canpolitics

I recently had to reset my account, I had backed it up prior and I now have a gz file ready to restore, unfortunately when I try to restore it nothing happens, it lists all of the files that are in the gz file but the actual restore does not seem to work.Can anyone help me?

PC anywhere is probably your best bet. It can be quite secure, of course you have to be careful how you set it up. And it is capable of forcing call backs (to ensure the right person is trying to connect it only lets you call your comptuer to log in then it hangs up and calls you back to connect) and other security devices when using dial up, and over the internet 128 bit encryption is the standard. You can use microsofts remote desktop product, but I don't entirely trust it, I never really trust any microsoft product to be honest.

LOL then the chicken came first, since it was born of another type of egg and not a chicken egg. If you just say which came first the chicken and any type of egg then it has to be egg since reptiles lay eggs, and dinosaurs were reptiles, and dinosaurs were around much before chickens.... therefore we must assume the question properly worded would be which came first the chicken or the chicken egg, obviously the answer must be the chicken, because only a chicken can lay a chicken egg.... Is that a convoluded enough answer Well not really, first of all the theory of evolution does not mean that everything including such things as dirt evolved, just rather that animal species evlovled. There is no theory I ever heard of atoms poofing out of nowhere except creationism, essentially that is waht creationists believe, something poofed out of nothing by gods will. There are other belief systems which have nothing to do with evolution which state different causes for the creation of the universe, the most common one is the big bang theory, that being that there was once upon a time a large mass, so large that eventually it just exploded and cast the materials it contained out into the universe, that is where every bit of matter in the universe comes from. This matter floated around until due to forces of gravity upon each other they began to form larger bodies, then slowly stars, and then planet system etc.. Earth just happened to contain just the right amount of all the elements needed to jump start life, ie. a primodial soup which kick started the evolutionary cycle. Just out of curiosity, what fact do we need to ignore in order to believe in evolution... how about the fact you need to ignore in order to believe creationism? For example according to the bible the world is what 6,000 years old or some such? Yet thanks to fossil records we know that life has been around much longer than that. Of course I am not completely discounting creationism, I am an agnostic as such I do believe in a diety, just not necessarily the Judeo-Christian god.

LOL... my very first kiss.... so long ago, I was so young. The girls name was Sarah, I can still remember what she was wearing for some stupid reason. We were friends, and it was at school (elementary school even, I think it was grade 5 LOL), she told me she wanted to kiss me, and I said sure. We spent the recess hiding from the teachers behind a dumpster (oh so romantic) making out. It was not beautiful, it was a joke. At the time I was quite happy to be kissing this girl all recess long, but looking back on it, it was far from an ideal first kiss. I made up for that unromantic kiss with my first "real" kiss. I term it a real kiss because it was the first kiss with a girl I was actually dating. I had met the girl (Janine) while working at a grocery store as a bag boy, it was my job to carry groceries out to the cars of customers. This one customer (Janine's mother) always made sure she went through a till where I was bagging to make sure I was the one who carried out her bags, and if I stepped out to carry out someone elses groceries the would wait, this was not an entirely rare practice, several of the customers had thier favourite bag boy and would go out of thier way to make sure that they had that bag boy around. I found out later that Janine had begged her mother to make sure I carried out thier groceries, and prior to her seeing me they would always carry out thier own groceries. After several months of me carrying out thier bags, but to shy to do much more than innocent flirting with the daughter, the mother stepped in and invited me to Janine's birthday party. I still laugh at the fact that I was set up with my first real girlfriend by the girls own mother, I mean I have always been good with my girlfriends parents, but nothing since has compared to that. Well I went to the party (after begging my parents to let me stay out later than normal just this one time, I had to work the next morning and my parents normally enforced a strict cerfew, and were stricter on school nights or work nights). We watched movies, and then when I realized I was past my extended curfew I told Janine I had to go home, she said she would walk me home (a good half an hour walk), and her friend came along to keep her company on the way home. Half way home, in the yard of a school, we stopped for a moment and her friend went on ahead unaware that we had stopped. We admired the stars and the full moon. I leaned over and kissed her in the moonlight and asked her to be my girlfriend. It was all terribly romantic for a highschooler (early highschool grade 9 I believe). We dated for several months, but just befor the summer she dumped me saying I didn't love her.

Sounds like a pretty clearcut condemnation of homosexuality if you ask me. Romans 1:31 says being without understanding is a trait of those whom God has given over to a reprobate mind, it does NOT say it's a sin: 173423[/snapback] Darn, forgot that passage... or rather put it in the wrong book, your right.... sorry my error. Regardless though this is a pretty weak condemnation. First of all it only condemens homosexual sex, not homosexual love, wich considering the bibles view on sex in general is no great shock, since all sex short of sex between a married couple for the sole purpose of procreation is a sin, also this does not condemn lesbianism at all, just male homosexuality. As you have pointed out in other threads the bible has been translated from various other languages, I have heard (since I am not sure what language Romans was originally written in I can't verify it) that the phrase men with men was a translation of the greek word for "pederasty" wich was the common practice of men having sex with their male child slaves. Romans 1:27 could well just be condemning child sexual abuse. Romans 1:26 merely forbids woman to engage is sex outside nature, which could be taken a number of ways, the most likely (given the times) is any sex that does not produce offspring. Also the wording of this passage damns sex between two men that is not agreeable to nature. If this is the case, then if it is possible that homosexuality could be inborn and not just a choice then Paul is actually in favour of homosexuality, just not bisexuality, or infidelity. All of this hinges on what you consider to be sex that is "agreeable to nature" since the original word used was phooskos, wich is translated to agreeable to nature. As I said it does not state that Sodam and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality, but rather fornication, and adultry specifically. Knowing someone generally is [bold]assumed[/bold] to mean sexual intercourse you mean. Several points here.1) Doesn't matter if Lot knew what had been done, he and his daughters still committed a sin, true his daughters did so willingly and he did so while inebriated, but come on, do you really think you can perform sexually while so drunk that you are unaware you are even having sex? 2) As for 1 John 3:8, so it is your belief that Jesus Christ was put on earth to destroy sin? More than 2000 years after he was put to death on the cross sin still exists, at least as rampant as in his lifetime, doesn't seem like it worked. 3) Back to the issue of incest, Adam and Eve's childeren had to commit insest in order to create the human race (if you believe in creationism as I assume you do) 4) Noah's children must also have engaged in incest in order to rebuild the human race (assuming you believe in the story that a planet wide flood occured which wiped out everything.

As I am sure you have guessed from our past debates jzyehoshua I am not a religious man, and I don't like overly preachy speaches, bearing that in mind I though you might appreciate some honest input.I did find it overbearingly preachy, yet not as bad as I first expected. It flows well there is one or two spots where the rythm skips a little and it kind of felt like tripping over a crack in the sidewalk, but nothing major. I found myself likeing the poem in spite of the religious overtones, I would comment though that I personally think you could do without so much preaching and let the poem speak for itself, you mention god specifically four times, and several times implicitly, I would put more emphasis on the implied and less on the explicit. No need to beat it over the head, really we get it, it is a religious poem.It is a very good though, don't let my criticism fool you, I really did like it.

pensive-muse is right, you are showing good character by staying. I hope you can get it all aranged to still meet up with your girl.

I am going to have to call you on that one... while Romans Chapter 1 does condemn fornicators, it does not single out homosexuality in any way, in other words homosexual sex is no worse than heterosexual sex in the eyes of god. Of course Romans Chapter one calls pretty much everything a sin, even ignorance is a sin according to Romans 1:31. Actually Genesis chapter 19 never really meantions why Sodam was destroyed specifically, it could be that the angels were angry that this mob did not respect thier host's (Lot) hospitality. Actually it doesn't even say the men of Sodam were attempting to rape the guests of Lot, just that they want to "know them", and in fact Lot offers them two of his virgin daughters as bait to keep them away from his guests. Not to mention Lot sins afterwards by having sex with his two surviving daughters after the fall of Sodam and Gomorrah.

My guess would be you have a problem with your video card driver. I would download an updated version of the driver and install it.

Both cities were warned of the attack, and there were military instalations in both cities. The Americans flew over both cities in bombers droping flyers warning the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that they were going to bomb the city and to evacuate while they could. They gave them plenty of time. The Japanese did not take them seriously, obviously they were mistaked about the US's fortitude in this matter.Was the bombing of these cities a bad thing, most definately. Was it a war crime, I doubt it. People die in war, and often these people are not soldiers, it is called collateral damage. It is unfortunate, but it happens, sometimes it is even necessary. I think the bombing had many positive affects on the world, it was the "straw that broke the camels back" as far as convincing the Japanese to surrender saving many more months of battle, it showed the world just how dangerous these bombs were. Although they had been tested at the Trinity test site, the politicians and lay folk never quite understood the magnitude of the destruction atomic weaponry was capable of, if that was not understood and the technology got into more than one countries hands and an atomic or nuclear war was started think of the distruction that could have caused.Skynet, to say the Japanese were evil is an extremely narrow view. Sure some of what they did was evil, and some of what USA did was evil, some of what Britain did was evil, some of what the French resistance fighters did was evil, definately much of what the Germans were doing was evil, heck it has even come out that some of what the Swiss (who remained neutral) could be considered evil. It was an evil time, and many evil deeds were done by many people from many nations, it does not mean that Japan of the time was evil.

Everyone knows the US will not launch a nuclear strike without being fired upon first, and this is the case with almost every current nuclear power. The theory is though, that N. Korea and Iran may not have such restraint, N. Korea may just launch a nuke at the US without warning or provocation, same with Iran. It's not quite hypocracy, but it is close. No one should ever use a nuke, and the fact is no country wants to, but then again alot of countries have nukes and some are just crazy enough to try to use them... I can understand countries wanting to defend themselves.The ONLY way to stop further production of nukes is to get rid of all nukes at once, or develop a 100% effective defence against nukes. Since niether are likely to happen, we have to live with the fact that there are nukes in the world, and if some nut launches just one, it could mean an all out nuclear war.As for nuclear power production plants, well they are just about the cleanest sort of power production available, and the technology has the potential to do better than it currently does. If they are built right there is zero chance of melt down (a la Chernobyl (sp?), the US style nuclear plants however were not designed that way, if there was ever a problem and the cooling tanks were drained there would be a nuclear melt down, the Canadian plants were designed so the cooling tanks speed up the process not slow it down, so that if the tanks drained the nuclear reaction stops entirely. Of course the problem with the Canadian designed plants is that the left over materials are near perfect weapons grade plutonium, so it is easy to start up a weapons program with the Canadian style nuclear power plant, since the byproduct is one of the necessary ingreadients to making a bomb. Nuclear power plants should be researched intensly, after all it is a relatively new method of generating electricity (compared to hydro, and coal burning), and as the technology develops we could get even better at producing electricity, with even less radioctive waste.

Not true at all, it is not bad for the computer to keep it running all the time. Actually, depending on how much use your computer gets, it can be better for the computer to stay running 24/7 rather than being shut down. During the PC powerup the computer recieves the most stress to its circuitry. It is like a lightbulb, a lightbulb is most likely to burn out when it is first turned on, the reason for this is rapid heating up, from cold to hot in a matter of secconds. This rapid heating is a source of extreme stress to metals, the wireing in electronics is very fine and can break, while it is true that leaving a PC on all the time will shorten its life span, so does the simple act of turning it on. A basic rule of thumb I go by is, if you are going to be using the computer a lot every day, and it would only really get rest during the night, don't bother turning it off, or if you would be turning on and off the computer more than 3 times a day, don't bother turning it off at all.

Not quite, a virus does not require activity on the internet, just a connection. You do not have to be downloading, and you don't have to have spyware. If your computer is identified as a target by some viruses the virus will continually attempt to load itself into your computer regardless of activity. But yes the easiest protection is to disconnect from the internet anytime you are not using the internet. Of course you should also have a firewall of some sort.

Technically possible, yes, and even relatively cheap, however there are problems with that as the sole source of heated water. Hard to maintain a good hot water when it is -40 Celcius out, and during the night there is no sun to warm the water. I have heard of it being done before though.

Marriage is NOT a club, it is a ceremony, supposed to represent the extent of the love between two people. Ah, equal but separate... lets see that's called segragation. So do you think it would be ok to define marriage as a union between a white man and a white woman? Can anybody show me, in the wilderness that two animales live together as married couples at all? I mean come on, what a useless argument, there is only on animal species that I know of that is truely monogomous (the Albatros), and a few that are partially monogomous (Peguins are considered monogomous, but female peguins of some types of peguins will sell sex for rocks to build thier nests, in essence prostitution), homosexuallity is rampant in nature. Man invented the institute of marriage, man defined the meaning, man can redefine it.