Great...who wrote the article?! I have some ideas.
Blocking off the sunlight used by the ecosystem, global agriculture, ocean/forests, orchards, etc, in order to stop the side effects of industrial pollution (e.g. global warming) sounds like a bad idea.
The world DEPENDS on sunlight: Sunlight feeds algae, algae feeds plankton, plankton feeds fish, fish feed US (as well as other fish, whales, birds), crops need sunlight, PEOPLE need sunlight...sunlight DEFINES the seasons.
If everybody prayed and asked the LORD nicely, and thanked Him for what we HAVE, that global warming would just vanish. Who believes THAT? (I do, for one)
lol. insensetive clod? INSENSETIVE CLODE?! I'LL GIVE YOU INSENSETIVE CLOD!!!
-->it's not EVEN WINTER HERE!! I'M IN CALIFORNIA!!! here it's just really nice outside, as usual. i've been outside in the greenhouse all day! a cool 60 degrees... =)
good therapy and hand exercise for defense against carpal tunnel: tilling the soil by hand, mixing the earth and the sand...relaxing, too.
Well YOU could have mentioned those games, too, you know, but you didn't.
No need to get insulted, though. Go for a walk...get some sunlight. Feel the warmth on your face! Don't push yourself too hard..preserve your hands and your sanity. I've been in the ultra crunch state, too, pardner. Don't burn out.
I did not rt*a, but I think what they might be getting at is the fact that Windows has a ton of games already written for it, AND the momentum of being the default platform. Linux has some good advantages, but those are not Linux advantages. That is not an insult to you, it's a fact that emerges from the history of games.
Things can change though. It encourages me to see that there IS a software house that makes linux games. If nothing else than for the sake of linux.
Considering that Bush launched unnecessary, unprovoked military operations in Iraq / Afghanistan, and undermined the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, I find it deceitful that he would presume to assign U.S. troops to protect constitutional rights within U.S. Borders; I find it deeply troubling that he would pursue that power at a time when there is no mandate.
I ask why such a bill was even written, considering there are historical examples of the U.S. president already HAVING and USING the right to domestically use troops: (1) Able Lincoln and the U.S. Civil War, and (2) Eisenhower sending federal troops to counteract the national guard troops in Little Rock during the civil rights movement, when the governor of Arkansas tried to block integration of schools.
There are two potential problems with the act:
First, IF Federal Law changed to something REALLY obnoxious, any state(s) that openly and actively opposed the undesired change due to their own democratic process, as is their consittutional right (due to federalism and seperation of powers), they would potentially be subject to suppression from the U.S. Armed Forces. For instance, if the feds wanted sweeping "terrorist holding camps" and gestapo tactics (Guantanamo, washboards, secret lists, secret detentions, secret trials), any state that openly opposed it would be subject to invasion.
Secondly, if a state had passed a benign law that happened to be at odds with federal law, but only in some minor way, the president could STILL potentially use troops (or not) on whim, effectively putting the state at the mercy of the president, and forcing them to a position of meekness due to his discretionary power. For instance, if California wanted pot clubs and gay marriage, and ignored federal law in persuit of legalizing those things, the ?act? would give the President the right to invade California with U.S. troops. He might decide not to do it, but his ability to choose so, or not, amounts to a huge amount of bullying power. If I liked Bush's policies I might think it was harmless, but I hate Bush's policies*, and there's no promise about who will be the next president.
Assuming the act is here to stay, and in light of those objections, the important question becomes, "WHO DECIDES WHETHER A MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCY HAS HAPPENED?" I'm curious whether the determination that the state, or condition(s) therein, has violated the constitutional rights of its citizens, or that it has systematically blocked federal law, or the enforcement thereof, would first be submitted to the Supreme Court.
The president, I claim, should NOT have total discretion. I cite the examples of:
*Bush launching unprovoked wars in Iraq / Afghanistan, and striking a terrible blow against the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.
It is prepostrous that he would then "ask for more power" to "protect us" _in the rights he trampled_, _with the army he misused_.
This is some of what Jesus had to say about greed, greedy ways and treating others the right way:
Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Matthew 19:21 21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Matthew 19:23
23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Here's what Jesus said about lawsuits, and resisting evil: (Matthew 5:40) And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. (Luke 6:29) And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. 30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
Now let's say, hypothetically, that they DID allow the crooked tax scheme patents: BOTH the taxees, and the patent holders: are required to forgive, and to stop being abusive.
Matthew 18 21Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
23Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. 24And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. 25But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 27Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
28But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
29And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 30And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
31So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
32Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: 33Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? 34And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
It would take alot to get electronic voting "bulletproof," but one very important idea (?necessity?) is to give EVERYONE (with a server and an IP with some bandwidth) the ability to count votes online...to "listen" to all the voting machines as the votes roll in.
Before the elections, anybody who wants could then add their server's IP/port to the roster of vote listeners. The server would do a steady "ping -t" to ensure that it was online for the entire election (and didn't miss any votes). It would count every vote cast, and if it were proven (?via logging?) that the server had remained fully online (i.e. not ddos'ed, cable pulled, power cycled, changed firewall settings or any other "funny" behavior) it could compare/contrast results with a central counting machine, and any incidental serious / meaningful discrepancies would be examined.
If listening centers noted the SAME discrepancy, or there were a pattern of discrepancy, then the central vote count would be investigated and rectified.
The final count of each vote listener (which was kept in memory the whole time, rather than disk, so it couldn't be tampered with) would then be mailed to all the other listeners, resulting in a fully open counting method.
I'll resist the "soilant green" joke, and also the joke about "And shouldn't they be cloning something more important? Something like raptor dinosaurs to cull excess Eloi from the earth's population?" and ask a real question:
What's the advantage to cloned cows? Can't they artificially inseminate cows already? And, in fact, wouldn't it be less expensive to get calves from breeding on green pastures (and reproduce at their own pace) than from cow-cloning clinics?
And noise pollution is all they've added to that phone.
I just found two cell phones in the past 2 weeks. Both of them were just lying in the road. I returned both of them. One of them I gave to a cop, and, with the other one, the owner called his phone and I handed it back to him. In the second case, receiving his call and returning his phone was easy, SINCE I HAD NO INCENTIVE TO DISCONNECT THE BATTERY; his phone wasn't screeching at me.
I guess you could say the shriek is for cases when the phoneloser calls and the finder hangs up. But silencing the phone is better than that, and possibly more effective. To reactivate a silent phone, make the finder take the phone to a service branch, and, if lost or stolen, the newly-reactivated phone could be mailed to the owner.
Well, 1 watt-hour converts to.860420 Calories So 100 watt-hours converts to 86.042 Calories... BY JINGS, YOU'RE RIGHT! Thanks for catching that error. It resulted in ?28%? inaccuracy. Now I'll recalculate it:
A gallon of gasoline contains about 31,000 Calories. 1 watthour =.860420 Calories. A gallon of gas contains 31000 Calories. Convert Calories per gallon into watts hours per gallon: 31,000 * (100/86) = 36,046 watt hours per gallon (at 100% efficiency) That means the device would produce a single watt for 36,046 hours at 100% efficiency.(1501 DAYS) But it works at minus 5% efficiency = 34,243.7 hours (1,426.82 days) and produces 100 watts, not a single watt, so divide by 100: the device would produce 100 watts for 342.43 hours, = 14.27 days, (34 kilowatt hours) on a single gallon of gas.
Now, YOUR question is how much gas would it take to run the device for 10 hours. To get an hour of runtime's worth of fuel, divide a gallon by 342.43, (since that is the number of hours that a gallon runs the device). To make that 10 hour's worth, multiply the result by 10. 1 gallon [US, liquid] = 128 ounce [US, liquid] Therefore, divide 128 fluid ounces by 342.43 and multiply by 10 = 3.74 fluid ounces
So the engine would run for 10 hours on a 3.74 fl.oz.(US) fuel tank.
Not bad at all! But I wonder how anybody's going to get that fuel tank onto an airplane, these days. =\
OK I JUST HAD TO look this up. Check my math if you must. I make no promises. Lets break the question into its constituent parts:
A gallon of gasoline contains about 31,000 Calories 1 watthour =.860420 Calories (So, an ideal Calorie is equal to 86.042% of a watt.) A gallon of gas contains 31000 Calories Convert Calories per gallon into watts hours per gallon: 31000 * (86/100) = 26660 watt hours per gallon (at 100% efficiency) That means the device would produce a single watt for 26,660 hours at 100% efficiency.(1,110.83DAYS) But it works at minus 5% efficiency = 25,327 hours (1,055.29 days) )) and produces 100 watts, not a single watt, so divide by 100: the device would produce 100 watts for 253.27 hours, = 10.55 days, on a gallon of gas.
Now, YOUR question is how much gas would it take to run the device for 10 hours. To get an hour of runtime's worth of fuel, divide a gallon by 253.27. To make that 10 hour's worth, multiply the result by 10. 1 gallon [US, liquid] = 128 ounce [US, liquid] Therefore, divide 128 fluid ounces by 253.27 and multiply by 10 = 5.05 fluid ounces
So the engine would run for 10 hours on a 5 fl.oz.(US) fuel tank.
The last emersive 3d fantasy mporg I played was Asheron's Call (The first one). I loved it, but I was a loner in the game and just did my own thing. (My name was "orc" on frostfell, in case you met me there in the dungeon. lol.
I'm curious whether anybody played both games, and how they compare/contrast. (WoW and Asheron's Call).
In Asheron's Call, I particularly liked the crafter skills and obscure things of that nature. Does WoW have crafter skills?
AC also had fun things that were campy. For instance, they turned all the oceans to blood once. They had a demon running around zapping level 100 characters in 1 hit. I never got to see it but I heard about it. It would attack towns. They had jack-o-lanterns that showed up on halloween and threw pumpkins like the headless horseman. Etc.
Well anyhow. AC was loads of fun but it consumed my life. Sorry about that, "E", my ex girlfriend of the time. But I don't think it would have changed a thing, since you were married to school anyhow.
Yea, how to beat.er.quit the game? Cold turkey.
Since I QUIT Asheron's call I've built a boat, built a pair of bike trailers, built a greenhouse, planted over 100 trees from seeds, designed a few windmill plans, built an RC glider, found God and figured out what that means to me (with some help from above), made a bunch of electronic music tracks, travelled to indonesia. many other things too. Real world accomplishments. That's more satisfying than full plate armor, a lightweight shield, an atlan sword and a million pyrheals on a mule.
I don't know if AC1 is still running, or how many players they might still have...? It's probably still a fun game, though. I remember it fondly. But the real life thing. The first post was absolutely perfect. =\
I wonder if it's safe to dl/run the demo version of WoW.
I have genuine sympathy, and your complaints sound like they could have been my own, at a certain time of my life. I've struggled through tribulations, and the LORD has not always answered my prayers with the things that I considered most desirable. But He's always answered my prayer and my EFFORT with rewards. Those rewards haven't always been physically tangible; some of them have been on the INSIDE: will power, endurance, patience, forebearance, enjoyment of time spent alone, that sort of thing.
There was a time that my prayer was answered with a very harsh negative rebuke. I wasn't praying respectfully; perhaps that's why.
Anyhow, I assure you that you have ALOT to be thankful for, and it never hurts to give thanks for the things that you have. Food, a place to live, freedom, health, family, hobbies and interests, convenience, sense of contentment in the things you enjoy, etc.
If you have the luxury of DOUBTING God's existance then you haven't seen his wrath, and you haven't seen demons either; that's a very comfortable place, believe it or not.
When will YOUR prayers be answered? I can't say. But I've prayed and asked the LORD to help you, and I believe He will do that.
The book of Job provides a reasonable response to some of your experience.
As for proof, until you've SEEN the proof, remember: John 20:29 "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
You say it's not tangible, and there's no proof, but to me there IS proof. The evidence I have is in the Spirit. The spirit isn't just a feeling, it's how the LORD communicates with people. That means the LORD communicates with me, and my prayers are answered in a meaningful way.
The LORD helps you in ways that you might not recognize today; you will possibly come to recognize them later. For starters, I assure you, He protects you from ALOT. (Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they will be SHELTERED.) There are things in this world that you don't want to see. Demons, for instance. Thank the LORD. In the meantime, it is VERY important to love (and fear) the LORD even if you don't see proof of his existance.
Those who believe the LORD sent Christ and keep his teachings do this: LOVE the LORD, love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies, not retaliating against evil, always forgiving, not judging one another, praying for your enemies, helping the poor, lending to those who ask, being a good samaritan, keeping the LORD's 10 commandments, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus %2020&version=9 keeping sexual morality, speaking evil against no person, and spreading the Gospel. Christ said faith can move mountains. Seek and ye shall find. I hope you do find faith.
You mentioned you were born again, but the refresher never hurts. It is worth making the effort. God Bless You.
Unless, that is, you aren't using the net for anything they'd care about. But then I could ask why you'd use a VPN that's routed all the way to Sweden and back.
OK now. "[atheism] 'is the default stance, and therefore takes no faith.'" Is that your claim?
I believe you're right, UNTIL a person has been exposed to the IDEA of God. Then they're forced to CHOOSE: atheist, agnostic or believer.
AT THAT JUNCTURE, FAITH is required to choose atheist OR believer. NO FAITH is required to choose agnostic.
There is a great bible verse, here: John 20:29 "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
OK, and now you say that "Believing in the theory of gravity or not does not change the fact that we are all being pulled towards the Earth."
And I say that believing in the LORD or not does not change the fact that HE exists, and one day we will all be judged, and you're BLESSED if you DID believe in HIM. YOU might not SEE the PROOF, but the PROOF is THERE. The PROOF is in the SPIRIT, and the SPIRIT comes from ACCEPTING Christ as the savior, whom the LORD SENT, the spirit comes from that, and from PRAYING TO GOD.
I spent the first 30 years of my life being spiritually blind, and arguing some of the same things that most of my would-be rebuttalists have attempted. Now I see, and I'M TELLING YOU, there's more to life than philosophy, forensics and cold empirical science.
For starters, GOD EXISTS, and HELPS THOSE WHO PRAY. God would help you, too. In fact, HE HAS BEEN helping you every day of your life, whether you know it or not.
Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits. What would Jesus do?
Matthew 6:12 "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."
Matthew 5:40 "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also."
Matthew 6:14-15 "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
you: "Lies and ignorance from a Christian are still lies and ignorance, regardless of your faith or lack thereof."
me: And, honesty and informedness from a Christian are still honesty and informedness. Regardless of YOUR faith.
you: "You are illogically saying that if you don't have faith that a thing exists that you necessarily have faith that it does not."
me: I didn't say that logically OR illogically. In fact I didn't say that at all. And I'm not saying it now, either. Post a link and a quote, if you insist.
you: "Agnosticism is a valid point of view regardless how much Xtian trolling you do."
me: Let's be fully clear about this. I posted a verse from Genesis, and THEN the TROLLING started AGAINST my post.
Now. Agnosticism is CONCEPTUALLY valid, but it's SPIRITUALLY insufficient.
If you insist on disbelieving God, or doubting Him, YOU WILL STILL BE JUDGED BY GOD. That might be a hard day if you never believed until then. If/When, just remember that the LORD hears all prayers, and never give up.
Slashdot Mirror
So it would have fingered the suspect in the case of the wendy's chilli bowl..with..the..human.finger..? =\
Great...who wrote the article?! I have some ideas.
Blocking off the sunlight used by the ecosystem, global agriculture, ocean/forests, orchards, etc, in order to stop the side effects of industrial pollution (e.g. global warming) sounds like a bad idea.
The world DEPENDS on sunlight: Sunlight feeds algae, algae feeds plankton, plankton feeds fish, fish feed US (as well as other fish, whales, birds), crops need sunlight, PEOPLE need sunlight...sunlight DEFINES the seasons.
If everybody prayed and asked the LORD nicely, and thanked Him for what we HAVE, that global warming would just vanish. Who believes THAT? (I do, for one)
The love of money is the root of all evil.
It's time to route the music supply AROUND the RIAA, just the same way a person would route AROUND a circuit that poses a fire hazard.
In the long run, greed will greed itself out of existance as publically created free music replaces "go-to-jail" / "pay-the-fines" music.
Hmm. Of course...who's working on that free music again?
www.anvilstudio.com
The Beatles once claimed to be "Bigger than Jesus Christ."
"Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man"
lol. insensetive clod? INSENSETIVE CLODE?! I'LL GIVE YOU INSENSETIVE CLOD!!!
-->it's not EVEN WINTER HERE!! I'M IN CALIFORNIA!!! here it's just really nice outside, as usual. i've been outside in the greenhouse all day! a cool 60 degrees... =)
good therapy and hand exercise for defense against carpal tunnel: tilling the soil by hand, mixing the earth and the sand...relaxing, too.
now for some late night coding. =)
on halloween. =\
Well YOU could have mentioned those games, too, you know, but you didn't.
No need to get insulted, though. Go for a walk...get some sunlight. Feel the warmth on your face! Don't push yourself too hard..preserve your hands and your sanity. I've been in the ultra crunch state, too, pardner. Don't burn out.
I did not rt*a, but I think what they might be getting at is the fact that Windows has a ton of games already written for it, AND the momentum of being the default platform. Linux has some good advantages, but those are not Linux advantages. That is not an insult to you, it's a fact that emerges from the history of games.
Things can change though. It encourages me to see that there IS a software house that makes linux games. If nothing else than for the sake of linux.
I don't see how the bankers could possibly want broadstrokes foreclosures. Reposessed homes don't make mortgage payments.
I'll try to look forward to a brighter future. =)
Considering that Bush launched unnecessary, unprovoked military operations in Iraq / Afghanistan, and undermined the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, I find it deceitful that he would presume to assign U.S. troops to protect constitutional rights within U.S. Borders; I find it deeply troubling that he would pursue that power at a time when there is no mandate.
I ask why such a bill was even written, considering there are historical examples of the U.S. president already HAVING and USING the right to domestically use troops: (1) Able Lincoln and the U.S. Civil War, and (2) Eisenhower sending federal troops to counteract the national guard troops in Little Rock during the civil rights movement, when the governor of Arkansas tried to block integration of schools.
There are two potential problems with the act:
First, IF Federal Law changed to something REALLY obnoxious, any state(s) that openly and actively opposed the undesired change due to their own democratic process, as is their consittutional right (due to federalism and seperation of powers), they would potentially be subject to suppression from the U.S. Armed Forces. For instance, if the feds wanted sweeping "terrorist holding camps" and gestapo tactics (Guantanamo, washboards, secret lists, secret detentions, secret trials), any state that openly opposed it would be subject to invasion.
Secondly, if a state had passed a benign law that happened to be at odds with federal law, but only in some minor way, the president could STILL potentially use troops (or not) on whim, effectively putting the state at the mercy of the president, and forcing them to a position of meekness due to his discretionary power. For instance, if California wanted pot clubs and gay marriage, and ignored federal law in persuit of legalizing those things, the ?act? would give the President the right to invade California with U.S. troops. He might decide not to do it, but his ability to choose so, or not, amounts to a huge amount of bullying power. If I liked Bush's policies I might think it was harmless, but I hate Bush's policies*, and there's no promise about who will be the next president.
Assuming the act is here to stay, and in light of those objections, the important question becomes, "WHO DECIDES WHETHER A MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCY HAS HAPPENED?" I'm curious whether the determination that the state, or condition(s) therein, has violated the constitutional rights of its citizens, or that it has systematically blocked federal law, or the enforcement thereof, would first be submitted to the Supreme Court.
The president, I claim, should NOT have total discretion. I cite the examples of:
*Bush launching unprovoked wars in Iraq / Afghanistan, and striking a terrible blow against the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.
It is prepostrous that he would then "ask for more power" to "protect us" _in the rights he trampled_, _with the army he misused_.
This is some of what Jesus had to say about greed, greedy ways and treating others the right way:
Matthew 7:2
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Luke 6:38
Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Matthew 19:21
21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Matthew 19:23
23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Here's what Jesus said about lawsuits, and resisting evil: (Matthew 5:40) And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. (Luke 6:29) And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. 30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
Now let's say, hypothetically, that they DID allow the crooked tax scheme patents: BOTH the taxees, and the patent holders: are required to forgive, and to stop being abusive.
Matthew 18
21Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
23Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. 24And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. 25But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 27Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
28But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
29And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 30And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
31So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
32Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: 33Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? 34And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
It would take alot to get electronic voting "bulletproof," but one very important idea (?necessity?) is to give EVERYONE (with a server and an IP with some bandwidth) the ability to count votes online...to "listen" to all the voting machines as the votes roll in.
Before the elections, anybody who wants could then add their server's IP/port to the roster of vote listeners. The server would do a steady "ping -t" to ensure that it was online for the entire election (and didn't miss any votes). It would count every vote cast, and if it were proven (?via logging?) that the server had remained fully online (i.e. not ddos'ed, cable pulled, power cycled, changed firewall settings or any other "funny" behavior) it could compare/contrast results with a central counting machine, and any incidental serious / meaningful discrepancies would be examined.
If listening centers noted the SAME discrepancy, or there were a pattern of discrepancy, then the central vote count would be investigated and rectified.
The final count of each vote listener (which was kept in memory the whole time, rather than disk, so it couldn't be tampered with) would then be mailed to all the other listeners, resulting in a fully open counting method.
I'll resist the "soilant green" joke, and also the joke about "And shouldn't they be cloning something more important? Something like raptor dinosaurs to cull excess Eloi from the earth's population?" and ask a real question:
What's the advantage to cloned cows? Can't they artificially inseminate cows already? And, in fact, wouldn't it be less expensive to get calves from breeding on green pastures (and reproduce at their own pace) than from cow-cloning clinics?
New Vocabulary Word: "Allegedly."
It's a good word. I highly recommend it.
And noise pollution is all they've added to that phone.
I just found two cell phones in the past 2 weeks. Both of them were just lying in the road. I returned both of them. One of them I gave to a cop, and, with the other one, the owner called his phone and I handed it back to him. In the second case, receiving his call and returning his phone was easy, SINCE I HAD NO INCENTIVE TO DISCONNECT THE BATTERY; his phone wasn't screeching at me.
I guess you could say the shriek is for cases when the phoneloser calls and the finder hangs up. But silencing the phone is better than that, and possibly more effective. To reactivate a silent phone, make the finder take the phone to a service branch, and, if lost or stolen, the newly-reactivated phone could be mailed to the owner.
Well, 1 watt-hour converts to .860420 Calories ...
.860420 Calories.
So 100 watt-hours converts to 86.042 Calories
BY JINGS, YOU'RE RIGHT! Thanks for catching that error. It resulted in ?28%? inaccuracy. Now I'll recalculate it:
A gallon of gasoline contains about 31,000 Calories.
1 watthour =
A gallon of gas contains 31000 Calories.
Convert Calories per gallon into watts hours per gallon: 31,000 * (100/86) = 36,046 watt hours per gallon (at 100% efficiency)
That means the device would produce a single watt for 36,046 hours at 100% efficiency.(1501 DAYS) But it works at minus 5% efficiency = 34,243.7 hours (1,426.82 days) and produces 100 watts, not a single watt, so divide by 100: the device would produce 100 watts for 342.43 hours, = 14.27 days, (34 kilowatt hours) on a single gallon of gas.
Now, YOUR question is how much gas would it take to run the device for 10 hours.
To get an hour of runtime's worth of fuel, divide a gallon by 342.43, (since that is the number of hours that a gallon runs the device).
To make that 10 hour's worth, multiply the result by 10.
1 gallon [US, liquid] = 128 ounce [US, liquid]
Therefore, divide 128 fluid ounces by 342.43 and multiply by 10 =
3.74 fluid ounces
So the engine would run for 10 hours on a 3.74 fl.oz.(US) fuel tank.
Not bad at all! But I wonder how anybody's going to get that fuel tank onto an airplane, these days. =\
>it can run 10 hours, but how much fuel is that?
.860420 Calories (So, an ideal Calorie is equal to 86.042% of a watt.)
OK I JUST HAD TO look this up. Check my math if you must. I make no promises.
Lets break the question into its constituent parts:
A gallon of gasoline contains about 31,000 Calories
1 watthour =
A gallon of gas contains 31000 Calories
Convert Calories per gallon into watts hours per gallon: 31000 * (86/100) = 26660 watt hours per gallon (at 100% efficiency)
That means the device would produce a single watt for 26,660 hours at 100% efficiency.(1,110.83DAYS) But it works at minus 5% efficiency = 25,327 hours (1,055.29 days) ))
and produces 100 watts, not a single watt, so divide by 100: the device would produce 100 watts for 253.27 hours, = 10.55 days, on a gallon of gas.
Now, YOUR question is how much gas would it take to run the device for 10 hours.
To get an hour of runtime's worth of fuel, divide a gallon by 253.27.
To make that 10 hour's worth, multiply the result by 10.
1 gallon [US, liquid] = 128 ounce [US, liquid]
Therefore, divide 128 fluid ounces by 253.27 and multiply by 10 =
5.05 fluid ounces
So the engine would run for 10 hours on a 5 fl.oz.(US) fuel tank.
sources:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question527.htm
http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm
http://www.onlineconversion.com/volume.htm
I hate to say it, but RT*A. It says the device is 95% efficient.
"...The matchbox-sized motor generates the equivalent of 100 watts..." "...and has an efficiency of close to 95 percent..."
Or talk like a pirate's parrot day?
Sqaaaawk! Walk the plank! Walk the plank! Wanna Cracker?
The last emersive 3d fantasy mporg I played was Asheron's Call (The first one). I loved it, but I was a loner in the game and just did my own thing. (My name was "orc" on frostfell, in case you met me there in the dungeon. lol.
I'm curious whether anybody played both games, and how they compare/contrast. (WoW and Asheron's Call).
In Asheron's Call, I particularly liked the crafter skills and obscure things of that nature. Does WoW have crafter skills?
AC also had fun things that were campy. For instance, they turned all the oceans to blood once. They had a demon running around zapping level 100 characters in 1 hit. I never got to see it but I heard about it. It would attack towns. They had jack-o-lanterns that showed up on halloween and threw pumpkins like the headless horseman. Etc.
Well anyhow. AC was loads of fun but it consumed my life. Sorry about that, "E", my ex girlfriend of the time. But I don't think it would have changed a thing, since you were married to school anyhow.
Yea, how to beat.er.quit the game? Cold turkey.
Since I QUIT Asheron's call I've built a boat, built a pair of bike trailers, built a greenhouse, planted over 100 trees from seeds, designed a few windmill plans, built an RC glider, found God and figured out what that means to me (with some help from above), made a bunch of electronic music tracks, travelled to indonesia. many other things too. Real world accomplishments. That's more satisfying than full plate armor, a lightweight shield, an atlan sword and a million pyrheals on a mule.
I don't know if AC1 is still running, or how many players they might still have...? It's probably still a fun game, though. I remember it fondly. But the real life thing. The first post was absolutely perfect. =\
I wonder if it's safe to dl/run the demo version of WoW.
No, I didn't get Episode 1 to work. It crashed every time I launched it.
In fact, I reinstalled my entire OS, and it STILL didn't work.
No need to be impatient; they'll get around to fixing the bug...?eventually?
I have genuine sympathy, and your complaints sound like they could have been my own, at a certain time of my life. I've struggled through tribulations, and the LORD has not always answered my prayers with the things that I considered most desirable. But He's always answered my prayer and my EFFORT with rewards. Those rewards haven't always been physically tangible; some of them have been on the INSIDE: will power, endurance, patience, forebearance, enjoyment of time spent alone, that sort of thing.
s %2020&version=9 keeping sexual morality, speaking evil against no person, and spreading the Gospel. Christ said faith can move mountains. Seek and ye shall find. I hope you do find faith.
There was a time that my prayer was answered with a very harsh negative rebuke. I wasn't praying respectfully; perhaps that's why.
Anyhow, I assure you that you have ALOT to be thankful for, and it never hurts to give thanks for the things that you have. Food, a place to live, freedom, health, family, hobbies and interests, convenience, sense of contentment in the things you enjoy, etc.
If you have the luxury of DOUBTING God's existance then you haven't seen his wrath, and you haven't seen demons either; that's a very comfortable place, believe it or not.
When will YOUR prayers be answered? I can't say. But I've prayed and asked the LORD to help you, and I believe He will do that.
The book of Job provides a reasonable response to some of your experience.
As for proof, until you've SEEN the proof, remember: John 20:29 "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
You say it's not tangible, and there's no proof, but to me there IS proof. The evidence I have is in the Spirit. The spirit isn't just a feeling, it's how the LORD communicates with people. That means the LORD communicates with me, and my prayers are answered in a meaningful way.
The LORD helps you in ways that you might not recognize today; you will possibly come to recognize them later. For starters, I assure you, He protects you from ALOT. (Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they will be SHELTERED.) There are things in this world that you don't want to see. Demons, for instance. Thank the LORD. In the meantime, it is VERY important to love (and fear) the LORD even if you don't see proof of his existance.
Those who believe the LORD sent Christ and keep his teachings do this: LOVE the LORD, love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies, not retaliating against evil, always forgiving, not judging one another, praying for your enemies, helping the poor, lending to those who ask, being a good samaritan, keeping the LORD's 10 commandments, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodu
You mentioned you were born again, but the refresher never hurts. It is worth making the effort. God Bless You.
(cont'd)
Unless, that is, you aren't using the net for anything they'd care about. But then I could ask why you'd use a VPN that's routed all the way to Sweden and back.
OK now. "[atheism] 'is the default stance, and therefore takes no faith.'" Is that your claim?
I believe you're right, UNTIL a person has been exposed to the IDEA of God. Then they're forced to CHOOSE: atheist, agnostic or believer.
AT THAT JUNCTURE, FAITH is required to choose atheist OR believer. NO FAITH is required to choose agnostic.
There is a great bible verse, here: John 20:29
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
OK, and now you say that "Believing in the theory of gravity or not does not change the fact that we are all being pulled towards the Earth."
And I say that believing in the LORD or not does not change the fact that HE exists, and one day we will all be judged, and you're BLESSED if you DID believe in HIM. YOU might not SEE the PROOF, but the PROOF is THERE. The PROOF is in the SPIRIT, and the SPIRIT comes from ACCEPTING Christ as the savior, whom the LORD SENT, the spirit comes from that, and from PRAYING TO GOD.
I spent the first 30 years of my life being spiritually blind, and arguing some of the same things that most of my would-be rebuttalists have attempted. Now I see, and I'M TELLING YOU, there's more to life than philosophy, forensics and cold empirical science.
For starters, GOD EXISTS, and HELPS THOSE WHO PRAY. God would help you, too. In fact, HE HAS BEEN helping you every day of your life, whether you know it or not.
Well I posted this one a few days ago. If you read it, you'll see that I was not using that definition of antifaith.
o ld=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=15955434#159572 17
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=194622&thresh
Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits. What would Jesus do?
Matthew 6:12
"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."
Matthew 5:40
"And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also."
Matthew 6:14-15
"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
you:
"Lies and ignorance from a Christian are still lies and ignorance, regardless of your faith or lack thereof."
me:
And, honesty and informedness from a Christian are still honesty and informedness. Regardless of YOUR faith.
you:
"You are illogically saying that if you don't have faith that a thing exists that you necessarily have faith that it does not."
me:
I didn't say that logically OR illogically. In fact I didn't say that at all. And I'm not saying it now, either. Post a link and a quote, if you insist.
you:
"Agnosticism is a valid point of view regardless how much Xtian trolling you do."
me:
Let's be fully clear about this. I posted a verse from Genesis, and THEN the TROLLING started AGAINST my post.
Now. Agnosticism is CONCEPTUALLY valid, but it's SPIRITUALLY insufficient.
If you insist on disbelieving God, or doubting Him, YOU WILL STILL BE JUDGED BY GOD. That might be a hard day if you never believed until then. If/When, just remember that the LORD hears all prayers, and never give up.