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.

I think the egg came first, but it wasn't an egg of a chicken, it was... a different thing...

141943[/snapback]

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

 

Definitely the chicken. Of course I believe God created them all as whole creatures. If you take the course of them "evolving" it means everything had to come from nothing. Some atoms poofed out of nowhere, collided, made dirt, dirt somehow got water involved, etc...

 

If you go with that everything gets a lot more complicated I think since you have to stretch so much to make it fit, and ignore some facts in the process Including the chicken/egg dilemma

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.

Doesn't single out homosexuality in any way?!?!? 

 

 

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

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 for why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, it is even spoken of their homosexuality here:

 

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

 

As I said it does not state that Sodam and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality, but rather fornication, and adultry specifically.

 

All through the OT and even in the NT that phrase of someone "knowing" someone else refers to sexual intercourse.  (i.e. Ge. 4:1, Ge. 4:17, Ge. 4:25, Jg. 11:39, Jg.19:25, 1 Sa. 1:19, 1 Ki. 1:4, Mt. 1:25)

Knowing someone generally is [bold]assumed[/bold] to mean sexual intercourse you mean.

 

Lot naturally was horrified by what they wanted to do so much even that he did end up offering his daughters instead.  Also, if you'd read Genesis 19:33 you would know that Lot didn't participate willingly, his daughters had to get him so drunk he didn't even know they were in the room for them to be able to do it.

While not all sin may affect anyone other then the sinners personally, it is still sinning against God.  And sin is a disease.  Christ came not only to forgive us of our sins but to make us new people that would turn from their sins and thus He will destroy the works of the devil, including sin (1 John 3:8).

 

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.

Umm...  I say it's just because we are all slaves to our lusts and sins.  You could also say a murderer can't help being one, he just is.  Even if he is able to physically refrain from murdering someone in his mind he's already committed the crime and thus is guilty.  Even if you don't commit adultery/premarital sex with someone in your mind you've most likely already done it, making you guilty. 

 

Until you're saved and given a new mind, a new heart, and a new Spirit you are not freed from the bondage of sin so that you are free instead to serve God.

 

So I suppose you can make that argument for anyone other then a Christian.  And of course until that heart transaction occurs whereby you get in a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross you are not freed from that sin bondage, nor do you have eternal life.  A person living rebelliously in known sin is almost certainly not a Christian is what I am saying.  And the Bible makes it abundantly clear that homosexuality like hating others, adultery, lying (whether they're little and white or whatever their characteristics), stealing, coveting (wanting what other people have), etc...  is a sin.  Just check the first chapter of Romans if you don't believe me.

173367[/snapback]

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.

 

God views sodomy pretty seriously...  where do you think the word comes from?  Sodom and Gomorrah...  Before the angels pulled Lot and his family out of the city before it got burned up, a bunch of homosexuals wanted to rape the angels who they thought were men...  It's right there in Genesis 19 btw.

 

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.

Yes, thanks, it makes more sense now.  And M67, you're not really supposed to leave your computer on that long, it's bad for it.  That's probably why it's having problems.  You should try running a virus scan anyway, and maybe use hibernate(if you're using Windows XP) instead of leaving it on.

153911[/snapback]

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.

That's is an interesting question and although I wouldn't be able to answer it 100% I would think that it is extremely unlikely as viruses "get in" through activity on the internet. You would have to actively be doing something on the internet, thus retrieving data for a virus to get onto your system. Although if you have spyware running, the spyware may also allow viruses in as they connect to servers at particular times or in particular intervals. The easiest way to prevent it would be to disconnect from the web or enable a firewall that lets nothing in or nothing out of your system when you are not active on the computer itself. Would anybody else here agree with me?

154090[/snapback]

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.

You can use sun rays only to heat water.

That's no so expensive and technically posible.

170584[/snapback]

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.

If there is a club for kids then the adult will not allowed in.

 

If there is a club or organization for women then it is not allowed for men to be members.

 

If you want be a candidate to local cities council or federal or state Parliament member you have to be resident in that place.

 

If a disco club assigned Wednesday for example as day when women invite men to dance, then in that day male have to sit and wait invitation from a female.

 

The Marriage is between male and female.

Mariage  is club or association of couple one is male and another is female

170019[/snapback]

Marriage is NOT a club, it is a ceremony, supposed to represent the extent of the love between two people.

 

 

It is their choice not to satisfy the condition of the membership. Nobody forced them to do so.

 

People who not satisfy that condition, they should not to bother to apply for the membership

 

They can do another association with another name.

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?

 

I will not refer to any religion or to any sin but I think about nature and wildness. Can anybody show me in the wildness that two male or two female animals live together as married couples?

I know that two lions can not live in the same region. The bee queen can not live with another bee queen and the kingdom must be divided.

KASM

 

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.

Google earth rocks... love it... I just wish they'd get some more hi res images loaded, I can't see my house, but I created some overlays that show it in hi-res. MSN is good, but it just doesn't compare to Google Earth, maybe if they work on it a while they can beat it out.

 

Note: That's google earth not google maps, the two services are similare and use much of the same data, but they are not quite the same, google earth allows you to zoom in more and fly from one postion to the next. Blows away google maps, and is better by a long shot than MSN Earth.

 

Google Earth replaces the program Keyhole. It is an interactive globe where you can zoom in and see satalite images of anywhere in the world, and aerial photographs of many regions in North america, and a few aerial photos from other spots in the world. There is also a whole community of folks trying to find interesting things in google earth, and let me tell you there are some bizzare things in it, everything from possible UFO sightings, to strange crop circles. Check it out at https://www.google.com/earth/

lol do people actually still use those kinda things ? what do u use solar powered stuff when there's no sun ? or do u use em only in teh summer ?

169516[/snapback]

I have seen the odd solar pannel up on peoples roof's, not really useful as the sole powersource, but it can reduce your hydro bill. As I said in my other post there are also other ways to generate power wind mills, and water wheels are just a couple. But for the eco-friendly rich guy breaking free of power companies is possible. It costs alot up front, but in theory in the long run it saves you money and helps the planet.

new technology would be solar power for your house. that would be great imagine not paying your electricty bill. That would be cool.

169405[/snapback]

Solar Power is not practical as the sole provider of power, combined with a Wind Generator, and perhaps a water wheel hooked up to a generator and you would be able to do this.

 

Wariorpk:

No need to store AC in a battery, just convert it before it hits the houses power, after all this is what a computer UPS (Uninteruptable Power Supply) does, alls you would need is a really big UPS, power the UPS with your solar panels and other electricity generating apperatii and voila self sufficiency is yours, of course you would be wise to generate more power than you need and have a UPS capable of storing extra power just in case one or two powersouces went down (AKA solar at night, or possibly water wheel if your water source froze over)

 

Regardless it would still be a very expensive endevour, but if you did it right and put power back into the grid you may do more than just not pay your power, but depending on your power company you could get paid by your power company instead of having to pay them.

I've thought the same thing, at the beginning, but at the end I've found a real difference between Virgin's spaceships and the history of car and airplane. First: both were created as new vehicles, while Virgin's spaceships hasn't nothing new. The experiment made by Ratan is useful, but the application of Branson not.

Second: you say that cars and airplanes, too, are toys for richs. Yes, I agree with this, but not a toysg for all, but only for who really like this. Driving a car or an airplane, at the beginning, was very dangerous and you had to be very skilled. While what skills you need to flight with Virign's spaceships, and it seems that will be no risks. First drivers of cars and airplanes with their expensive toys have helped to make them better. What Virgin's spaceships' passenger can do, maybe say to its 5th avenue neighbours to try it.

Maybe the reasons of this is that we live more than one cen maketury later, but first cars and first airplanes aren't toys for richs, but sports for richs. I think that we need to research more on spaceships, and not start with ridicolous trips. I have preferred a small spaceship that you can use to make a little trip, with various risks of it. And so it will become a sport, more thana toy.

This is my opinion.

166632[/snapback]

Who do you think will pay for the research into spaceships? NASA's budget isn't what it used to be, and I would bet that it will continue to be cut. Not to mention government agencies rarely make the leaps that the private sector does, because the private sector is generally better funded and able to make more leaps of faith. You say that these virgiin spacecrafts aren't anything new, when actually they are, they are small, inexpensive (compared to NASA), and commercially viable. It is just the first step. You say that cars and airplanes weren't toys for the rich, but sport ok fine, I'll accept that. Question though. what were the first commercial aircraft then? And how do they differ from the first commercial spacecraft? Sure a quick jaunt into the stratosphere may not be as useful (right now) as a trip to New York aboard a plane, but lots of people will pay to do so, and eventually who knows perhaps they will create a better spacecraft that will be able to land somewhere useful or go into full orbit. And who's to say they don't find a way to turn spaceflights into a sport, can't really think of one right off the top of my head, but heck the X-Prize was a good little sporting game, they could run a similar contest for, I don't know what, maybe the first private space vehicle to land on the moon.

My Webpage

Still needs alot of work, but I would like some input to how it looks now, and where I could use some improvement.

Personally I think the banner needs some serious work, but I am not really a graphics guy so I will have to just hope I can do better.

Thanks Buffalo, hopefuly it improves....As for your compliment on my site.... well it is far from ready, I still have alot of work to do, but I am starting to populate it with content now... and I have a banner to replace the default almost ready to go.

MSN Virtual earth has a long way to go before it can compete seriously with Google earth.... We'll just have to wait and see what they do with it.

Those results are looking for the a record, not changing them. I updated only the nameservers as well, and it has been well over 24 hours. As you can see from this thread the problem began on the 26th, but I was able to connect briefly on the 25th, then boom nothing worked. The only way I am able to get to my site is to get the IP for ns1 or two and manually add it to my own computer's DNS search order, and this isn't just a problem related to one computer on one ISP, I have tried several whois engines, and none of them can reach my domain name. I would say that there is a problem somewhere along the way on the Xisto DNS servers. ns1.trap17.com is NOT resoving to the correct address.

Here is some whois data:

Domain ID:D10595693-LRMSDomain Name:CPOL.INFO
Created On:18-Jul-2005 17:53:25 UTC
Last Updated On:18-Jul-2005 18:17:25 UTC
Expiration Date:18-Jul-2006 17:53:25 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R259-LRMS
Status:ACTIVE
Status:OK
Name Server:NS1.TRAP17.COM
Name Server:NS2.TRAP17.COM

Yet when I do a lookup I get:

How I am searching:Searching for cpol.info A record at m.root-servers.net [202.12.27.33]: Got referral to TLD5.ULTRADNS.info. [took 116 ms]
Searching for cpol.info A record at TLD5.ULTRADNS.info. [192.100.59.11]: Got referral to ns2.trap17.com. [took 23 ms]
Searching for cpol.info A record at ns2.trap17.com. [209.152.167.59]: Server failure! [took 51 ms].

Answer:
Server failure.  There's a problem with the DNS server for cpol.info.

Very nice thing, but the cost? 200000$ for a single flight!!!

Yes, you and some other (not millions) will use this and will make their dreams a real event.

Ok, I think that tech development is a good things, but this what can do for the human race? What real help can it give to people and to the science? This will be only a new toy for rich people that will could afford a so expensive flight.

If I'd like to make this (the first flight will be in 2008) I have to spend two years of earnings of my parents. And my family has a quite good earning.

These things are very fool, and I hate them.

166583[/snapback]

What can it do for the human race? You know that the car was once just a toy for the rich, as was the airplane. Think about it, if the average joe can make a flight into space, it will truely be the next step in colonizing our solar system. Sure it is still a LONG ways away, but that doesn't mean it'll never happen and that space flight will remain in the hands of NASA and the super rich.

 

  200000$ just for a single flight ?

so, if you want to back to earth you have to pay another 200K again?

I give up...

LOL the flight up and the flight back to earth are all one single trip, it's not like it lands anywhere... it is just a quick jaunt up, break through the stratosphere and hurtle back to earth.