Jump to content

mreiland

Community Members
  • Posts

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mreiland

  1. The virtual KB doesn't work either. Unless it's using some type of loopback via the hardware, which I don't think is possible, then the problem is in a level of abstraction somewhere, and not the physical input.

    does it not work in *anything*? notepad, MS Office, etc.? How about non-MS apps?

    Download Abiword and give it a go, and see what happens.

    Another option would be to install Linux and see if it still happens :blush:

  2. Cat, have you seen a psychologist for this? It's obviously been a traumatic experience for you, and I urge you to see someone who is *qualified* to help you work through this. Things like this have a tendency to turn us into spiteful people, despite our best intentions.

    I have a feeling you're about to get about a dozen PM's from men trying to help console you, but that's not the kind of help you need.

  3. Also remember that your monarchy is an *icon*, ie, symbolic, and symbolism is *very* important to people.

    If I were to go to your country and start talking smack about the royalty, I have a feeling I'd quickly get my azz whooped(being a foreigner). Although the monarchy doesn't serve any purely functional purpose, it *does* give the people a sense of self, and that, in and of itself, is very important.

    Much the same way that the US revere the Constitution. It's symbolism, just that, in this case, it serves a function at the same time.

  4. hmmmm, let's see here.

    Alright, this guy doesn't watch Anime... rep--.

    Neither does this guy, so rep--.

    Awww hell, this guy mentioned DBZ in the same breath as Anime. I wonder how low rep can go? Well, we're gonna find out....

    :(

    @chichigrande:

    If you lkke Trigun, you should check out Noir. It's made by the same people ;) I've never watched Ruroni Kenshin, but maybe I should check it out :blush:

    @ZeZar

    Check out Berserk, it centers around a band of bandits set in medieval times(fantasy based).

  5. e similarity we do share, if I get you correctly, is our monarchy.

    Uhoh, I'd clarify that if I were you, otherwise you're going to be getting some hateful posts... US isn't based on a monarchy :blush:

    But, to answer the spirit of your query, it has to do with several things.

    Pride that we're the worlds strongest power, and we're as young as we are(as a country). If it aint broke, don't fix it.

    Fear that it'll eventually be changed so that it no longer represents individual freedom., the way the founding fathers *meant* for it to be.

    And it also stands as evidence for those that don't want it's policies changes.

    Every country has their thing. I knew a man from New Zealand who was constantly talking about the forestry there. He once described to me how a certain type of hunting involving huge boars, a couple of well trained dogs, and a knife... Needless to say, New Zealander's are feckin' crazy ;)

  6. Well, I have *also* read that there are a lot of people who are starting to reject a evolution as a whole(and not just creationists). What this means, I don't know. I couldn't tell you why that is, exactly, except that there are a *lot* of holes/problems with evolution.

    I also can't refer you to anything because it's just a few articles that I've read here and there. I suspect this is one of those phenomena that's really not heard about a lot because it goes against mainstream scientific theory(and that's known to be a Bad Thing )

    That doesn't make creationism right, or Evolution wrong, but I thought I'd throw that in there since some people *do* accept Evolution as fact, when it's not actually.

    PS

    ThugAmish, lifelong 'scientists' have been known to be wrong before. They were once disproven by a sailor named Christopher, just to cite one famous example.

  7. hrmmm, I think I need a clarification.

    is that

    .1331 = .133

    .1332 = .133133 and so on and so forth?

    Or are they all .133133133133... ?

    I know what .133133133... is the fraction [133/999], so depending on the clarification, it could have simply been expressed as [133/999]^95

  8. You might try Divx.com.

    There are a bunch of good codecs packs(including mpeg4, Divx, xvid, etc.), but unfortunately I can't remember the names of them at the moment.

    If you have Kazaa, just hop on and do a search for codecs. If you don't, don't download it just for the codecs, as it likes to install spyware :blush:

    and if you *do* download off of Kazaa run an antivirus *before* you install. There's WAAAAY too many trojans.etc., running around on Kazaa these days....

  9. Please, dear Thug, provide us with the mountains of evidence, instead of claiming there exists such evidence. Also, don't call evolution fact as it is still theory. Even evolutionary scientists are beginning to see the flaws of the theory (i don't have a source, however).

    Oh the irony....

    I would like to point out that creationism is also a theory, and disproving evolution does not prove creationism.

  10. My goal was only to point out that the logic he's using is flawed. I really have no interest in whether or not it was 4,000, or 6,000 years ago, or whether logic should be used at all.

    If you're going to use it, use it correctly.

  11. I have a problem with logical thinking in this area though. You can't really apply this in great detail to social, moral and political (etc.) issues. For one person it might be logical, for another it won't, same goes to different cultures.

    Amen to that :blush: People aren't logical, the sooner this is realized, the better you'll become at reading them ;)

    I'm still constantly amazed at some of the crap I see people do....

    So if we look at it that way I think gay legal unions should be allowed, and allowing gay marriages is up to the religion, I'm not going to meddle in that one.

    I agree to a point. Segregation is segregation is segregation, no matter what you call it. Likewise, if gays are going to have 'legal unions'(to completely separate them from religious couplings), then I believe hetero couples should *also* have 'legal unions'.

    In other words, marriages become absolutely nothing more than a ceremony that have no effect whatsoever, outside of allowing two people to feel closer to each other. No legal benefits, nothing. I also believe that common law unions should cover both hetero, and homo, appropriately.

    Words are *very* important, and if not done properly, will allow for a more subtle discrimination that is unfair. This is the reason that most religous people clamor for a separation between marriage and unions for hetero and homo. It still separates them while appeasing them legally, but it's still not equal.

    No, most religious people won't like it, but tough, they'll get used to it. As far as I'm concerned, people are people are people, regardless of race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, and they should *all* be treated equally under the law.

    This is yet another reason TRUE separation of church and state is a Good Thing.

  12. If a woman acts like a lady, then I am chivalrous. If they don't act like a lady, then I am not chivalrous. For instance, getting punched in the face multiple times by a woman means that woman isn't acting very ladylike, and I'd have the right to defend myself.

    LOL. I pretty much agree with you, but the way you said it made me laugh :blush:

    Myself personally, just about the *only* reason I wouldn't smack the bizatch back is because I don't feel like going to jail, and there are too many people that feel the way that Eken does. Obviously my exact relationship will come into play(obviously I'm not going to smack my mum), but, for the most part, I'd make sure she understood that hitting was unacceptable, even if that meant leaving a bruise. I'm not saying beat her into the ground, but don't stand there and take it because you're being 'chivalrous'.

    I believe in equality of men and woman. But I also believe that the equality goes both ways.

  13. Nope, thats not correct. Evolution is a theory and a theory needs only one disproof. The burden is upon those who believe in the theory to show that there is not a single case in which it is not true....now i dont mean you have to go do each star, but it does mean all I need to do is disprove it for ONE SINGLE case to to disprove the theory as it stands.

    That's not logically correct.

    What they're saying:

    There are star(s) in existence that are older than 4,000 years.

    What you're saying.

    *every* star in existence is younger than 4,0000 years.

    In other words, They only have to show that *one* star is older than 4000 years, while you have to show that *all* stars are less than 4,0000 years.

    Unless you're redefining logic, in which case...

×
×
  • Create New...