room2593

1. It says in Joel 2:28 So I don't think that it is so anachronistic of God to choose a child. I mean, I'm convinced that Noah wasn't a kid when he started, but God doesn't seem very averse to choosing children. Josiah and Joash were children-kings of Israel, Daniel and his friends were adolescents, David was underage, Samuel took the reigns of the religion at a young age, and Jesus was able to stump the priests at the passover festival when he came of age. Plus, I like to think that God was able to use me when I was a child. 2. Put quite simply; no. The water would push the oxygen out. It would be like they were at sea-level. And there were no mountains at the time. As far as I understand, when the "fountains of the deep" burst forth, the crust would have to be completely busted up and floating around (in other words, pangea to current landmass configuration in 40 days). So in the idea of a world-wide flood, there would be no mountains of Ararat-as a matter of fact, there would be no mountains until after. Plus, Genesis was written by Moses, so the population of the earth had spread to the degree that any knowledgeable person (moses was court-trained) would know about the massive mountains in other places. At least, that's what I am led to believe. 3. Amen. Hindsight IS 20/20. 4. But why would they need 2 of every animal if some others survived? If there were 4 million giraffes on the other side of the globe, Noah wouldn't need his 2, now would he? No, I'm pretty sure that every animal (except those on the ark) died. 5. Yeah, God is amazing. I hope to be INSIDE the city when the fire goes down. I'll look for you, okay? We can stand in stunned silence together.

Right, pull the other one and it sings Elvis. The fact is true: everybody lived all together in one spot, but I don't think you can confuse this sequence for a minor flood: If that's not a cataclysmic, world-wide event, I don't know what is. That's what I love about the bible - it repeats its point until you can't miss it. Now, if you still feel that the word "world" was only their explored territory, I'm okay with that theory and I'm fine with the water covering the world. But the tops of the mountains and every living thing dying - that sounds a little bit harsher than a regional flood. Lastly, I almost wish God hadn't promised us that he wouldn't do it again, just so that I could see it. Man, that would be the baddest explosion ever: Mind boggling.

The bible details the lives of the people after the flood as being WAAY shorter than the people before the flood. The common explanation for this is the influx of sin, but what if they actually didn't, it just felt like they did? To explain my creepy statement, what if they lived the same amount of time, just a different amount of years? If the people before the flood lived about 900 years and we live about 80, the difference is staggering. If the earth rotates more slowly around the sun now days, we could be living the same amount of time. It's just that back then, the earth whipped around the sun so fast that years passed like weeks. For serious! It could work! The flood could have caused this. See, the flood is described as a massive cataclysmic event. Water poured down from heaven and up from the ground. (Wait, up from the ground?) Yeah, up from the ground. All I'm asking is this: did this slow down the earth? A rocket ship expels burning fuel from an enclosed location. The pressure pushes on all sides of the chamber, but flows out the bottom. This pushes it upward, because the only place where force is NOT is the bottom - the topward force is unhindered, so the rocket moves. What if the earth operated like a rocket? If the side of the earth facing the direction of its orbit blew open and water flew out, then in would operate somewhat like a rocket, and it would slow the earth down - perhaps significantly. The earthquake in Indonesia recently shook the earth on it's axis, so this is not inconceivable. So, how do you feel about this theory? Good enough to work, or am I a total crackpot? I'm not sure it happened, but just the thought of the earth shooting water, rocket-like, is too cool not to share. PSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHCGH! This Spaceship Earth! My roommate has tried to inform me that this theory is totally bunk. Try to see it - he sure doesn't. It could work, but only under extremely weird conditions. The probability against it happening is as massive as the probability against evolution. Totally disregard it if you will and substitute instead that God slowed the earth down. That's not the important part. It's like saying this: here's an awesome book about how the earth slowed down, but I'll disregard the theory because the cover is the wrong color. I don't care about the rocketship earth theory. Just think, what if we live the same amount of time.

I haven't defragged my main computer in about three months. Windows included a handy tool and I don't want to search. NO! It's not super important for you to defrag every time the computer turns off. The hard drive is created in such a way that it won't be worn down noticeably by searching back and forth for bits of files. Sure, if you want your hard drive to last for fifty years, then you might be out of luck when it breaks. But my guess is that NOBODY uses hard drives from even six years ago. My point is that defragmenting is pretty pointless. I've rarely gotten more than 4% fragmentation and I'll tell you why: I'm good to my computer. I have windows on a 20 Gb hard drive my programs on a 200 Gb hard drive and my movies, music and sundry media files arrayed across my 2 terabytes of extra storage. Windows never slows down because there are never any large files being installed around it, and I have so much space that on my programs disk, I never uninstall programs. That way, the disk never has to search for space in and around files. So my main message is to think smarter not harder. Defrag doesn't even help that much either way.

Use peerguardian 2.Peer guardian is an ip blocker and solves most of the problems with adware and spyware. If the government is trying to track you, it will block their ip from connecting to your computer. It really is a lifesaver.This is more and more a problem now days - but of course, only if you are downloading illegal files. The RIAA is all over everyone's butt about music. I've actually heard of more than one court case recently.Final thoughts - if you're going to p2p, remember that the best spyware blocker is yourself. Don't download irresponsibly.

I started using a Mac and I noticed nobody mentioned it yet. I use transmission on my mac. https://transmissionbt.com/ I like it because it is fairly customizable and very lightweight - all of the things I like best about microtorrent. I run oodles of programs on top of it and it just keeps trucking away without a care in the world. The downside is that it is a little too light on the options side of things. I haven't found a place where you can go through a seperate ip (for secure and untraceable downloading) and some of the other options, such as port forwarding, are too hard to find.

Walt Whitman hated poetryin the Romantic form.He hated it when writerspressed themselves into the norm.He hated it when authorswrote poetry constrainedby rhythm, rhyme and lyric meter?it limped like it was lame.Walt Whitman hated poetry,but not with fullest measure -for I hate poetry more than heand with evil pleasure.It's asinine and saccharine;it's never worth re-reading.I hate poetry so muchit sometimes leaves me bleeding.The point is hidden deep within -you dig for inspiration.Though sometimes hoursexcavating will have no revelation.Words like ?love? and ?sympathy?are thrown around like candyuntil they sound lo longer deepand merely sound quite campy.I hate poetry because ofwhat it tries to be.Walt Whitman hated poetry,but not as much as me.

Kobra500 This is indeed the crux of the matter, is it not? Whether or not we can prove, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that God exists. I'm a christian, and I say that you can't. SHOCK! "But you still believe in him?" Yes. I do. Evolution can't be proven either (otherwise it would be called "evolutionary law" and not "evolutionary theory"). You can complain all day that it can be proven, but I know it hasn't been and that's good enough for me. At the end of the day, a person has to choose which system to put stock in (or they can be agnostic) based wholly on faith. You can kick and scream all you want, but it takes faith to believe in evolution. Some Christians would argue that God doesn't want people to be forced to love him, so he left his existence in question. With proof there is no faith, don't you see? So that is why God hasn't proven infallibly why he doesn't exist. Well, whatever to that as well. The way I see it, everyone dies. Unless evolutionists are hiding something from us. When we die, we go into the ground to wait for what comes. And I would rather be a part of the group that gets to live forever, if you catch my drift. If there's any chance of it at all, I'm there. If it takes faith to believe in either side, I'm going for the one that gives the biggest benefit, and for me, that's the christians. adriantc So do you also believe he was a moral teacher? A good person? (if most of what is written about him isn't lies) I am going to propose that he CAN'T be. He didn't leave us a choice in the matter. He continually said that he was the son of God, divine. He said "Your sins are forgiven". That's insane! If someone were to step on your toe, you would be mad. Now suppose I gave them forgiveness. "You are forgiven. Don't think of it again". You would think I'm crazy. Now, you can't skip over that to the pieces where he gives good advice. If someone were to go around saying that they were God today, you would think they were stark raving mad! What do you make of those statements? There is no inbetween where he's a good person. If he existed, then he was either bound by insanity or he was who he said he was. No one can make statements like: "Your sins are forgiven thee" and "I am the way, the truth and the life" without being one of those extremes.

Okay, I'm just going to have to say that exposing yourself to demon spawn is worth more than $20, okay? Have we got that clear? Because you seem like you're a nice person. I'm going to give you some advice: It is a slippery slope you're walking. Soon, you're going to be laughing at her shenanigans on youtube, then you're going to get one of her albums for christmas, then you're going to end up lying on your bed shivering, surrounded by life-size Hannah Montana posters! YOU ARE GOING TO DIE.Get out. Get out now. No hooker has done anything so shamefully low for a mere $20.It's like selling your soul to the devil, but having to eat a poop pie just for the pleasure of doing so.And lastly: There are internet walkthroughs for that sort of thing. No joke, look up a Hanna Montana walkthrough and just run through the game in a day and a half.This post is old, so I'm going to give a warning to all who come behind:YOU HAD BETTER NOT PLAY THIS GAME. HANNAH MONTANA IS THE WORST THING TO HAPPEN TO HUMANITY SINCE HITLER.

First: You're not in love, dude. That's called infatuation. I don't care how you want to sugar coat it, that's not love.Sure, it will give you all sorts of good feelings and happiness, but you don't love her. Here's when you know you love her: When that magic is gone, you get in an argument and you still come back at the end of the day, ready to say you're wrong and she's right... ready to say that you're sorry you ever stormed out.That's when you'll know love. And it has nothing to do with the chemical reaction taking place in your head. To avoid confusion of terms, don't say "love" when you mean "like".Second: Even if you don't like the piece I wrote above, don't say you love her. That'll just scare the crap out of her. And don't give a detailed history of when you started liking her or how you felt when you first saw her. Until you're actually dating and you've been through some stuff, that will just scare the pants off her. And even then, all you'll probably want to say is "I've liked you for a long time." Be specific and scare her away.Third: No one cares. Just say you're interested in a date and if she's not, then you're back to jolly old square one. She doesn't talk to you in person anyway. What have you got to lose. Just say you'd like to go out sometime to a movie. That's about as noncommittal as a date can be. If she doesn't want to do that, then you're sunk anyway, have a nice life, thanks for playing.Lastly: Unless you're a Mennonite or an Amish or something, dating isn't that big a deal (last time I checked). So don't worry about it and take the plunge. Chances are, your bumbling ineptitude will come off as sweet and she'll say you're cute or something.

Summary (of course)1. Laughing. Sometimes I laugh for no reason, just because it feels good.2. Eating. I do it a lot, and I'm lucky because I'm thin.3. People. Specifically people of the opposite sex. Mostly good-looking ones. It's shallow, but it's true.4. Being thoughtless. I suppose I'm a bit of an idiot, but never thinking is fun. I don't really do it outright, but I just don't think about what I say or what I do.5. Technology. Mostly the internet or... games. Yehaw.

The only good part of the sims for me was the building the houses. I liked designing the house and putting all sorts of eclectic stuff inside.There were tolerable parts, though.My least favorite parts was the extreme maintenance the sims had to go through. I mean, seriously. Who takes twenty minutes to pee? Not I. And why can't they just deal with the unhappiness? HRm?I mean seriously. If this was meant to be a life simulator, they could have done some balancing. Not everyone has to pee every hour.And last but not least, try boarding over the door to the bathroom. It's fun to see them pee themselves in frustration. And the best part is, you can leave the pee to rot through the floor. It's GREAT!

There is an excellent book written on the topic that really helped me out. If you've ever read Mere Christianity, CS Lewis gives some amazing insights into why we can believe in God. He makes the point that morality shows us God's hand in our lives. Pretty much anyone, anywhere in the world, has the same set of moral rules. You don't take something that doesn't belong to you, you don't kill someone for no reason, so on and so forth. There is a literal right and wrong in everyone's head. Even if you meet a person who says "There's no such thing as right and wrong," try breaking a promise you've made to them, and they'll claim it isn't fair. There is a literal sense of right and wrong. From that, he moves so slowly towards an absolute law of morality having to be outside nature. This destroys the materialist view of "there is only the earth." He discusses the different kind of beings that could exist and comes to the point that God has to exist, and the most rational way for him to exist is exactly as explained to us in the bible. There can't be pantheism because there is Evil and the concept of bad; if everything is God, there can't be any definite Evil. He shows there can't be dualism (the belief in equal and opposite good and evil) because all Evil is merely a perversion. All perversions take things that are good to a level they weren't meant to be taken. Also, there is no such thing as a man doing Evil for Evil's sake. You won't find a person who doesn't get some perverted pleasure out of evil, and just is evil for no reason. This adds up to the conclusion that Evil can't be equal to God. And I just summarized the first 1/3 of the book. It's great if you take the time to understand it. CS Lewis doesn't touch the bible, he just uses examples from human nature and from the environment to show God's existence. It's an excellent book.

Okay, I'm sorry. You say that you're very scientific, but I'm going to assume that you're not very English.Please forgive me for not being ecstatic that you're back on the site. I am highly opinionated as well, but I always at least try to present the other side. Perhaps you could try to be something other than a professional troll. I'm sorry to be mean without a point, but I just wanted you to know that I hate your lack of punctuation and spelling.

When you said "don't take my word for it" I didn't. Show me some of this proof that evolution seems to have. You say that evolution has been proven, but scientists would be calling it "evolutionary law" rather than "evolutionary theory". How do you face that? I've seen the support of Evolution and I don't believe it. A lot of the famous evolutionary symbols don't actually support evolution. And mutation doesn't actually help creatures evolve, it sterilizes them from mating and passing on their mutation. Sorry, but your evolutionary theory is bunk. Creation can't be proven infallibly yet, it's true. But it can't be disproved. When you claim something that can't be disproved, then you can't be beaten, no matter how much "evidence" people throw at you. All you have to do is fall back to the issue that can't be disproved. I'm sure you won't be able to understand that concept, but you should try it sometime. Next time you're in an argument, take a really retarded side that can't be disproved. Most of these have the downside that they can't be proven, but no matter. You'll find that you'll either win the argument, or you'll annoy the other person until they blow up. If you still don't get it, wait for a million years. By then, your brain should have evolved enough to let you understand.

You sound like you're looking for an entry-level DSLR, fairly easy to use, but it has some extra options if you want it. Every major brand has something good to add to the table, but I personally like my Sony. They include image stabilization in the camera body so the lenses are A LOT cheaper. It's not as fast as the image stabilization in lenses, but I have a steady enough hand it doesn't matter. If you're looking to buy a camera and a few lenses, then you're going to prolly want a sony for this reason. I got a sony alpha 200 and two lenses - a wide angle and a telephoto - for $650. Any other brand, you'd have to pay $600 for two lenses, without the body.I suppose it comes down to what you want. Do some research into the specialties of the different cameras. All I know is that I really, really enjoy my Sony Alpha. It's easy to use and really nice and cheap and fun and lots of useful happiness.Happy shopping!

Oh, I'm so ashamed I post on this forum. This question is irrelevant! Chickens are asexual. Not really of course, but it would solve this question. It basically boils down to these two hypotheses: If you believe in intelligent design, like I do, then chickens came from an all-powerful, other worldly being who just made all birds in a single day. So the chicken came first. Very simple, very easy. If you believe in evolutionary theory, like so many people seem to, then chickens gradually evolved into their current state, and then out of it again into the next higher life form. Chickens, as a species, kind of seeped into their chickenosity like so much evolutionary jelly. But this doesn't solve our problem yet. Did the egg or the chicken come first? The real question is: When did a chicken deserve to be called a chicken? If we assume that chickens evolved out of dodos or whatever, then at what stage along the gradual, million-year cycle did it cross the line from dodo to chicken? It obviously didn't happen overnight. I don't think this is a call we are qualified to make. Chickens just are, no matter how they evolved. And eggs or birds, it doesn't really matter, because they've become more and more like chickens after they were "chickens". So neither came first, and neither will come last. They never came. By evolution, it's entirely possible that humans are different from what we were 3,000 years ago when reliable written history began. We just can't tell, because when something changes gradually, you don't call each gradual change a new thing. It's like a growing tree: When does it change from a sapling into a fully grown tree? It doesn't. There is no half-way mark. Organisms that change gradually don't actually have any different definition as they change. And if every life form has changed gradually into a new thing over millions and billions of years, then we're still chickens, aren't we?

Just recently, I won the virus lottery.I am connected to a very large network right now which has several terabytes of shared files. The only real problem with this arrangement is that it leaves me very open to attack from viruses and worms. I got win antivirus 2008 recently, and now I got worm fujack 2. How can one man get two system destroying viruses in such a short amount of time? Just lucky, I guess.The worm has several effects:It will plant itself in your system32\drivers folder as spoclsv.exeIt writes itself to your registry as [HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run]"Svcshare" = "%System%\drivers\spoclsv.exe"or[HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run]"Svcshare" = "%System%\drivers\spoclsv.exe"If you restart your computer while this program is embedded in your registry, it executes a system-wide edit of .exe and other files and embeds itself in every folder as desktop_.ini. So if you notice any of the effects such as your virus software turning off, your task manager not working, or your system slowing down drastically, TRY NOT TO RESTART YOUR SYSTEM! It will dig itself in and make itself comfortable. Get a good scanner such as avg and run it. Twice, if need be.This worm will write itself into nearly every .exe, .scr., .pif and .com on your system. If you start any of these files, it will restart the virus on your system even if you've cleaned it off.There are a few exceptions, such as anything in a folder labeled any one of the following:WINDOWSWinntRecycledWindows NTWindowsUpdateWindows Media PlayerOutlook ExpressInternet ExplorerNetMeetingCommon FilesComPlus ApplicationsMessengerInstallShield Installation InformationMSNMicrosoft FrontpageMovie MakerMSN Gamin ZoneThe worm acts as a normal worm as well; throwing itself into all writable shared files and across the network. It absorbs system resources and will eventually freeze your system. It shuts off your task manager (and many other tasks such as common virus software) and your active desktop (the way to change this is to change your theme. it sounds weird, but it works. go to display properties and themes and change it to My Current Theme. It will probably work).An odd feature is that this worm defaults your folders to not viewing hidden files and folders. You can't change this back, I think it messes with the registry. It therefore places a desktop_.ini file in every single folder on your computer. EVERY ONE. It seems to be read-only, so I don't think it is malicious. It is easily mistaken for desktop.ini, which is good.If you have this worm, the best and most effective way to get rid of it is (of course) to rebuild your system, wiping the hard drive and reinstalling windows. If you don't want to do this, then you need to take some evasive action.Step One: Admit that this is going to be hard. Cry a little if you need to, bury your head in your hands and let it all out. Don't worry, I understand.Step Two: Download a really good virus scanner that is little known to worms and viruses: try open source. It's okay, it won't bite. I used Clamwin. Clamwin doesn't have real-time scanning, but it is a deep scanner and will go over every line of code. Clamwin also has an awesome feature that will allow you to scan the system memory to eject the program from the RAM. This will stop it from running so you can work. Tell the scan to put everything it finds in a quarantine folder. This scan will find a million things that have been infected. Don't freak out. Then scan all removable media (thumb drives, ipods, removable hard drives).Step Three: While the scan is running, go to your system32\drivers folder and delete spoclsv.exe. If you can't find it, wait for the scan to find the thing.Step Four: Open the registry editor. Go to start, run, and type in "regedit.exe". This will open the editor, and from there, you can find the files that have been added on your system and delete them. (They're listed above)Step Five: Once the scan is finished, take a deep breath.Step Six: Restart your system. When the windows symbol comes up, pull the plug. Say "I'm sorry" to your system. And mean it. Once you reboot, choose to start in safe mode with networking. Download a spyware scanner such as avg to do a deep scan again. It probably won't find things that Clamwin missed, but it can fix things, and that's what you need right now. Take everything it fixed and put it all back where you found it.Your system will be limping along quite nicely now. The worm is gone, but it acts like an atomic bomb. It only takes a second to detonate, but the effects last for decades. Your system will be so torn up that you will probably have to uninstall a large portion of your programs and reinstall them. You'll find a million things in your start menu that don't link to anything. This leads you to the final step.Step Seven: Admit that you won. It may not seem like it, but you definitely won. Give yourself a pat on the back.The chances are that if you're reading this, you're trying to figure out how to fix your system. But I will go ahead and give you my two cents: Unless you have a lot of files that you can't save, it might just be worth it to rebuild. I have a terabyte of files that I wouldn't be able to save otherwise. That's the only reason why I saved my system.A fresh install might be the way to go.If I missed anything, I'll post more as I found out.

Okay, never mind, don't help me. I'll just update. It worked to put mp3s on a friend's phone and then send them to mine... about half the time. The mp3s also had to be the correct length and stuff. But that's still retarded. I also started making my own by going to http://media-convert.com/ and changing my files. But all the songs become REALLY quiet when I do that. Ugh. So if someone could help me out by finding out how to up the volume without going over clip... specifically upping the volume during the conversion process (that's where it loses the volume). Anyhow, it would be much appreciated.

All of these comments are well and good until we remember one thing: The theory of relativity is still a theory. We can't actually say: This is what would happen, for sure, in every situation, because Einstein proposed it. It's just a theory. He made all sorts of statements that we can't prove here. Until we can travel the speed of light, we can't test any of this stuff. And, according to his theory, we can't really get there in the first place. It's the perfect explanation if you think about it. It explains light but it can't be tested, so it can't be wrong. However, light is not made up of particles; so it doesn't compress. Sorry curtis07, there would be no light boom. Light would act as light does. It would be like throwing two diamonds at each other. The diamonds don't compress against each other, they bounce off. If you throw them really fast, they'd just bounce off again. Perhaps though... Photons are just energy waves, right? So, if we were able to propel matter (or particles with mass...) faster than light, do you think that the energy would build on the surface of the matter until it vaporized? Bear with me here. If light normally hits matter and is absorbed, that means that it energizes the atoms and heats them up. It doesn't do that to reflective surfaces, however. It bounces off of them. So, if you were to take two balls, one of them mirrored and the other one black, and accelerate them to faster than the speed of light, the mirrored one would send light flying everywhere. But the black one would absorb all of the light and heat up. Perhaps, if it kept it's speed up fast enough, the ball would eventually vaporize into it's component atoms. Maybe the light would just go right through. If it didn't have enough time to absorb into the atoms, the matter would go around it. Atoms are mostly empty space, anyhow. So if the atoms are traveling fast enough, would they pass the photons without the photons absorbing? Or perhaps at light speed, the fundamental properties of mass change and nothing that we can conceive of would happen. Maybe the electrons would be stripped away from every atom, maybe every atom in the mass would lose it's ability to hold together and it would explode. We (technically) don't know what would happen. These are weird questions. They probably have really simple answers that I'm not thinking about because I just woke up.

The flight simulator games are quite "good".But not the kind of good that most teenage boys enjoy. It's incredibly detailed and really very sophisticated.But it's not fun.It's like flying a commercial plane. You take off and crash and fly a finicky plane across a fairly realistic globe. But you move slowly and there's nothing fun that happens. It's really boring and slow and not much to do...So unless your son wants to be a professional commercial pilot, don't get him flight simulator. It will bore him to tears and be a wallop from your pocket book.It's too expensive (I've seen it for $70) to be worth risking it.

The Xbox just has so many more games that I like. Even though it bricks up and dies a lot... It's still worth it.I want to play Fable 2 right now. It's so good looking. I want it so much. Ugh.So, the wii is kind of finicky with the motion control, the playstation is just way too expensive for the kind of games it has...I just want the Xbox. Don't hate.

Alright. First off, never say anything like "score" or "get laid" or "hit that".That's kind of... crude. And if she's the kind of girl that will go for that, she's probably the kind of girl that will have an std. Sorry, just the way the world works.And if you have to force yourself to do anything at all to impress her, or if you go out of your way... then she's going to expect that for the rest of your relationship.So just act like yourself. If she doesn't like who you are, then you're just going to get tired of it.Trust me, I learned this from experience. I tried to act like a different person so this girl would get interested in me. Well, it worked, but it was exhausting. And when she learned who I really was, she split. It really hurt, and retrospectively, I shouldn't have done it. If I can't find a girl that likes me for who I am, I'm not touching that. So...Take it from me, you don't want any more advice than "Be yourself".

Well, yes. It's pathetic. But many people would say that we're pathetic for posting on a forum. They would say that we're social degenerates with no lives. So what is it? Does the opinion of anther person affect anything?Personally, I've always been of the opinion that if someone wants to jump around like a monkey and fling poo at everything, they can do that. Unless they hit me with the poo, I'm totally unaffected and aloof.I'm not going to be very mean to these people. Twilight is probably the first decent literature that they've ever read. It's not like people like that pick up dickens or hemingway as enjoyment reading. So they find something mediocre and exalt it. That's life. I say just deal with it the way I do. Act smugly superior by waving your hand and snorting. Or whatever helps you sleep at night.

Oh. When you said ten tools, I thought perhaps you meant ten tools with different purposes. This is merely a repetition of three or four program types required to perform specific tasks on your ipod. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I found another tool that works pretty well. Songbird Songbird is an open source music player with built in browser functionality and lots of plugins. It even has a lyric plugin! You'll require a plugin to use your ipod and you'll have to do it manually... but if you have fifty gigs of music and a thirty gig Ipod (like me) then this program is better than itunes. http://getsongbird.com/