tools, and the results work with most browsers. Is there anything that XForms really adds that makes it easier to use than say.NET (not too say that.NET does not have its own issues)? As another poster pointed out, we will have to wait for browsers to begin supporting this technology anyway.
It also seems to me that a lot of this work can be handled server side as well, and this may in fact be easier to work with than relying upon the compatibility of browsers. Are XForms simply too little too late, or is there really some inherently great thing that they possess that our current tools cannot do?
We should be careful when we attack people like this. Did he make a huge mistake? Yes. Was the mistake a result of caving into greed? Yes. However, millions of Americans are currently putting themselves into similar situations by getting deeper and deeper into debt by taking loans to buy luxury items: a new yacht, a larger house, a fancy new car, etc. The evils of debt and the mounting interest costs is well documented, but it happens time and time again.
While you may not have fallen victim to this particular scheme, are you certain that you have not fallen victim to the "must-have" commercialization scheme so prevalent (and legal) today? Yes, this was a very stupid mistake, but we are all just as capable of making equally stupid mistakes (an investment in the next Enron perhaps).
Do not be so quick to judge and save a little room for compassion. If nothing else, think of his wife who has lost so much and may have had little to say in the decision. Consider the difficulties that they will both face in their marriage as they approach their final years in poverty. This is a heartbreaking story. Do not become so cynical that we lose sight of this.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with what you are saying (especially the bit about a knee-jerk reaction). We cannot isolate ourselves and create an environment that stifles competition. And certainly attacking the high health costs and the sue-happy will help.
However, the problem I have with outsourcing and international competition is that it is not a level playing field. We have many requirements on companies that run in the US -- environmental standards, insurance requirements, minimum wage, etc. (I am sure that others can come up with even better examples) -- that many of the countries we are dealing with do not have. I agree with the parent poster in that I think there should be a tax to compensate for the differences in requirements for employees. How can we expect an American firm who has to spend millions to be environmentally friendly to be able to compete with an Indonesian firm with absolutely no attempts to be good stewards with the land?
This is not an easy problem, but I think attention needs to be given to the requirements on our companies. I do not propose that we lower our standards. Rather, perhaps we should require companies working in foreign countries to either meet our standards or apply a financial penalty for failing to do so.
Our countries companies cannot hope to compete with other countries given the current environment in America. Maybe this means that America itself needs to change to keep up.
If you notice my response to that post, you will note that the BBC also speaks to the ineffectiveness of condoms. Many African countries have similar usage statistics for condoms, but only Uganda has been successfully able to turn the epidemic around. Though you will not hear about it directly in the secular press, the real reason is because the president of Uganda and his wife are both outspoken Christians who warned their people of the dangers of the promiscuous life style. Thus, it was a change in the people's life style -- being faithful to their spouses -- that turned the tide.
Sadly, the media has an aversion to printing anything that casts Christians in a positive light. The incredible changes in Uganda are not getting the attention they truly deserve, and millions of people are dying around the world because of it.
Yes, that is what some sectors are saying about Uganda, but it is far from the truth. I would like to point you to the following article: Uganda Aids education 'working'. Note some of the quotes from this article:
Now note the statement in this article: Bush praises Uganda Aids fight.
This is the real reason why Uganda has been so successful, and it is the evidence that those addicted to sex in this world do not want known. Notice that other African countries have the same amount of condom use, but their infection rates have not changed like Uganda -- because Uganda went after the behavior.
But they are not just hurting themselves. The problem in Africa is that they saw it as the man's right to live as he pleased. He would have his family back home and several mistresses in town. As he picked up AIDS from his mistresses, he then brought it home to infect his family. Only by teaching men to become faithful to his wife and abstaining from casual sex was the tide turned with AIDS. They are, in fact, teaching people to "control" their behavior.Porn in this country is having a devestating effect as well. Whatever you want to say, if a husband is found looking at porn by his spouse, a rift does result in their marriage. It breaches the trust that is so essential to a strong marriage because the wife now wonders just how far his sexual experiences go. Man's sexual drive and energy should be saved from the marriage bed where he can give all of his attention and devotion to his wife. This is what fuels strong families and good examples to children on how to behave. Unfortunately, men are spending all of their energy on porn so they can no longer perform in their marriage. Thus, Viagra has become a huge item as men try to keep up their addiction to sex. Viagra was intended for men with real health problems not to fuel addiction, and while there are other contributing factors, I believe that this addiction is a very large reason why there are so many divorces today.
Now that is a very narrow world view. While I agree that slavery is wrong, that is very much a western philosophy. Most of Asia believes very strongly in a class-based system in which it is morally wrong to try to be anything other what you were born to be. This is, in our view, border-line slavery, but for them, it is the right thing to do.
As for homosexuality, if it degenerates the fabric of the family and confuses the natural functioning and innate differences of the sexes, then, yes, it is morally wrong -- according to nature and religious views.
Free-love? Well, if you don't find it morally objectionable to sit idly by while people live lifestyles that will lead to an early death from AIDS, then okay, its not morally wrong. Fortunately, Uganda did not take this view point, and through the teaching of abstinence, has turned from having one of the highest rates of infection in Africa to having one of the smallest. To use a parellel, if you knew a bridger had been washed out, would you not try to warn drivers heading toward that bridge?
Atheism? Well, the same reasoning can apply. If you believe, as I do, that people who do not believe in God and His son Jesus Christ are going to spend an eternity in hell, would it not be morally irresponsible for me to not at least try to warn others of the impending danger even if they won't agree with the problem.
The often touted "every way is the right way" philosophy would actually come to my defense. After all, it only matters on your sincerity not on your accuracy, right? (sarcasm off) Just because we in America hold personal libery in very high regard does not mean that everyone sees that as the highest virtue. Christianity would teach that our slavery to sin, not man, is our critical issue.
I do not expect you to agree with me on any of these points.
Not true. The Nazi party gained power through democratic means, and while not all of the German people were directly to blame, as a society they turned a blind eye the situation and allowed the persecution to grow until it reached the point of slaughter. Thus, in a sense, the entire nation shares the blame of the holocaust.
Disclaimer: I am not asking for apology or trying to start a flame war against Germany. Every nation and society has sins to atone for. As for the US, we have both the way we treated the Native Americans in 1800s and the Japanese Americans in World War II (among many others, I am sure). We cannot hope to make reparations for these things that happened in the past -- especially if we ourselves did not do them, but we can learn from past mistakes and improve.
Very true, however, any society is established on a set of principles with which to guide its decisions. In the United States, it is the Bill of Rights. There are also other basic priniciples that have formed the society known as America: strong families, hard work, being considerate of others, dignity of life. If you sacrifice these principles, you being to erode the basis on which your society lives. Once this foundation is gone, the society falls into anarchy (do that which most benefits you as an individual).
The foundations that have made America what it was are rapidly disappearing. The standard beliefs and ethics, while never perfectly met, are no longer even being attempted to be followed by many Americans. If we as a people cannot agree on foundational principles, then we as a society will degrade to anarchy. It has happened repeatedly throughout history, and we are showing every sign of this transition right now in America.
Principles and foundations do not preclude change. This is where the compromises of government come into play, and there is quite a bit of room to maneuver. However, once you start encroaching on those principles on which a society rests, you are asking for far bigger changes than you may realize. And you may not like the results.
Disclaimer: I do not wish to enter into a debate over whether or not porn should be allowed, but rather to point out the dangerous assumption in the parent post.
A very high number of people have the observed behavior of driving while under the influence of alcohol. This does not mean that this action is "A Good Thing". This is exactly the cause of many of the problems in our society: justification without considering the ramifications on society. Many kids have sex while still in Junior High or High School. This doesn't mean we just "let kids be kids", because there are many dangers to consider: teenage pregnancy, abortion (and little publicized fact that there are medical dangers in addition to any moral considerations), and sexually transmitted diseases.
This is why the United States is not a pure democracy. A true, pure democracy is an evil thing because then whatever... I repeat whatever the majority rules, that's what we get. So if the majority of the people in country believed that every Linux programmer should be taken out and shot, well, then a whole lot of us would be dead or running away to New Zealand. Therefore, the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights to protect against abuses and instituted a representative republic to make it harder for drastic changes. There are times when absolutes and standard codes (do not murder, do not steal) can protect us from ourselves. It was when such laws were forgotten that the German society was led to murder millions of innocent people in World War II.
Now granted, this is an extreme example, but once you start down the slippery slope of justification and compromise, where does one draw the line? Think about it.
Grr.... that should be "Do we remember what that is?"
This is exactly the problem I see with most of the big companies right now. They have forgotten to listen to their customers. Instead of asking what their customers want, they are telling customers that they, not the customers, really know what the customers want. They are basically trying to force their product down their customers' throats.
You see this in technology (Microsoft, SUN) and even in the music industry. It is far easier for them to try to force their product on customers than spend the time and effort to determine how to actually make the customer happy. Sometimes, they take it even further by developing a new field that no one really wants. For an example, take Internet appliances. They are trying to say that this will make life so much better, but are there actually a lot of people out there asking for these things? Also, look at a large number of the new "features" of Windows and Microsoft office. Did anyone actually ask for Clippy? Are there millions of customers demanding that there be more animation on their desktop? Most of these features are more annoyances than helps, and they certainly don't help people be more productive in their day-to-day work.
It really comes down to simple economics: supply and demand. They are trying to create demand for which they already have the supply, but as they continue to ignore the real demand, they are simply alienating their customers. It may not be as profitable in the short term, but if you can show customers that you can truly meet their needs, you will reap the rewards of loyalty and then ultimately... profit.
It takes work. Do we remember what is?
This really brings up an interesting debate. Do we really want to close off all of our wireless networks? Would it not be great to have free Internet for everyone funded by various businesses in the city who provided high speed wireless? The thought of being able to walk around with a laptop and get Internet everwhere is very inviting. It also makes it much easier, as another poster pointed out, for friends to share the Internet when they come over to visit. Do we want to sacrifice this flexibility? Are there other ways to secure our PC's and laptops than through network security?
I have to argue against your point because you are ignoring where the films are made. Gojira is a Japanese film, so logically the monster is attacking Tokyo. When they made the American remake, obviously the monster would attack America. It comes down to who the primary audience is for the movie. I am sure that if a Canadian film company decided to make a monster movie, you would see downtown Toronto in flames, but for now, most monster movies have been either Japanese or American. You might as well make the point about monsters attacking any skyline in any other city in any other country of the world.
Hmm... will the new King Kong be attacking Auckland?
And the fact that the birthright being given to the younger son happened with Isaac's sons Jacob and Esau.
In John 8:58, Jesus said "Before Abraham was born, I AM." The usage of "I AM" is a direct reference to what God said His name was to Moses in Exodus ("I AM that I AM"). Throughout that entire chapter, he continually takes a position of equality with God. In Matthew 26:62-64, the priests ask Him point blank if He is the "Son of God" to which He replies, "You have said it yourself" and that He would sit at the "right hand of power". In Luke 20:70, they ask him the same question, and he replies, "Yes, I am" afterwhich they make their decision that He should be crucified.
In addition, he makes statements through the gospels that could only be made by God Himself. For example, he forgives the sins of a lame man (Matthew 9:6), a thing that all Jews knew could only be done by God. He also claimed to be "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8). There are many more passages like these. In fact, the book of John is filled with claims of deity and equality with God.
In regards to the Messiah being a Christian idea, I would have to do more research to find the passages in the Old Testament that speak to His deity. I recall on passage in the Psalms where David refers to Jesus (who is his descendant) as his Lord. David could never refer to his offspring as a lord unless He was God. If you are interested, I can get to you with more.
The Bible does not claim to be an instruction manual. It claims to be the very Word of God. On the same token, Jesus is not just a good teacher. He claimed repeatedly to be the Son of God. This was the real reason why the Pharisees crucified him, because he was being blasphemous. If he is not correct -- if he is not the Son of God -- then he is a lunatic or a devil. Would you listen to a man who claimed to be a poached egg?
The reason why Christians "hide" behind the Bible is because they believe it to be the inerrant Word of God. It is not so we can tell others how to live their lives, but so we can understand why God made us and how we were intended to work. It is also not a vehicle for vengence and wrath, but rather a warning from a holy, loving God who would rather of us change our ways and follow Him than have us suffer our just and proper punishment. Just as a parent warns their child of the impending spanking in the hopes of avoiding it altogether, so God tries to warn us.
As for thinking for yourself, is it better to just blindly follow the world's pattern of greed, selfishness, anger, and lust or to seek obedience to God's command in that we love the Lord our God with all of heart, soul, mind, and strength and love our neighbors as ourselves?
Easy, man, easy. It was meant as a joke. However, if you wish to take it seriously, then consider this: when one compares how we are living our lives in the world today compared to how life was laid out to be lived in the Bible, God certainly does have just cause to be angry.
Either there's an ever increasing number of asteroids coming ever closer to Earth (unlikely methinks) or this is truly indicative of how blind we have been all thse years to what was happpening in space.
Or God is sending us warning shots across the bow.
I have "gotten over it" myself. So over it, in fact, that I do not plan on even watching the first three movies (episodes IV-VI) ever again (and certainly not the third episode). I have come to the conclusion that there is more than enough good movies out there that I don't need to waste my time with Lucas anymore. Call it being ornery or being a smarter consumer... I don't know... but I don't care if I have anything else to do with the franchise -- past or future.
At least for my company, the primary reason for using MySQL is the native support for Windows. These other solutions are only currently supported in Linux (Postgres supports Windows only through Cwgwin).
Agreed. I might add one more thing: Sam turning around in Mordor in ROTK. Not only was this not in the book, but it is a complete reversal in the character developed so well in the movies themselves. I do not feel that it is true to Sam's character in the least. If you are going to have a rift between Frodo and Sam, at least have Sam wait for a bit and then follow from a distance.
Imagine this scene if you will. Frodo tells Sam to leave and continues up the stair. Sam sits down and cries. He finally gets up and starts to look down the stairs. He stiffens and mutters, "I made a promise." He then sets his shoulders and begins the climb up the stairs. You still have the rift, but at least Sam stays true to himself. While this is certainly not from the book, it would at least lend consistency within the movies.
That was a very good analysis, but I do have one possible correction. I thought that Sean Astin's acting stood out as well. He played a character that showed a lot of emotion while not becoming cheesy or overdone. He matched the tone of Samwise Gamgee perfectly, and if any one actor could possibly garner a nomination for Best Supporting Actor, it would be him (and quite fitting for the role of Sam).
Also, I think ROTK (really, at this point, any awards will be given in honor of the trilogy) also deserves credit for costumes. I know that this is a generally ignored category, but the work in LOTR has been phenominal. I can think of no other film that has gone to such levels to make their costumes perfect -- down to the insignia on the inside of King Theoden's armor. They also, of course, have a very good chance at Visual Effects, Sound, Art Direction, Film Editing, Sound Editing, Makeup, and possibly Best Adaptation (Two Towers won for Visual Effects and Sound Editing). Given the fact that the movies have not garnered a terribly high number of awards in the past, the Academy may decided to give appreciation for the trilogy by rewarding ROTK. In this case, there are a lot of awards that they could rack up before the night is through.
After 1993, though, he brought us Radioland Murders...
Strange, but personnally that is one of my favorite comedies. I think, perhaps, you need to be a real fan of music (especially the music of that era) to really enjoy the humor and creativity of the show. It was a fun, creative show that I frequently recommend to my friends. No, it wasn't sci-fi, but that does not mean it is a terrible film.
I agree with the Star Wars prequels and special editions however.
You forgot to count in the cost of production: design, development, documentation, and marketing. This includes salaries, benefits, equipment, and general maintainence (usually roughly equivalent to double a person's stated salary unless we are talking about upper management). Take this value and divide it by the number of copies produced and you would have a pretty good idea of the cost of the software. You can then add additional cost to actually turn a profit, and you get a reasonable wholesale cost.
This is basically what .NET does. It has a graphical user interface that allows the user to place controls either with coordinates or in a flow layout (your choice) and then provide code for the controls using C# or VB.NET for the backend. Whether you like Microsoft or not, they have put together a pretty good toolset for this kind of web development.
With all of the tools and libraries that have been developed in a multitude of languages (not too mention the development tools of .NET), do XForms have any real advantage. In just glancing through this book, it looks to be a rather complex process to learn the new paradigm. Granted, with current HTML, it is often a very tedious process to perform validation, etc. However, the work has already been done in the creation of the libraries and tools, and the results work with most browsers. Is there anything that XForms really adds that makes it easier to use than say .NET (not too say that .NET does not have its own issues)? As another poster pointed out, we will have to wait for browsers to begin supporting this technology anyway.
It also seems to me that a lot of this work can be handled server side as well, and this may in fact be easier to work with than relying upon the compatibility of browsers. Are XForms simply too little too late, or is there really some inherently great thing that they possess that our current tools cannot do?
We should be careful when we attack people like this. Did he make a huge mistake? Yes. Was the mistake a result of caving into greed? Yes. However, millions of Americans are currently putting themselves into similar situations by getting deeper and deeper into debt by taking loans to buy luxury items: a new yacht, a larger house, a fancy new car, etc. The evils of debt and the mounting interest costs is well documented, but it happens time and time again.
While you may not have fallen victim to this particular scheme, are you certain that you have not fallen victim to the "must-have" commercialization scheme so prevalent (and legal) today? Yes, this was a very stupid mistake, but we are all just as capable of making equally stupid mistakes (an investment in the next Enron perhaps).
Do not be so quick to judge and save a little room for compassion. If nothing else, think of his wife who has lost so much and may have had little to say in the decision. Consider the difficulties that they will both face in their marriage as they approach their final years in poverty. This is a heartbreaking story. Do not become so cynical that we lose sight of this.