OCAC

Where is the bible does it say God is black and white? No, I know, God is not black and white. The concept of black and white is a gnostic concept introduced into Christianity in the 2nd century and has always been seen as a heresy. You wild20 are a heretic in believing that God is simply white. That there was a good creator god and an evil tempter. Christianity has fought against people like you for nearly 2000 years, and it is a pity, that people like you have not let go of their false, inhuman, ungodly and unbiblical ways. You still call yourself a Christian but you are a heathen. Sorry. You have the faith of a heathen and you read the bible like heretic. Picking what you like. You can quote the bible at me at your leisure, and yes there is a lot of "children of the light" in there. But that does not take away the fact that God is more understanding and not a black and white thinker. Of course I cannot serve both, I can only serve god, but that does not mean I cannot make mistakes. I make mistakes every day. But God gave me the confidence, to come back to him and ask him for forgiveness. He allowed me to glimpse his grace and ask my neighbor for forgiveness. He told me to be kind to my sister and try and understand and not judge them by my rules, only seeing their splinter, but by listening, standing in the back of the church not at the front where the hypocrites live, that believe they have to interfere in something that is not their business. You see, even when I am saved, I can still drown and be saved again and drown and be saved and drown and be saved. My faith gives me the hope that I will be saved again, and again. I live in hope that God is my judge and not you. btw. is jealousy good or bad? P.S I notice you are still a pacifist and are still against the death penalty and are on the street every week, twice to demonstrate for your believes.

I am glad wild20 you are against the death penalty and a pacifist. there is at least something we can agree on. And no, the world is not black and white. there are lots of different colours and and even black is not always black (see how you can print black in RGB and in CYMK, ask any printer... What I am trying to say here is, that yes, you can abstract every problem down to a theoretical level and say, don't lie, don't break the speed limit, don;t tax dodge, don;t , don;'t don't live is not that simple. Live has the tendency to interfere and throw up things that are unexpected, and then you have to deal with them and individual life is never black and white. It would be nice for all problems to be black an white. but they are not. All problems have their individual histories. therefore they are usually black and white for those that are not involved. And here, I am sorry to say that, but since you are a man, you are not involved. Therefore it is easy for you to say, it is black and white. I am looking for an example, from your life, where, I don;t know, you go shopping and the cashier forgets to scan one item. not much just a couple of bucks. you are in a hurry and your mother is waiting in the car outside, you are on your way to somewhere and you don;t want to miss the ferry, there is a huge que and anyway you only notice on the way out, that hey, you got a better deal here. are you with me? I hope you go back and miss the last ferry and are stuck on the island for another week with your mother, father and three younger sisters all mad at you because you behaved white. I honestly hope so. This example seems obscure, but live is never black and white. If it were black and white, what is the point? You might think, why is OCAC bringing up such a strange example, when we are discussing live and death. Well, because life and death decisions are only easy for those that think in black and white. I have a problem with killing people, because I don't think in black and white. I don;t like abortions because it harms a potentially beautiful creature. But I am not the mother of that child. I cannot make the decision. I have no power to make that woman stop, not wanting to bear out. Nor should the law. Nor should human law, make that woman do something that is against her interest. The law is made to support, the law is a servant of the people. Remember, there are two lives involved. And in forbidding abortion you are putting the life of one person against the life of another person. It might not always be a life and death situation for the mother in a physical sense, but if for her abortion is really the only option, then her life is in danger. Why do you - on principle - always side against the mother? Mothers are supposed to know best. Aren't they? So, why is it not possible to trust them here. To support them with a really difficult decision? Coming back to black and white. I think black and white thinking is very dangerous. and the story in Mark I quoted earlier is supporting that as well. But also, look at the Peter, Maybe you say the only real Peter is the one after Pentecost, well, I would dispute that. He is a very shady character, with lots of very interesting aspects to his life and his ministry. It was not all black and cockerel in his life. I don;t know if we can resolve this discussion, but what I want to say is: Luk 6:37

Sorry have been missing out on the fun, wild20 - I have to say as a Christian I am concerned about God's will, and I have to justify the choices I make before God. Not all choices I make are easy once some are difficult, like going to war or putting my life on the line to save a drowning child. In those cases I make a choice that endanger MY life, and maybe that of someone else (I might not have had a very good swim training and the person drowns, because I am crap at swimming.) But I made the choice, God gave me the free will to jump into that lake risk my life. Now the person dies because of my action, yet I survive. How do I cope with that? I caused that persons death. What I am saying here, being human means making choices, being a person of faith means making these choice before God, responsible before his judgment. Yes, I know the verse in Exodus, but you also know Mark 2, 23?28? Jesus overcame the law. Laws are not made to take away your responsibility. You cannot hide behind the law in your decision. You cannot say: Oh, I am not allowed to kill so maybe, I better not get involved. No, the law is a guidance to you. How you behave is up to you. It is your RESPONSIBILITY. You can ignore the law and you can act against the law, if the law is stupid, but you are issued by God with a brain and with feeling, and compassion and all sorts of other emotions and rationals. You cannot hide behind the law. Being a sinner, and all of us are sinner, means, we make choices, and we make right choices, and we make wrong choices. But being a Christian means, we can come with all our choices to God and request, hope, pray for his forgiveness. Now some of these choices are made for us, we find ourselves in that situation and have to cope maybe radical with it in our own interest. Sorry, for being all so theoretical, but I want to show you the complexity of this issue. You cannot hide behind the law. The law protects, yes, but it is YOU - the person that is the only one that can make the decision, the only one responsible, the only one capable of making the choice, the only one that has the duty and RIGHt and therefore also the responsibility to make the decision. And sometimes that decision has to be against the law. Sometimes this means the woman has to abort. Like the Boston Tea-party was against the law, but we are rightly proud of it. I don't want to soften the "You shall not kill". I only want to give you a dimension to the problem, that shows, the world is not Black and White. But living in a world of sin, but being in a state of grace, means responsibility for all our actions, even if this action is the termination of a lump of cells.

Sorry Wild20, but you are male aren;t you? You will never have to make the choice. Your sister might, your daughter might, your mother might have been in that situation. But if you are male, you don;t have to make this choice. So how can you even start to understand what people go through, when they consider abortion or when they are raped? You say: And I say: No, there are not. Yes, in an ideal world, there would be options. But we don;t live in an ideal world. Why was the woman raped in the first place? Stop all rape and then you might stop all abortions. What do you know about the guilt that a raped person has? the way of feeling dirty because there has been a violation by an abnormal bastrrrtt? and then keep it? alive? For nine month? Every day being reminded of this atrocious act of destruction? Every single day during pregnancy? Why do you want to punish this woman again? What gives you the right to punish this woman again? What makes it right to torture this woman again? What makes it right? Every single death is atrocious. And every single death should be prevented. But every day millions of people die. Willingly and unwillingly. - in car accidents, on elevators, on kitchen stairs. Those people are robbed of their potential - the scars they leave behind are countless. In an abortion the choice is the well being of the mother against her suffering. I want to console these woman. That they make a choice for life. Their life, yes, a destruction of another life, maybe. But they have to retain the possibility to make a choice for their life either way. I hope you will understand that that can be something positive as well. to sumarise: Pro Choice does not mean abortion, pro choice means - giving a choice. there are different levels of leading a miserable life. You can be content with your life circumstance and still lead an objectively miserable life. You might want to change your life, but after working 12 hours a day you just don;t have the physical ability to work your forth job. Going to church on Sunday will not give you a job - it might, but all to often it does not, don't give up hope though. I know that God has a plan for my life, too. I don;t simply believe this. But because I know of this I also know that I have to be caring of my neighbor. And caring for my neighbor means looking after them and giving them the possibility to have a protected life. To grow and to make the right decision - under guidance - for themselves. Now these decisions are decisions THEY have to make for themselves - and before God, I have to help them make these decision. When I talk - I have to see, what is best for this person I talk to. How strong is she. What are her circumstances? How does she cope with life? What does it mean for her to be pregnant? What are her plans for the future? When we talk we can find out these things. We hear her position and we hear her feelings. Some of these feelings can be encouraged. Feelings of strength, feelings of trust, feelings of joy, feelings of expectations. But sometimes there are feelings of doom, of destruction, of unhappiness, of harm. persistent. What do you do? Guilt does not end with adoption.

Lets take this apart... This implies that baptism is an act solely done with and for the person being baptised. This ignores the fact that religious rituals, of which the baptism is one. HAve a meaning not just for the person immediately involved, but also for the relatives - parents. Very often a religious ceremony like a funeral is for those left behind and not simply for the person gone, or just born.This also ignores the fact that IN a religious ceremony a religious act takes place. God accepts the Child and the parents celebrate this. God takes the dead person into heaven and the relatives celebrate this. Consent: Tricky. Did you consent to the fact that you were born? Or died? That you are white or happy, that you are born in a slum in Washington DC, that you have red hair, or black, or none? What did you do, when your parents took you to the football game each weekend. Did you become a sport superstar, or did you hate it? Who chose your kindergarden and your primary school? I cannot see anything negative about taking something for granted - apart from the fact that lack of education is to be lamented and reveals a lack of curiosity and interest. Now here I would strickly disgree. See my first point. Something does not loos value simply because the people involved don't know what they are doing. It might lose value FOR THEM. But that does not mean it looses value overall. I am also wary of the use of the term values here, but more to that later. Now this seem to be rather strange. The fact that you don;t know about something and have no relationship too - which the writer implies - makes more opposed against something else. If you don't know anything about what you are for, how does that make you more opposed? You either do know about what was forced on you, and the argument falls apart, or you don't know about what was forced on you, which makes it impossible for you to distinguis the other belief from the one forced on you, apart from the label attached. Example: You don't know that as a Christian you belief in the resurrection of Christ. Now a Muslim comes along and says, Jesus did not resurect, but he ascended straight into heaven. How are you to argue this, if you don't know anything about the Koran, the Bible, the Christian tradition? The only thing you can say is. He is a Muslim - he is wrong, but why you don't know, because of your lack of education. If you were educated, you could say: "Yes, I know the Koran claims that Jesus did not die on the Cross. But I believe the account as it is being described in the Bible. Jesus did die on the Cross. We have to agree to disagree here. Moreover I believe the greater importance of the Bible over the Koran and I cannot accept this interpretation of Jesus suffering simply because it is what the Koran says. It has a relevancy to me on the following........ What do you think about that?...... Aha.... Very interesting .... Hmm.... Good.... Still.... Thank you I learnd a lot about your faith and I hope you too." Well I sort of agree with the poster here. Of course it would be good if a cognitive decision was a the start of all religious life. But it hardly ever is. I don't know anybody that said, My intellect says I have to become a Muslim, my reflection over the last ten years made me realise that only Krishna shows me the only true path, having learned about all world religions, compared their human right records, their attitude towards woman, drugs and spirituality, I have come to the conclusion that only as a Rastafarin I will truely become on with the Universe. You see conversion does not work that way. You want to marry someone and her family makes you convert to their religion becasue that is what they want and you are alright about it. You go to a service and suddenly a feeling overcomes you that makes you feel relaxed, elated and joyous at the same time. And everytime you pray you have the feeling that your actions are not futile, but are carried not by you, but by your God. That is more like how conversions take place. They are not rational decision but emotional ones. That does not mean that religion is only emotional and cannot be rational - far from it. But very often religious pracice need emotion to manifest itself. Now the writer is rejecting being born into a religion. I simply cannot agree with him on that. In my opinion he oversimplyfies the complexities that is religious life, the social aspects and the cultural traditions that are important to ones identity.

I think there is a lot of confusion about AI. Originally it simply meant: reasoned conclusion of facts by an non-living entitiy. like a computer. Something that is created by humans, and but which either gathers its information by itself or starts with some given information, but can interact with humans in a way that give the impression of intelligence and understanding. Important here is the word impression of. The "oldest" test is the so called Turing test - from the Scott who developed one of the first computers - he programmed something called Elsa, that could ask you questions like -how are you and would react to the answers in a seemingly coherent way. This method is still being used. Can a machine fool a human into assuming it is a human? Another big example is of course Chess. One of the most famous battles - Kasparov vs. Deep Blue was of human against machines, the computer making seemingly intelligent moves and winning in the end. The problem with intelligence is of course, is there a consciousness of the intelligence and can the intelligence be used in a different situation. f.e Kasparov could probably beat Deep Blue right after that match in a game of Backgammon, because the computer is not programmed to play backgammon. And even though Kasparov is not an expert, he would probably have enough basic intelligence to play decent enough to beat the computer. Equally there was a race of computerised cars in Palo Alto, California. They raced for more than 200 miles without human interaction. This is another example of artifical intelligence. But again, how good would this car be at playing chess. You might think that is a stupid question, but untill computer can a)programme themselves, b ) build themselves c) build the machines that are necessary to build themselves d)learn from mistakes (ok not all human can do that either) e)ignore unimportant side information. There is no way we will be replaced by a single machine in the near future. Some AI that is supposed to make our life easier is in my thinking downright annoying. Clippy, the magic helper in Microsoft Word is another example of AI gone totally wrong. If I need help I tell you that I need help. <pling> I think you are writing a letter</pling> NOOOO! <pling> I think you want to insert the date here</pling> GO AWAY. hope this helps

Even if there is no dustbin around. It is you litter, it is your responsibility. You cause it, you clean it up. I am disgusted by people that do not show respect for the other and just drop things because the servants will come and clean it up afterwards. oh I paid good money for it, so s/he can do it. NO. You throw it, you pick it up. It is simple a disrepect towards the neigbour, towards the environment, towards nature, in just tipping things where ever one wants. I think you rant is highly justified and these people are disgusting. All of you that just drop things and don't pick it up. Having said that. Of course you can make money out of other people respectlessness and untiydiness, that does not mean they shoul treat you disrespectful. The advantage of Communisim was that the rubbish collector earned as much as the doctor, because both jobs are necessary to be done for society to run smoothly. and we would quite literally die if either of these jobs would not be done. So, show some respect people. don't fly tip, pick up your rubbish and return the superflous packaging to the manufactory where it belongs - you would do all of us a big favour.

plenty of folks with similar characertistics here, you will feel at home! Bonjour

just my two pennies worth.Fact one.Abortions happen.Fact two.not all pregancies are wanted.about fact one. a:do you know how many abortion go on every day? well it is probably more than you think, because the human body aborts by itself, without human intervention. sometimes this can be saved, sometimes, the woman does not even notice. and yes, that is technically an abortion, because the impreganted egg, had grown and had started to develop, but the body said, hang on a moment, there is something not right in this gene sequence, lets cut it loose. and off you go. How do you want to prevent this? Forcefeeding Thalidomid?b:Rich women will always abort, poor women will always abort. rich women don't die when they have an abortion, poor women die when they have an abortion. Why? Because rich women, can fly to Mexico, or get the best doctors money can buy. Poor women havn't got this luxury, so they go to the quacks, use a coat hanger, harm themselves. You won't stop them, neither the rich nor the poor. Fact two.Yes, it was a joy to hold my babys in my arms. but women get raped, by their husbands or by strangers, not all women and men are educated about how one gets pregnant, they think it will not happen outside marriage, and suddenly they are pregnant and 14. so what do you do? give people a save environment! No rape, plenty of education and free condoms, free contraceptive pill and morning after pill and free abortion - to rich and poor alike.the first is the prevention of unwanted pregnancies for all the reasons. and the second is the saving of the mothers life.Having said all that, yes, abortion is the interruption of a potential development of life and it is a sad and tragic decision that No-one wants to make. No-one. No-one. But unlike most of us, some woman are confronted with a situation they cannot cope with, what ever the reasons, so they need loving support and the possibility to make a choice. A choice what is best for them, their future, their baby and sometimes this choice is very difficult and goes against the baby. sometimes this choice is very difficult and a baby is born. which ever way. it is the womans choice. not her fathers, not her husbands, not the father of the baby, not her minister, not the popes, not the judges, not the press. It is that womans body that bears. It is hers. That's why it is pro-choice. woman make a choice for life. It is their responsibility and it is a difficult one. You should support them in their strife for life. Honestly. It is rewarding.

Are you playing around with the format setting of the normal template? anyway word always has a mind of its own, it thinks it knows what to do. Hope you get it solved, without loosing to much sweat.

In your introduction choose one example incident or story that will really hold your argument.Don't preempt anything from the opposing side, don;t assume their reasons in debate, hear what they say. listen carefully. A good debater, knows what the opponents said and can quote it back at them. therefore use their arguments against them. show how ridicules they are when followed to their logical conclusion.be short and sweet, but calm and convincing.Plan you summary with one or two of your original points but with an additional punchline.

good starting points, you can always think what the arguments of the opposing side might be and try to think of good counter arguments that are based on your original arguments. three or four key reasons are usually sufficient. Don;t try to have to many. Nobody will remember them all. Try to come up with a snappy phrase for your replies. something like: Those stuck in the past can stay - there I go into the future. Just shorter and snappier (-:

the fact that everybody uses it does not make it the best operating system. Millions of flies fly around cow *BLEEP*, that does not make it a delicacy, or does it?

Could you please name one, that is more important than the leader of the free world, the preznit, George Walker Bush? Seriously, who do you think is in charge? I agree with you that Iraq has a very, extremely rich history, which is worth studying. Hmm, you are linking to a site, that does not say he is a terrorist. I don;t disagree, he was an evil man, that did lots of evil things, and I am glad he is no longer in the position of power. I am just describing that all the good boys are good boys as long as they fight on the side of the US, like Usama Bin laden, when he CIA trained, fought the good fight against the evil Russians in Afganistan in the 80ies. I have no opinion on Kurdistan only that I hope that they can live in peace with their neighbours, be it in Turkey, Iraq, Iran or in any other country, Germany f.e Yes it is over. Since 1 May 2003, major mission operations stopped and since June 2004, there is an Iraqi government, on which invitation the US Army and the Coalition of the willing is in the country and fights and gets killed, by insurgents, Baathists, Iranian, criminals, accidents, friendly fire and other means. Where do I know this from? my memory, but here is a link or use http://forums.xisto.com/ for the explanation of the periods they are using sure, just won some, didn;t I? I am not saying thee is no fighting, I am saying that the "legal status has changed, and we are now post war in Iraq. Sadly the fighting has not stopped. But again it is the Aerican incompetence, that provided a major boost to the instability. It is now widely accepted that the firing of the army and the police was a major mistake, especially since they are now having to rehire exactly those people the fired. two years, two frustrating years later. our friendly Uzbek president, who like to boil people alive. as a link Why did they went in without thinking? Why, Why Why? Please answer. Bush cannot give a decent answer to this. Maybe you can help. Doing lot of things differently? Like what? Just go to Saddam and ask "could you please be a little nicer, I don't like the way you rule the country now". I don;t know, but certainly not what Bush did. Why did he have to lie to the world to start a war? He claimed there are weapons of mass destructions an when the world did not follow him and his poodle Blair, he stomped on on his own. Where is the coalition that was so grand in going into Afganistan, where there some sort of reason? They realized, that Bush just made up reasons, and that is just not legal. Bush did it ayway. He and his whole government don't care about the law anyway (look at Frist) Anyway. Some food for thought. Notice from rejected: Adjusted credits, fixed quote tags. The quote tags won't work if you have more than 10.

You remember the story a couple of years back where a war ship had to be towed into harbor to reset the computer. The Operating system you ask? Blue screen wonder. Microsoft

I still like you, I simply disagree with what you say. that is a different thing, I hope you appreciate the difference.

No, of course, Bush is not fighting. He went Absent WithOut Leave, when it was his duty to serve his country. Sorry, but as the head of the executive, he might not be able to do everything he wants, because there are those things that are called laws. That does not mean however, he could not have done all those things he did do, and more importantly he is RESPONSIBLE for the things that happen in the name of the US-Government. and that includes - going to war. So tell me whose idea was it then? And who gave the order to go to war. It might not have been originally his idea, but he signed the order, making it his idea and his RESPONSIBILITY. Who apart from the president of the United States can order the american troops to go and fight? I am not sure where you go that idea from but Bagdad, which is at the centre of Irak is, where the old culture is and actually it is spread out throughout the whole country, and if you look at the behavior of the American troops in Bagdad, once it fell, shows very clearly, that there was no interest in the old culture (have you heard of all the looted ancient artefacts? and why were there only guards at the oil ministry?) The other thing is. Who sold the weapons to Sadam Hussain? Donald Rumsfeld. Who trained Sadam Hussain back in the 50ies. The CIA. He was OUR baby, till the US government got bored of him. There are at this point in time more brutal dictators out there than Sadam Hussain. (boiling people. f.e) Why is the US army not invading that country? I don;t now any bush haters, I only know concerned citizens, that want their country back from the locust and exploiters, from the selfish suckers that are governing and are RESPONSIBLE for the mess the US is in. I don;t know where you got your "knowledge" from but it can't be based in reality. Maybe you should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and the bullies on your playground and open your eyes. Which war are you talking about? The war in IRAQ is over. OVER. since about two years. Did you know that? I bet you did not. I also bet you thought that Sadam Hussain was responsible for 9/11. Oh my, oh my. Well, yes, the country has no stable government, but they do have a government, they do have laws there already as well. I actually agree that the american troops should stay in IRAQ, but they should not make an half arsed attempt, as they do in the moment. They have to double the troop level to achieve control and be peace guards; what you want them to achieve, and that is stability. But you see, Bush would never agree to that, because it would be political suicide. If he really cared about the Iraqi people, he would have done a lot of things differently (he and his government that is, but since he is the pResident. It is his RESPONSIBILTY)

The reason you might not have heard of it might be, because it is a German email provider so in order to register you have to have a minimum of some german - and you will also need a "German" address. The advantage of GMX is that is has 1GB storage, good image sharing facilities. IMAP can be bought, it has POP3 and SMTP as a standard. They have a very good security record as well as a very good SPAM filter. So I can recommend it. To answer the overall question. I have upwards of 9 email addresses.... one personal my family website, a private one, and two addresses for junk registrations, that no "real" person uses. One for my university, one for my blog and my three hosted websites, have plenty of email addresses, i also used to have a hotmail account, but hardly used it, gmail I have, yahoo I need, but don;t use....

Sorry, Ryo, I must have miss understood you, which unfortunately happens very easily on the Interwebs. Keep on fighting the good fight! oh, it is. environmental issues do relate back to bad policy decisions and George Bush has done some very bad decision towards the environment, since he got into office. I just want to make clear that the disdain I have against Bush is back up by observations from the real world. That's how the environment creeps in. I as much as the next person likes a good ad hominem outburst, but the rational in me, does want to support this by actual facts.

are you threatening me? Well, you might call me an environmentalist, and maybe I am one. It is a pity that you don't seem to be able to see the worries that I have and that you lack the compassion to feel anything for the next person. You say that the car manufacturers are throwing away the designs that would produce lower emission cars. And you blame OPEC for it. I think you are messing up your enemies here. It is the car manufacturers, in their infinite wisdom and people like YOU that support them in buying overmotorised cars and therefore don;t realize what catastrophic consequences their individual action have - where the blame lies. and then we are back with George Bush. His Government reduces the regulation for environmental standards in all sorts of sectors. did you know that without Nader there would be no seat belts in American cars? Do you know how many lives that has saved? I am not against progress, in-fact my wife works in an industry that might save us. That does not mean that we all, have to change our individual ways if we want to make any sot of impact. But some people are to blind, that it will hit them over the head so strong, when their children have Asthma or general breathing problems or their house is being trashed because the see-level are rising due to the melting polar caps. It is now well established - when reading science and not faith base literature, a place where you get your info from seemingly - that global warming is a fact. Yes, there might be cyclical alterations. but if you look at the changes over the last couple of million years, you notice that those cyclical changes have never happened so quickly. I pray, that we will have a lucky escape, but I rather work, that it is not luck but human achievement, that saves us. Not limiting our consumption will lead to us having to rely on luck and on Bush, who first says we are going to Mars in 2020 and now we are back onto the moon. What is this mythical place you want to go to? As I said before In 2050 we will have run out of OIL. Our whole industry is base on oil consumption. And that we are out of Oil you cannot blame on OPEC or Venezuela. Blame it on the earth - that it fails to provide us with the natural resources we need. I don;t know you, I don;'t know your background, I don;t know your experience with tree-huggers. Yes, they are removed, but you are further removed. Because they are harmless. you however, seem to go off on tangents when I only slightly touch on a matter that concerns you. Get a live. Save energy and be happy.

Oh, yes I blame the environmentalist for all the smog and destruction of wild live and the asbestos and the environmental damage due to insufficient filters and the poisoning of our rivers and the sealing of our landscape with roads and the killing of hundred species every day. It is the environmentalists fault that hurricanes are getting more frequent and more severe. It it the tree huggers fault that the polar caps are melting. It is THEIR fault, that we will run out of OIL in 2050 since world consumption will rise and there are only limited oil resources. It is NOT my fault and can only complain that they are trying to make the world of MY grandchildren more liveable. WHAT do I care about my Grandchildren? They are not even born yet? And what do I care anyway? I sit in my air-conditioned car and spit on them - well I have to open the window for that one, but that little bit of finger wiggling will be manageable.

I don't think anybody blamed him for the oil price, actually I think it should rise at least to $10 - to properly reflect the real cost of our oil consumption. But that is just my humble opinion. No, Bush is not responsible for the fact that we are reaching a level of oil consumption where we will run out of oil pretty soon (Peak Oil anybody) and of course he does his best, afterall he invaded Iraq just to make sure you can fill your H1. No, we are criticizing him for doing a botch job at that. (as well). He only sent in so few of the finest this country has to offer that Iraq is now controlled by the Iranians. He did a fine job at that, which means instead of gaining greater independence and securing more oil for the US, he actually managed to give the worst enemies in the Axis of Evil control over the US futures. He is an utter failure, not even Kerry could have messed it up THIS bad.

The hottest placce I have ver been to was wait for ita Sauna. he temperature was 90 degree celsius. Very nice, But i can only bear i for 15 minutes.but to be serious. Burkina Faso - The Sahara desert. That was hot. Very hot indeed. We spend all day in the shade, drinking lots of water.

I have my computer on most times, but only if it needs to do something, otherwise I switch it off and use energy saving settings. And with regard to energy saving, I read a statistic once, that if a population of 4 million households would not use their stand-by buttons on televisions and video recorders, it would put one nuclear power-station out of businessIt is not just the individual energy we consume, it is also what the combined effect does to the environment.So, switch off early and often. It does not harm the computer either way, but it will make the live of your grandchild, that more bearable.

well it is not strictly necessary, but it is kind to your users. you can always go the Windows route and ignore the rest, fit in or miss out. On the other hand if you want as many people to see your product, provide either different versions, or provide codecs and programms so that it can be watched on different platforms. However as had been said earlier, if you go with either wmv or mov you will be fairly save, as most people will have the player for those format. offering them is just courtesy on your side. have a look at: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ to see what I mean regarding the other question of downloading or starting the link I found this http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/a/javascriptbdesign_chap22/ site quite helpfull. Have a look.