Kind of interesting that I went the exact opposite route. I was sick of carrying the little bastard around, sick of being tethered to it, sick of having to check my voice mail every five minutes or else get the inquisition from family members for failing to respond to their call. I'm not much of a fan of the phone, and the fact that I had no excuse to leave it behind bothered me even more. I'll stick with my land line, thanks, but I'd still prefer not to use it unless there's ane emergency.
Solution 5: SCO Execs point www.sco.com at the loopback address 127.0.0.1, end lawsuits, dismiss lawyers, and invest remaining corporate cash reserves in call options in Dell & Microsoft stock.
Yeah, but at this point the author is just being silly.
Then we can change my definition of Christian to mean "striving to live your life in the spirit with which Jesus did". At least then, it allows you the ability to make mistakes and still be part of it. With that said, however, whenever confronted with your failings, it should be expected that you rectify those or hand in your cross, so to speak.
Of course, I'm merely discussing this for the sake of discussing this. In essence, I was just taking the conversation off on a tangent to one of my personal pet peeves: "Christians" who claim to be Christian but fall short in several fundamental areas. Just having belief that Jesus was the son of God isn't enough to make you a Christian. You have to accept him, his life and his ideals completely into your life.
With that said, however, I've somewhat changed my view from earlier. I stated previously that I agreed with Mr. Hicks; I've changed my mind. I would rather all of the terrorists were stopped, in one way or another. If it absolutely must be death, then so be it. But throwing them in jail or somehow miraculously setting off a sequence of events that changed their midns about us would be greatly preferred over the death of every single one of them.
My personal beliefs are that they need to be wiped out. However, it wasn't me that vented my personal beliefs. The subject in question is Mr. Hicks claims that he is a Christian when his desires plainly show that he is not. Being a Christian depends on living your life with the same beliefs of Jesus Christ. If you don't, you're just talking out your ass. Mr. Hicks wants to kill every one of the terrorists. He doesn't want to merely stop the terrorists. He wants them to die. That isn't Christian. That is plainly against everything Jesus ever taught. That was my only point.
"Kill every damned one of those sons of bitches" - an abbrieviation of the conclusion of the Just War theory, believed by many Christians.
"I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion." - not a contradiction of the above sentiment. He doesn't hate Muslims just because they're Muslims. He wants to kill the damn sons of bitches who murder thousands of innocents.
Not sure where you guys went to Sunday school, but you seem to have missed a ton. The fact of the matter is, he wants to kill. Jesus would never sanction that. If you want to bring these men to justice, that is fine. If you kill them to remove any more threats, that is fine. But a bloodthirsty desire of vengeance is not Christian. It's barbaraic. Frankly, I don't see any difference in current attitudes towards each other between radical Islam and Mr. Hicks. If you want to be the good guy in the fight, you're going to have to maintain the moral highground. A war of vengeance and retribution renders such highground null and void. You DO have the ability to face these men calmly and rationally. But instead your harbor feelings of violence and extreme prejudice and desire their deaths for no other overriding reason than to "get them back". Jesus would be ashamed of you.
no, we knew that there was frozen carbon dioxide on mars (dry ice), but not water ice. we've believed there has been water on the planet at some point due to certain geographical and geological reasons (the way some of the rocks are pointing the same direction, the "canals", etc, etc), but we don't know for sure that there actually was water on the planet.
Outlook does have the ability to view messages in a threaded format; it also has the ability to display a short summary of the listing in the message window pane (not the preview pane). Now all they have to do is to display the whole damn string instead of the first 300 characters. This isn't going to exactly be hard for them to do. I've been using this threaded view + summary for over a year now. It would be nice to have the whole message, though..
Would it be possible to perhaps create a miniature version of our own magnetosphere? Make our own electromagnetic covering for the ship so that the electro-magnetic radiation was diverted as well? I'm not a physics expert and I have only extremely elementary space knowledge, but is this an idea worth pursuing or nay?
>> I do agree with your point about safe storage of guns however. It's crazy enough to argue your right to bear arms as a point of being able to protect your liberty when the military can bring to bear SO much more firepower than ANY civilian (so it's moot), but if you INSIST on having guns around, it's TOTALLY irresponsible to not secure them enough to even keep your kids from getting at them.
Very interesting that you bring that up. I agree with your latter sentiment; however, if it came to throwing a rock or shooting a deer rifle, I'd prefer the deer rifle to the rock, especially if I'd get shot for throwing the rock anyway. 1:1 kills to deaths ratio is better than 0:1.
I think everyone is missing the true point about this election. The fact of the matter was that Gore had more votes overall than Bush. Yet he didn't get the electoral votes.
I can somewhat understand why the constitution states that there be an electoral college. I disagree with it for the most part, but there is a part of me that somewhat acknowledges the fact that maybe people aren't better off governing themselves. Sure, everyone who takes exception to this statement is clearly able to determine what's good and bad for themselves. It's the idiots who eat until they're morbidly obese and then sue McDonalds that we need to worry about.
With that said, however, I do disagree with each individual State's implimentation of the electoral college. If 60% of the State voted Gore and 40% voted Bush (disregarding Nader and Micky Mouse and Papa Smurf), and the State had 10 electoral votes, I believe that 6 electoral votes should have gone to Gore and 4 to Bush. Whether or not this would have made a difference (due to "rounding" errors), I have no idea. Even if my choice Gore would have won Florida, and thus, this election, it still wouldn't be fair and I still would be bitching about it. All of us Democrats who are still complaining about the Supreme Court and Florida need to re-examine the real cause of Gore losing: not because of no recount, not because of Nader, but because our system is inherently flawed at the state level and needs to be rectified. Just so none of the Republicans (or Libertarians) get in a tizzy; I'd be more than happy for the states themselves fix this issue, but I do think it needs to be done country-wide (including Maine).
The thing is, though, the voter has no idea what that barcode means, which completely negates the reasoning of having a computer print out the results so you can be sure of what you get.
Is this possibly because there are no environmental safety precautions in place to filter the water (can it be filtered?)
I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just honestly don't know. I was under the impression most Uranium mining is done in Africa and I can't imagine that they have a Department of Environmental Protection or EPA or anything along those lines. Would it make much of a difference even if they did?
But really, lets be honest with each other. Nuklearpower is so much cleaner than Oil/Coal/Natural Gas that it isn't even funny - including radiation wise. This is obviously good.
It's the "worst case scenario" that scares people. Worst case scenario in an Oil plant - a gigantic holding tank bursts and the surrounding area is blanketed by thick, destructive oil. Disaster? You bet.
Natural gas holding tank explodes (however likely that might be...). Raging inferno engulfs a sizeable portion of the surrounding area. Disaster? Damn right.
Nuklear Power plant has a jet that flies into it. Surrounding area blanketed with radioactive material. Disaster? No. Mega-disaster.
In any other power plant "worst case scenario" situation, we would potentially be able to "clean up" the mess, rebuild the homes, etc, etc. In a worst case scenario with a nuclear powerplant, we're talking about, what, 50,000 years until it's safe again? That's pretty dramatic. Even the oil spill, if not feasible to truly clean up wouldn't be as bad.
The power is cheap, efficient, reliable and safe - as long as nothing drastic happens. But if it does, the cost is more than I'm personally willing to "accept". Not that my stamp of approval means much.
I don't feel that's the answer. In fact, if push were to come to shove, I would strongly favor a new amendment GIVING congress the powers it currently takes for granted. You can dream all you want about a world where states interact flawlessly with each other and work together to promote national growth and standards, but in the real world, these things don't happen without something to tie everything together. That something is our federal government. The Constitution is a great document that does exceedling well at scaling and surving - both massive population increase, culture change AND time. But it is still not perfect.
I question the morality of making someone pay for something they didn't expressly ~ask~ for. Everyone says "hey, we shouldn't have to pay for reconstruction" but the truth is, an overwhelming amount of damage was directly caused by our actions. If it isn't our responsibility, whose is it, then?
I always assumed this was part of the "debate" for war; ie - who pays for it? And I also assumed that, if the overwhelming majority of Americans agreed to go to war, they also agreed to foot the bill for it.
Assuming tends to be a major pain in the ass, doesn't it?
Well, according to what I could find on Google (on an admittedly non-intensive search), Bush asked for 399 billion for 2004's federal budget. If you are right (and I have no reason to doubt you) and our budget is currently nearing 2.2 trillion dollars, we're still looking at spending almost 1/4 of our budget on new bombs, planes and all sorts of neato stuff (which probably have no chance of helping us during a terrorist attack, which is the sore point - at least to me). And all of this isn't even counting the cost of the war in Iraq.
I'm not really trying to say anyone is right or wrong, here. If I knew "the answer", I wouldn't be wasting my time posting on Slashdot - I'd be trying to fix it. But the truth is, I don't know and neither does anyone else, for that matter. But it does strike me as odd that we're currently "at war" against "terrorism" (and who knows what that even means anymore? It seems to be changed to fit anything we don't like anymore...) and we're spending next-to-nothing on defending ourselves. Everyone claims that "this isn't like a normal war" - and I agree - but if that's so, why are we trying to fight it as if it were one? I don't think a new and improved bunker buster is going to kill fanatical ideas anymore than I think I have a chance of becoming president someday.
Source of my Defense Budget Figure: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0203/020303cd2.htm
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't change the fact that they're going to fight it. It's understandable and expected. You're perfectly correct, but so was the parent.
Linux windows.
:)
Notice the lower case windows. Not Windows. Microsoft has no one to blame but themselves for picking such a generic name for their OS.
You're still right about Gentoo, though
Kind of interesting that I went the exact opposite route. I was sick of carrying the little bastard around, sick of being tethered to it, sick of having to check my voice mail every five minutes or else get the inquisition from family members for failing to respond to their call. I'm not much of a fan of the phone, and the fact that I had no excuse to leave it behind bothered me even more. I'll stick with my land line, thanks, but I'd still prefer not to use it unless there's ane emergency.
Are you sure you read this one? ;)
Solution 5: SCO Execs point www.sco.com at the loopback address 127.0.0.1, end lawsuits, dismiss lawyers, and invest remaining corporate cash reserves in call options in Dell & Microsoft stock.
Yeah, but at this point the author is just being silly.
Then we can change my definition of Christian to mean "striving to live your life in the spirit with which Jesus did". At least then, it allows you the ability to make mistakes and still be part of it. With that said, however, whenever confronted with your failings, it should be expected that you rectify those or hand in your cross, so to speak.
Of course, I'm merely discussing this for the sake of discussing this. In essence, I was just taking the conversation off on a tangent to one of my personal pet peeves: "Christians" who claim to be Christian but fall short in several fundamental areas. Just having belief that Jesus was the son of God isn't enough to make you a Christian. You have to accept him, his life and his ideals completely into your life.
With that said, however, I've somewhat changed my view from earlier. I stated previously that I agreed with Mr. Hicks; I've changed my mind. I would rather all of the terrorists were stopped, in one way or another. If it absolutely must be death, then so be it. But throwing them in jail or somehow miraculously setting off a sequence of events that changed their midns about us would be greatly preferred over the death of every single one of them.
My personal beliefs are that they need to be wiped out. However, it wasn't me that vented my personal beliefs. The subject in question is Mr. Hicks claims that he is a Christian when his desires plainly show that he is not. Being a Christian depends on living your life with the same beliefs of Jesus Christ. If you don't, you're just talking out your ass. Mr. Hicks wants to kill every one of the terrorists. He doesn't want to merely stop the terrorists. He wants them to die. That isn't Christian. That is plainly against everything Jesus ever taught. That was my only point.
"Kill every damned one of those sons of bitches" - an abbrieviation of the conclusion of the Just War theory, believed by many Christians. "I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion." - not a contradiction of the above sentiment. He doesn't hate Muslims just because they're Muslims. He wants to kill the damn sons of bitches who murder thousands of innocents.
Not sure where you guys went to Sunday school, but you seem to have missed a ton. The fact of the matter is, he wants to kill. Jesus would never sanction that. If you want to bring these men to justice, that is fine. If you kill them to remove any more threats, that is fine. But a bloodthirsty desire of vengeance is not Christian. It's barbaraic. Frankly, I don't see any difference in current attitudes towards each other between radical Islam and Mr. Hicks. If you want to be the good guy in the fight, you're going to have to maintain the moral highground. A war of vengeance and retribution renders such highground null and void. You DO have the ability to face these men calmly and rationally. But instead your harbor feelings of violence and extreme prejudice and desire their deaths for no other overriding reason than to "get them back". Jesus would be ashamed of you.
no, we knew that there was frozen carbon dioxide on mars (dry ice), but not water ice. we've believed there has been water on the planet at some point due to certain geographical and geological reasons (the way some of the rocks are pointing the same direction, the "canals", etc, etc), but we don't know for sure that there actually was water on the planet.
They also castrate their opponents. Proof? Look at your name.
Of course, since they're no longer facts. They're opinions.
...I guess...
Outlook does have the ability to view messages in a threaded format; it also has the ability to display a short summary of the listing in the message window pane (not the preview pane). Now all they have to do is to display the whole damn string instead of the first 300 characters. This isn't going to exactly be hard for them to do. I've been using this threaded view + summary for over a year now. It would be nice to have the whole message, though..
Would it be possible to perhaps create a miniature version of our own magnetosphere? Make our own electromagnetic covering for the ship so that the electro-magnetic radiation was diverted as well? I'm not a physics expert and I have only extremely elementary space knowledge, but is this an idea worth pursuing or nay?
>> I do agree with your point about safe storage of guns however. It's crazy enough to argue your right to bear arms as a point of being able to protect your liberty when the military can bring to bear SO much more firepower than ANY civilian (so it's moot), but if you INSIST on having guns around, it's TOTALLY irresponsible to not secure them enough to even keep your kids from getting at them.
Very interesting that you bring that up. I agree with your latter sentiment; however, if it came to throwing a rock or shooting a deer rifle, I'd prefer the deer rifle to the rock, especially if I'd get shot for throwing the rock anyway. 1:1 kills to deaths ratio is better than 0:1.
>> If you don't want to watch commercials then you should perhaps complain to the manager and walk out of a theatre that shows them.
Not really. They still got their money - what do they care if you leave?
Not by marketing standards. It's already the "biggest movie of the year" before the final editing is done. And people actually believe it.
Sorry about the lack of line breaks. I totally forgot I had to format everything myself. My bad.
I think everyone is missing the true point about this election. The fact of the matter was that Gore had more votes overall than Bush. Yet he didn't get the electoral votes. I can somewhat understand why the constitution states that there be an electoral college. I disagree with it for the most part, but there is a part of me that somewhat acknowledges the fact that maybe people aren't better off governing themselves. Sure, everyone who takes exception to this statement is clearly able to determine what's good and bad for themselves. It's the idiots who eat until they're morbidly obese and then sue McDonalds that we need to worry about. With that said, however, I do disagree with each individual State's implimentation of the electoral college. If 60% of the State voted Gore and 40% voted Bush (disregarding Nader and Micky Mouse and Papa Smurf), and the State had 10 electoral votes, I believe that 6 electoral votes should have gone to Gore and 4 to Bush. Whether or not this would have made a difference (due to "rounding" errors), I have no idea. Even if my choice Gore would have won Florida, and thus, this election, it still wouldn't be fair and I still would be bitching about it. All of us Democrats who are still complaining about the Supreme Court and Florida need to re-examine the real cause of Gore losing: not because of no recount, not because of Nader, but because our system is inherently flawed at the state level and needs to be rectified. Just so none of the Republicans (or Libertarians) get in a tizzy; I'd be more than happy for the states themselves fix this issue, but I do think it needs to be done country-wide (including Maine).
The thing is, though, the voter has no idea what that barcode means, which completely negates the reasoning of having a computer print out the results so you can be sure of what you get.
What in the HELL is Hobbittown?!?!?!
Is this possibly because there are no environmental safety precautions in place to filter the water (can it be filtered?)
I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just honestly don't know. I was under the impression most Uranium mining is done in Africa and I can't imagine that they have a Department of Environmental Protection or EPA or anything along those lines. Would it make much of a difference even if they did?
Just curious.
Ahh, I love sarcasm too.
But really, lets be honest with each other. Nuklearpower is so much cleaner than Oil/Coal/Natural Gas that it isn't even funny - including radiation wise. This is obviously good.
It's the "worst case scenario" that scares people. Worst case scenario in an Oil plant - a gigantic holding tank bursts and the surrounding area is blanketed by thick, destructive oil. Disaster? You bet.
Natural gas holding tank explodes (however likely that might be...). Raging inferno engulfs a sizeable portion of the surrounding area. Disaster? Damn right.
Nuklear Power plant has a jet that flies into it. Surrounding area blanketed with radioactive material. Disaster? No. Mega-disaster.
In any other power plant "worst case scenario" situation, we would potentially be able to "clean up" the mess, rebuild the homes, etc, etc. In a worst case scenario with a nuclear powerplant, we're talking about, what, 50,000 years until it's safe again? That's pretty dramatic. Even the oil spill, if not feasible to truly clean up wouldn't be as bad.
The power is cheap, efficient, reliable and safe - as long as nothing drastic happens. But if it does, the cost is more than I'm personally willing to "accept". Not that my stamp of approval means much.
I don't feel that's the answer. In fact, if push were to come to shove, I would strongly favor a new amendment GIVING congress the powers it currently takes for granted. You can dream all you want about a world where states interact flawlessly with each other and work together to promote national growth and standards, but in the real world, these things don't happen without something to tie everything together. That something is our federal government. The Constitution is a great document that does exceedling well at scaling and surving - both massive population increase, culture change AND time. But it is still not perfect.
Then again, I'm just an uneducated mass.
I question the morality of making someone pay for something they didn't expressly ~ask~ for. Everyone says "hey, we shouldn't have to pay for reconstruction" but the truth is, an overwhelming amount of damage was directly caused by our actions. If it isn't our responsibility, whose is it, then?
I always assumed this was part of the "debate" for war; ie - who pays for it? And I also assumed that, if the overwhelming majority of Americans agreed to go to war, they also agreed to foot the bill for it.
Assuming tends to be a major pain in the ass, doesn't it?
Well, according to what I could find on Google (on an admittedly non-intensive search), Bush asked for 399 billion for 2004's federal budget. If you are right (and I have no reason to doubt you) and our budget is currently nearing 2.2 trillion dollars, we're still looking at spending almost 1/4 of our budget on new bombs, planes and all sorts of neato stuff (which probably have no chance of helping us during a terrorist attack, which is the sore point - at least to me). And all of this isn't even counting the cost of the war in Iraq.
m
I'm not really trying to say anyone is right or wrong, here. If I knew "the answer", I wouldn't be wasting my time posting on Slashdot - I'd be trying to fix it. But the truth is, I don't know and neither does anyone else, for that matter. But it does strike me as odd that we're currently "at war" against "terrorism" (and who knows what that even means anymore? It seems to be changed to fit anything we don't like anymore...) and we're spending next-to-nothing on defending ourselves. Everyone claims that "this isn't like a normal war" - and I agree - but if that's so, why are we trying to fight it as if it were one? I don't think a new and improved bunker buster is going to kill fanatical ideas anymore than I think I have a chance of becoming president someday.
Source of my Defense Budget Figure: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0203/020303cd2.ht
No, but it does sound painful.