flying pet dragons. With fuel getting so expensive, going to work on a flying dragon will be the environmentally friendly and 'in' thing to do
Ya know, there is that planet called Pern where they did this very thing. Came in very handy when Treadfall was about. A nice side benefit was that the dragons could teleport to almost any place on the planet in an instant.
Would definitely make a dent in the fuel consumption and the waste generated by these beasts could be turned around and burned as fuel itself.
Now if only we could figure out how to manage the mating ritual we'd be in good shape.
Did you ever try to download the demo of an anticipated game?
No, because the vast majority of games that are beig published don't interest me. In fact, the only reason I have the few games I do have is because I got them as christmas gifts. I don't really care about the games that are out there.
Did you ever try to watch the high-res version of a trailer?
No, because I don't care about most movies. As has been indicated time and again on this site, most movies suck big time. They're boring, trite and sophomoric. How many times do we have to watch a car chase where a car runs into the back of a parked car and miraculously flips over and bursts into flames?
Did you ever try to buy an album online and want to listen to it RIGHT NOW?
No, because like movies the vast majority of music being produced today is crap. Over the weekend I picked up 5 new cds of Boston and Judas Priest which were on sale at a store going out of business. If I can wait 15-20 years to get those albums I can assure you there is nothing on the market today I want to listen to RIGHT NOW.
What is it with people that they think they need something now? Other than air and some form of medical attention there is nothing that one needs right now. When talking to folks on IRC I keep hearing them whine about how long something is taking to download. So instead of doing something else while the file is coming over the wire they'll sit there and moan about how much time they're wasting waiting to get the file.
I know I'm not in the norm around here (or most other places for that matter) but I get the feeling that many of those who say they have ADD don't actually have the affliction but bring it on themselves because they think they need something RIGHT NOW. Like a panic attack. There is nothing physically wrong with the person but because their mind thinks somethings wrong they create their condition.
Chill out folks. This discussion reminds of the people on the road who just have to get one car ahead. They'll weave in and out of traffic, accelerating hard and braking just as hard to save that extra 2 seconds to the exit because they didn't want to drive behind the person who was also taking the exit.
You claim that ID is not predictible- but since it predicts the exact same outcomes that evolution does,
Er, no it doesn't. ID makes no claim other than an unidentified supreme being started the ball rolling. However, ID doesn't even provide evidence to support that such a being exists. It starts by assuming a being does exist. That's not a prediction. That's a statement of fact unsupported by anything.
Further, if one is to believe what ID supporters say, "Things look they were designed", then that is patently false. Just because something looks like it was designed does not mean it was. I submit for your viewing pleasure the underwater rocks of Bimini.
For decades people assumed that they were a road from a long ago civilization. However, once the rocks were tested they were found to be naturally occuring phenomenon.
ID makes no testable predictions. Even the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind this farce, provides no evidence to support their claim. None. All they do is try to point out supposed flaws in evolution, flaws which are repeatedly answered and shown not to be true but they keep spouting the same lies in the hopes the public is too stupid to realize they're lying.
In fact, you do the same thing. You keep saying there are flaws yet provide nothing to support your claim. That's not how the scientific method works. If you think your idea deserves attention you have to provide evidence to support your claim. To date no one, and I mean no one, has ever provided any evidence to support ID. They immediately turn around and say, "Well evolution doesn't provide evidence for 'X'" where X is whatever the flaw of the week is. Trying to poke holes in a current theory does not make your claim valid.
Heh heh. Of course we'd be friends. Don't let my sig fool you. I like a good debate so long as one or both of us don't become so intransigent that neither wants to hear what the other says. I like to say that I'm very open minded with firm opinions.
Here's a question I'll leave you with which should give you that 'empty mind' feeling that buddhism tries to teach. If the everything in the universe is expanding outwards, what is it expanding into? Another way of phrasing the question might be, if everything in the universe started as a ball of matter, what was the matter sitting in before the Big Bang?
I'm certainly not going to flame you. At least you provided some evidence to support your claim. What's interesting about Gen 1:26 is the phrasing:
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness' "
Does that mean that there is more than one God or that God was talking to the angels and other higher beings? Having reread the portions of Genesis before 1:26 no mention is made of any other god or being.
This is more a rhetorical question so don't feel obligated to answer. Having had catechism oh so many years ago we went over this part but as far as I know no one has come to a definitive answer.
However, another issue arises from your second part. If God is a man, how would he know how to make a woman? He would have no basis for how she should be constructed. Ok, he's omnipotent.
As far as the faith thing goes, I follow, above all, the Golden Rule. If my not going around stomping on kittens and puppies or raping 90 year old women isn't good enough, tough. If there is a god I'm more than willing to defend my actions and suffer whatever the consequences. Just like in real life I admit my mistakes and take my lumps.
Yes, it does affect others. By teaching kids that a religious precept has equal footing as a scientific theory you're short-circuiting the whole concept of what learning is about.
Religion deals with unquestioning, untestable, unknowable belief in a supernatural being. If you say that a supernatural being can do X then why bother experimenting to find out why Y happens? Why bother to keep developing new vaccines? Just let the being take care of it.
Besides, if we're going to say that this theory must be balanced (to use the words of some of the former Dover board members) then why not balance every theory with something else? The Theory of Gravity or General Relativity can be balanced with the Theory of Invisible Rubber Bands. Quantum Theory can be balanced with the Theory of Elves.
Yes, allowing this crap to be taught will affect others. We're the ones who are going to have to foot the higher tax bill to support these numnuts on welfare because they couldn't be bothered to be taught critical thinking and the scientific process.
Why can't a teacher tell his students that many people believe God created the universe?
Why should someones belief in a supernatural being be included in a science class? If they mention God (a Christion god) why not mention Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, etc? Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testing the natural world.
People have believed in Christ for over 2000 years.
And the Earth has been in existence for what, 4.5 billion years? Besides, what does Christ have to do with it? Christ isn't God (at least not from what I remember of my catechism classes).
Many people believe God created everything, and as people, we're doing our best to describe and measure what he created.
Whoa! Hold on thar pardner. You just made a huge leap of false logic. First you say that many people believe that God created everything yet provide no evidence for this belief. Then you suggest that we are trying to measure what he created. If you haven't provided any evidence to further the claim that God exists how can you say that God created everything?
Also, who says God is a he? Why not a she? Why not an it? A supernatural being able to create matter from nothing most likely doesn't have a gender.
Many people believe in lots of things. Some people even believe they are Jesus. That doesn't mean they are correct.
The NY times article (no reg required) has the following bit which was not in the CNN article:
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.
No election has ever been decided by a single vote.
Er, not totally correct. See this link and this link for how elections have been decided by one vote.
The second link references some items from the first link but adds others to the list. The lists contain elections decided by one vote for things like admittance to the Union and who would become president as well as mayoral and sentorial elections decided by one vote.
We are there...again...because the Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the Cease Fire.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Saddam may have been in violation at one time but he did cave to all the demands. He did let UN inspectors in to inspect any site they wished. In fact, the US gave specific sites to the inspectors to look at because, to quote Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, "we know he has the weapons and we know where they are". Yet amazingly every single site came up empty. Not only did they come up empty but there was no evidence that any time the sites housed any banned weapons programs.
Further, the inspectors were in Iraq checking every site they could get their hands up until the last possible minute until Bush, because no weapons were being found which was throwing a monkey wrench into his plans, forced the issue.
Don't forget also that Saddam did produce a detailed listing of every banned weapons program and what happened to it and 10 minutes after it was presented Rumsfeld was already saying Saddam was lying because, wait for it, "We know he's lying. We know he has the weapons and we know where they are."
This whole nation building exercise, and yes, it is nation building despite Bush saying explicitly that the US would not be involved in nation building, was planned long before he came into office. These plans were laid down years in advance and were dusted off when he came to power. We know this because of documents that have surfaced and from people who were involved in the planning.
So stop the right-wing fantasy claptrap that Saddam was in violation. He wasn't. He did cave, he did provide complete, unfettered access and he did account for every banned program. Just because one puts their fingers in their ears and yells LALALALALALA at the top of their lungs so they don't have to hear the facts doesn't change things.
However, it is not right of you to blame the deaths of the people killed by the insurrection (terrorists) on the US.
It's a perfectly valid point. The people who have died, both Iraqis and US soldiers, would not now be dead if we hadn't invaded their country for political purposes. In fact, if things stay on course, by the end of next year Bush will have been responsible for as many american deaths as Al Qaeda did on 9/11.
For what purpose? None. Despite the billions of US tax dollars being sent down the black hole, despite all the chronyism of Halliburton, despite all the deaths, Iraq will devolve into two, possibly three, constituent parts. The Kurds are already setting up a seperate governmental system and since they have most of the oil supplies in their region of control, they have the resources to back up their separation.
Add in the vendettas by the Shiites and Sunnis and you have a recipe for a nice civil war which will cause more stability.
Don't forget also that the DoD has admitted that our invasion and occupation of Iraq has provided a wonderful training ground for terrorist groups to perfect their attacks.
You can also stop using the word terrorist in quotes as if you're trying to make a point. The overwhelming majority of people doing the bombings and attacks are Iraqis. They're defending their country against the occupation and have evey right to do so. It doesn't matter that you don't agree with their political stance, they are still entitled to defend their country against the occupiers. I suppose if this country were invaded and the folks of the KKK were fighting you'd call them terrorists too.
sales of down-filled parkas skyrocketed in hell, Israel and Palestine agreed to merge and form one country under UN supervision and evangelical christians in the United States, along with the Vatican, admitted that Christmas should more properly be celebrated sometime in the summer.
There are people who follow the original Ten Commandments and there are people who don't. Those who have faith, generally do. Those who have none, generally do not.
Bullshit. I have no faith (i.e. I don't believe in a god) but you don't see me running around having sex with boys, convincing people to give me their life savings, having extra-marital affairs (ok, I'm not married so that doesn't count), murdering my family and so on. I highly doubt you'd find many people who don't have faith who don't follow the underpinnings of the 10 commandments.
Just because one doesn't believe in a god doesn't mean that they don't follow the basic rules. Nor does it follow that people who do have faith follow the rules. Your broad generalization isn't valid.
For the record, all the acts I indicated above were and are being done by people of faith. Not just one faith either.
Re:If they can fix stuff at their end... that's co
on
Google Fixes IE Bug
·
· Score: 2, Funny
So in other words they fixed the glitch. It will work its way out naturally.
Maybe I'm missing something but isn't the whole purpose of Tivo to allow people to skip ads on tv? What would make someone who subscribes to such a service want to search for ads? Wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper to not subscribe to Tivo and use a vcr to record shows?
As I said in a reply to a posting yesterday I don't watch commercials or listen to adverstisements. Anywhere at any time. When a show goes to commercial I'll either go to another channel or if nothing else is on hit the mute button, walk away and go do something else for 2+ minutes. I fast forward through commercials on recorded shows. I turn the volume down when there are commercials on the radio. I don't even see billboards on the road anymore my mind has blocked them out.
If I'm going out of my way to avoid advertisements and commercials what would make these folks think I would want to search for commercials?
Nice to see someone else who ignores ads. I've told various people during similar conversations that I'm an ad agencies worst nightmare. I don't watch commercials on tv (except the Captial One ads. I think they're funny and well put together) and fast forward through them when watching taped shows, don't look at the ad inserts in my sunday paper (grocery store excluded) and ignore ads on the web (don't have AdBlock installed but nor do I have Flash).
If anyone from an agency or store would ever ask why I don't look at advertising:
I know what I want. If I want something, I'll come to you.
So yeah, I agree with your ending. Make good quality, inexpensive (not cheap) products which last a long time and I'll buy your product.
As if to underscore what I said, CNN has this article in which the PTC admits that its primary focus is on sex, not gore. From the article:
Yet the PTC, which frequently files complaints with the Federal Communications Commission about network fare, admits that its focus has primarily been on sex, not gore. One reason is that there's no government agency concerned with these issues, said Melissa Caldwell, the PTC's research director.
The council prefers to steer advertisers away from programming it disapproves of, but hasn't started any campaign against a broadcaster for violent content this season. The closest it came was a protest this month about an episode of CBS' "NCIS" where a stripper had her throat cut, primarily because it was shown before 9 p.m.
Americans "seem to have more of a taste for violence, unfortunately, so it's a little bit more difficult to get people worked up over it," Caldwell said.
Ok, so maybe it's just not the religious right which is driving the current climate of censorship in this country but if you look at who complains to the FCC about supposed indecency on tv you will find that one organization is the driving force. The Parents Television Council.
Take a look at the FCCs website for the statistics of this organization. 99% of all indecency complaints originate from the PTC. In fact, this link shows that 99.8% of all complaints originate from this organization.
Just like the minority christian evangelicals raising the biggest stink about supposed religious harassment/infringement, this organization has the loudest mouth about indecency issues.
If you look at this page from the PTC you can see how many complaints they've filed about tv shows in 2004/2005. Look at some of the shows they've complained about. CSI, Big Brother and NCIS.
While my comment might seem like a troll, as one moderator apparently thinks, the facts seem to support my statement.
Right now, you pay what, $30 for 100 channels or whatever your cable company charges for the package you have.
Right now I pay $45.28 a month for the basic cable service with Comcast, my ONLY choice becasue they refuse to open their lines to competitors despite what the federal law says. While I could go with satellite the cost is essentially the same but I'd have to have a dish hanging off the front communal porch area.
For that price I get way less than 100 channels and only watch on a regular basis, maybe, 15 channels. I'm only including channels which I physically watch or tape a show from. If I happen to see something on a channel I don't normally watch I will watch the show but won't make an effort to come back at a later time. In fact, I have all the shopping, religious and oldies (Hallmark, Game Show, etc) channels plus the local Comcast craptacular channel blocked out of my channel selection because I'll never watch them. When surfing the channels they don't even appear.
Now, if I could pay roughly the same amount for 20 channels that I would watch, I'd be all for it. Just don't make me pay a monthly service fee for the box which will be required to limit me to my choices.
That being said, you are correct that this issue is not about price. It's about the tightening of the screws by the religious right in this country to stamp out anything they consider indecent. After all, we wouldn't want little Jimmy being exposed to temptations of the flesh by seeing a scantily clad woman on tv, now would we?
Instead we'll let him watch WWE where people beat the snot out of each other using chairs and other implements because that's just good ol hometown entertainment.
Wow, Vampire Hunter D. There's a name one doesn't hear too often. I have the tape (yes, tape) of that movie and it is outstanding.
One series I don't hear much about (if ever) is StarBlazers. I have the entire first series and half of the second series on tape. There is a third series but I have never seen it since it was only broadcast in a few markets in the U.S.
Best scene is when they make it Gamolon and go inside and start blasting away at everything that moves. Turn the lights off and turn the volume way up. I can only imagine if one has a really good sound system the whole house would shake!
I keep telling myself I need to get a DVD player so I can watch all three StarBlazers series in their vibrant color and sound effects.
A lot of actors, musicians, business men, etc that seem very public faces were introverts as children and return to introversion when they aren't working.
I'm glad you brought this up. Johnny Carson was such a person. If you ever heard Ed McMahon or any of the handful of people who knew Johnny well, they would all say that Johnny was a very private, introverted person. He had a very small (5 or so?) group of very close friends.
However, if one only knew of The Tonight Show one would think that Johnny was an extrovert. He wasn't.
For a bit of insight where he talks about his shyness, you can read this interview he gave to Mike Wallace of Sixty Minutes back in 1979.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya know, there is that planet called Pern where they did this very thing. Came in very handy when Treadfall was about. A nice side benefit was that the dragons could teleport to almost any place on the planet in an instant.
Would definitely make a dent in the fuel consumption and the waste generated by these beasts could be turned around and burned as fuel itself.
Now if only we could figure out how to manage the mating ritual we'd be in good shape.
No, because the vast majority of games that are beig published don't interest me. In fact, the only reason I have the few games I do have is because I got them as christmas gifts. I don't really care about the games that are out there.
Did you ever try to watch the high-res version of a trailer?
No, because I don't care about most movies. As has been indicated time and again on this site, most movies suck big time. They're boring, trite and sophomoric. How many times do we have to watch a car chase where a car runs into the back of a parked car and miraculously flips over and bursts into flames?
Did you ever try to buy an album online and want to listen to it RIGHT NOW?
No, because like movies the vast majority of music being produced today is crap. Over the weekend I picked up 5 new cds of Boston and Judas Priest which were on sale at a store going out of business. If I can wait 15-20 years to get those albums I can assure you there is nothing on the market today I want to listen to RIGHT NOW.
What is it with people that they think they need something now? Other than air and some form of medical attention there is nothing that one needs right now. When talking to folks on IRC I keep hearing them whine about how long something is taking to download. So instead of doing something else while the file is coming over the wire they'll sit there and moan about how much time they're wasting waiting to get the file.
I know I'm not in the norm around here (or most other places for that matter) but I get the feeling that many of those who say they have ADD don't actually have the affliction but bring it on themselves because they think they need something RIGHT NOW. Like a panic attack. There is nothing physically wrong with the person but because their mind thinks somethings wrong they create their condition.
Chill out folks. This discussion reminds of the people on the road who just have to get one car ahead. They'll weave in and out of traffic, accelerating hard and braking just as hard to save that extra 2 seconds to the exit because they didn't want to drive behind the person who was also taking the exit.
Er, no it doesn't. ID makes no claim other than an unidentified supreme being started the ball rolling. However, ID doesn't even provide evidence to support that such a being exists. It starts by assuming a being does exist. That's not a prediction. That's a statement of fact unsupported by anything.
Further, if one is to believe what ID supporters say, "Things look they were designed", then that is patently false. Just because something looks like it was designed does not mean it was. I submit for your viewing pleasure the underwater rocks of Bimini.
For decades people assumed that they were a road from a long ago civilization. However, once the rocks were tested they were found to be naturally occuring phenomenon.
ID makes no testable predictions. Even the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind this farce, provides no evidence to support their claim. None. All they do is try to point out supposed flaws in evolution, flaws which are repeatedly answered and shown not to be true but they keep spouting the same lies in the hopes the public is too stupid to realize they're lying.
In fact, you do the same thing. You keep saying there are flaws yet provide nothing to support your claim. That's not how the scientific method works. If you think your idea deserves attention you have to provide evidence to support your claim. To date no one, and I mean no one, has ever provided any evidence to support ID. They immediately turn around and say, "Well evolution doesn't provide evidence for 'X'" where X is whatever the flaw of the week is. Trying to poke holes in a current theory does not make your claim valid.
ID isn't science. Get over it.
You're a bit off in your prediction. You should have looked in the past.
Heh heh. Of course we'd be friends. Don't let my sig fool you. I like a good debate so long as one or both of us don't become so intransigent that neither wants to hear what the other says. I like to say that I'm very open minded with firm opinions.
Here's a question I'll leave you with which should give you that 'empty mind' feeling that buddhism tries to teach. If the everything in the universe is expanding outwards, what is it expanding into? Another way of phrasing the question might be, if everything in the universe started as a ball of matter, what was the matter sitting in before the Big Bang?
Take care.
I'm certainly not going to flame you. At least you provided some evidence to support your claim. What's interesting about Gen 1:26 is the phrasing:
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness' "
Does that mean that there is more than one God or that God was talking to the angels and other higher beings? Having reread the portions of Genesis before 1:26 no mention is made of any other god or being.
This is more a rhetorical question so don't feel obligated to answer. Having had catechism oh so many years ago we went over this part but as far as I know no one has come to a definitive answer.
However, another issue arises from your second part. If God is a man, how would he know how to make a woman? He would have no basis for how she should be constructed. Ok, he's omnipotent.
As far as the faith thing goes, I follow, above all, the Golden Rule. If my not going around stomping on kittens and puppies or raping 90 year old women isn't good enough, tough. If there is a god I'm more than willing to defend my actions and suffer whatever the consequences. Just like in real life I admit my mistakes and take my lumps.
Yes, it does affect others. By teaching kids that a religious precept has equal footing as a scientific theory you're short-circuiting the whole concept of what learning is about.
Religion deals with unquestioning, untestable, unknowable belief in a supernatural being. If you say that a supernatural being can do X then why bother experimenting to find out why Y happens? Why bother to keep developing new vaccines? Just let the being take care of it.
Besides, if we're going to say that this theory must be balanced (to use the words of some of the former Dover board members) then why not balance every theory with something else? The Theory of Gravity or General Relativity can be balanced with the Theory of Invisible Rubber Bands. Quantum Theory can be balanced with the Theory of Elves.
Yes, allowing this crap to be taught will affect others. We're the ones who are going to have to foot the higher tax bill to support these numnuts on welfare because they couldn't be bothered to be taught critical thinking and the scientific process.
Why should someones belief in a supernatural being be included in a science class? If they mention God (a Christion god) why not mention Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, etc? Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testing the natural world.
People have believed in Christ for over 2000 years.
And the Earth has been in existence for what, 4.5 billion years? Besides, what does Christ have to do with it? Christ isn't God (at least not from what I remember of my catechism classes).
Many people believe God created everything, and as people, we're doing our best to describe and measure what he created.
Whoa! Hold on thar pardner. You just made a huge leap of false logic. First you say that many people believe that God created everything yet provide no evidence for this belief. Then you suggest that we are trying to measure what he created. If you haven't provided any evidence to further the claim that God exists how can you say that God created everything?
Also, who says God is a he? Why not a she? Why not an it? A supernatural being able to create matter from nothing most likely doesn't have a gender.
Many people believe in lots of things. Some people even believe they are Jesus. That doesn't mean they are correct.
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.
The link to the NY Times article
Er, not totally correct. See this link and this link for how elections have been decided by one vote.
The second link references some items from the first link but adds others to the list. The lists contain elections decided by one vote for things like admittance to the Union and who would become president as well as mayoral and sentorial elections decided by one vote.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Saddam may have been in violation at one time but he did cave to all the demands. He did let UN inspectors in to inspect any site they wished. In fact, the US gave specific sites to the inspectors to look at because, to quote Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, "we know he has the weapons and we know where they are". Yet amazingly every single site came up empty. Not only did they come up empty but there was no evidence that any time the sites housed any banned weapons programs.
Further, the inspectors were in Iraq checking every site they could get their hands up until the last possible minute until Bush, because no weapons were being found which was throwing a monkey wrench into his plans, forced the issue.
Don't forget also that Saddam did produce a detailed listing of every banned weapons program and what happened to it and 10 minutes after it was presented Rumsfeld was already saying Saddam was lying because, wait for it, "We know he's lying. We know he has the weapons and we know where they are."
This whole nation building exercise, and yes, it is nation building despite Bush saying explicitly that the US would not be involved in nation building, was planned long before he came into office. These plans were laid down years in advance and were dusted off when he came to power. We know this because of documents that have surfaced and from people who were involved in the planning.
So stop the right-wing fantasy claptrap that Saddam was in violation. He wasn't. He did cave, he did provide complete, unfettered access and he did account for every banned program. Just because one puts their fingers in their ears and yells LALALALALALA at the top of their lungs so they don't have to hear the facts doesn't change things.
However, it is not right of you to blame the deaths of the people killed by the insurrection (terrorists) on the US.
It's a perfectly valid point. The people who have died, both Iraqis and US soldiers, would not now be dead if we hadn't invaded their country for political purposes. In fact, if things stay on course, by the end of next year Bush will have been responsible for as many american deaths as Al Qaeda did on 9/11.
For what purpose? None. Despite the billions of US tax dollars being sent down the black hole, despite all the chronyism of Halliburton, despite all the deaths, Iraq will devolve into two, possibly three, constituent parts. The Kurds are already setting up a seperate governmental system and since they have most of the oil supplies in their region of control, they have the resources to back up their separation.
Add in the vendettas by the Shiites and Sunnis and you have a recipe for a nice civil war which will cause more stability.
Don't forget also that the DoD has admitted that our invasion and occupation of Iraq has provided a wonderful training ground for terrorist groups to perfect their attacks.
You can also stop using the word terrorist in quotes as if you're trying to make a point. The overwhelming majority of people doing the bombings and attacks are Iraqis. They're defending their country against the occupation and have evey right to do so. It doesn't matter that you don't agree with their political stance, they are still entitled to defend their country against the occupiers. I suppose if this country were invaded and the folks of the KKK were fighting you'd call them terrorists too.
so I can enjoy all the freedom they have over there.
You know, to be free from a ruler who spies on its people, imprisons them without trial and tortures them.
sales of down-filled parkas skyrocketed in hell, Israel and Palestine agreed to merge and form one country under UN supervision and evangelical christians in the United States, along with the Vatican, admitted that Christmas should more properly be celebrated sometime in the summer.
will the acrylic melt if he uses the drive in his server and posts the link to Slashdot?
Bullshit. I have no faith (i.e. I don't believe in a god) but you don't see me running around having sex with boys, convincing people to give me their life savings, having extra-marital affairs (ok, I'm not married so that doesn't count), murdering my family and so on. I highly doubt you'd find many people who don't have faith who don't follow the underpinnings of the 10 commandments.
Just because one doesn't believe in a god doesn't mean that they don't follow the basic rules. Nor does it follow that people who do have faith follow the rules. Your broad generalization isn't valid.
For the record, all the acts I indicated above were and are being done by people of faith. Not just one faith either.
So in other words they fixed the glitch. It will work its way out naturally.
The problem is solved from your end.
Maybe I'm missing something but isn't the whole purpose of Tivo to allow people to skip ads on tv? What would make someone who subscribes to such a service want to search for ads? Wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper to not subscribe to Tivo and use a vcr to record shows?
As I said in a reply to a posting yesterday I don't watch commercials or listen to adverstisements. Anywhere at any time. When a show goes to commercial I'll either go to another channel or if nothing else is on hit the mute button, walk away and go do something else for 2+ minutes. I fast forward through commercials on recorded shows. I turn the volume down when there are commercials on the radio. I don't even see billboards on the road anymore my mind has blocked them out.
If I'm going out of my way to avoid advertisements and commercials what would make these folks think I would want to search for commercials?
If anyone from an agency or store would ever ask why I don't look at advertising:
So yeah, I agree with your ending. Make good quality, inexpensive (not cheap) products which last a long time and I'll buy your product.
Where is the moderation for "Holy Shit! I'm converted!"
I agree with the poster above me. The Christian religion needs more Christians like you.
Take a look at the FCCs website for the statistics of this organization. 99% of all indecency complaints originate from the PTC. In fact, this link shows that 99.8% of all complaints originate from this organization.
Just like the minority christian evangelicals raising the biggest stink about supposed religious harassment/infringement, this organization has the loudest mouth about indecency issues.
If you look at this page from the PTC you can see how many complaints they've filed about tv shows in 2004/2005. Look at some of the shows they've complained about. CSI, Big Brother and NCIS.
While my comment might seem like a troll, as one moderator apparently thinks, the facts seem to support my statement.
Right now I pay $45.28 a month for the basic cable service with Comcast, my ONLY choice becasue they refuse to open their lines to competitors despite what the federal law says. While I could go with satellite the cost is essentially the same but I'd have to have a dish hanging off the front communal porch area.
For that price I get way less than 100 channels and only watch on a regular basis, maybe, 15 channels. I'm only including channels which I physically watch or tape a show from. If I happen to see something on a channel I don't normally watch I will watch the show but won't make an effort to come back at a later time. In fact, I have all the shopping, religious and oldies (Hallmark, Game Show, etc) channels plus the local Comcast craptacular channel blocked out of my channel selection because I'll never watch them. When surfing the channels they don't even appear.
Now, if I could pay roughly the same amount for 20 channels that I would watch, I'd be all for it. Just don't make me pay a monthly service fee for the box which will be required to limit me to my choices.
That being said, you are correct that this issue is not about price. It's about the tightening of the screws by the religious right in this country to stamp out anything they consider indecent. After all, we wouldn't want little Jimmy being exposed to temptations of the flesh by seeing a scantily clad woman on tv, now would we?
Instead we'll let him watch WWE where people beat the snot out of each other using chairs and other implements because that's just good ol hometown entertainment.
Wow, Vampire Hunter D. There's a name one doesn't hear too often. I have the tape (yes, tape) of that movie and it is outstanding.
One series I don't hear much about (if ever) is StarBlazers. I have the entire first series and half of the second series on tape. There is a third series but I have never seen it since it was only broadcast in a few markets in the U.S.
Best scene is when they make it Gamolon and go inside and start blasting away at everything that moves. Turn the lights off and turn the volume way up. I can only imagine if one has a really good sound system the whole house would shake!
I keep telling myself I need to get a DVD player so I can watch all three StarBlazers series in their vibrant color and sound effects.
*sigh* Just too cheap to do so right now.
I'm glad you brought this up. Johnny Carson was such a person. If you ever heard Ed McMahon or any of the handful of people who knew Johnny well, they would all say that Johnny was a very private, introverted person. He had a very small (5 or so?) group of very close friends.
However, if one only knew of The Tonight Show one would think that Johnny was an extrovert. He wasn't.
For a bit of insight where he talks about his shyness, you can read this interview he gave to Mike Wallace of Sixty Minutes back in 1979.
I know I've thrown out the following quote before when stories such as this previously came out but it bears repeating:
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.