"Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear 'Muhammad.' "
for those of us using firefox 2, and supremely annoyed at the new way the tabs are handled.. ie, the appearance of stupid scroll buttons and huge tabs.. well, heres the fix, courtesy of ffextensionguru:
In a new tab type about:config in the address bar and press enter or open the about:config editor (if installed).
Copy browser.tabs.tabMinWidth and paste into the filter field
Double click on the entry and enter a number (see below) which specifies the smallest width (in pixels) you want for your tabs.
a number greater than 100 will kick-in tab-overflow with less tabs open, since the minimum tab width is larger.
a number less than 100 will kick-in tab-overflow with more tabs open, since the minimum tab width is smaller.
oh wow, do i have an awesome one to blog.. hoooley.. ok, firstly an apology to joelie.. since, as you may notice, im still awake, and shoulve slept long ago.. but, i got something in the mail.. and so i had to try it out.. and it worked.. which gave me another idea, which in theory worked.. and to make a long story short, i now can use my playstation controller as a mouse in linux!!! tutorial to come soon.. (after one or two sleep cycles.. )
the problem is that we dont find fossils appearing as progressions of organisms in the evolutionary chain.. we find sets of heterogenous, fully functional organisms. which again is ignoring a much much more important question... how do we determine that something is a transitional organism?? because it "looks" like a "lesser evolved" organism? ie, if some fossil shares human characteristics, but also has some uncommon characteristics to humans.. therefore.. its an _ancestor_?? this is filling in the gaps at whim! creationists say, it was all created as is (was). so you pick up a fossil, and can say "yep, thats how it was originally created" whereas the evolutionist has to go and say that since its no longer a living organism, that therefore it was alive "billions and jillions" of years ago, and its obviously an ancestor to that other organism that looks a lot like it.. remember when scientists were still saying we came from neanderthals? turns out, "oops! nop, sorry we meant "distant cousins".. and science is full of these "oopses"
and all that list of "transitional" fossils can possibly show is that, well, there are fossils of organisms that looked like that.. it is then the evolutionist religion that comes in and fills in the gaps to say that these are organisms that then "evolved" and became what we have today.. no evidence, no observation.. ALL conjecture and "guesswork" (cuz its not guessing if your forcing the answer you want it to be)
the magical number at which anything is possible. eg. "it took thousands of years for man to evolve from single celled organisms--" "thousands??" "ok, millions--" "hmm.. i dont know.." "ok, billions and jillions!!" "yeah, i can see that.. makes sense"
cuz you love it when i post stuff that i write to my atheist friends.. (just an excerpt)
so like i told you, i read through the speciation faq.. thanks for the link by the way.. it was very interesting indeed.. however, there was a problem introduced by the text itself, and thats the definition of the word "species". the text shoots itself in the foot due to its own honesty without realizing it. if scientists cant even agree on the definition of species, how do we declare speciation in any of the given examples? (sorry i did gloss over the plant examples, since its even harder to determine a distinct species in plants).
see, this is exactly the problem i have with the whole evolutionary religion. its a lot of taxonomy hopscotch. plus a lot of ignorance as to what creationists actually believe. obviously creationists (who follow the bible at least) NEED to believe in some form of "evolution".. which we call microevolution, because we dont believe that every living organism came from a single celled one.. we believe in variation. one canine can breed another type etc etc.. foxes/wolves into dogs.. horses to zebras.. noahs ark requires this to be true to at least a certain extent (depending on whether it was a world wide flood as scientific evidence suggests, or just a local massive one.. which is an entertained view by some (not myself)) since you have all these baby animals hibernating in this huge ark, but yet we still have all these varied types of animals all over the world.. we do NOT believe that one simpler animal can become a more complex one, without having first had the innate ability/quality in the first place (roaches "evolving" resistance to pesticide would imply a gain of information, whereas we see the death of all roaches who didnt already have that innate ability.. ie, no new information.. actually all information carried by the other roaches not preserved in these is gone). however, the article you gave me to read and from a bit of what i just glanced at the talkorigins "macro-evolution" link, evolutionists loathe the macro vs micro, because they need to be able to claim the virtue of variation as value to their idea that everything came from a single cell. which violates every discipline of science.. math, biology, physics, geology, chemistry, logic...
Wrought and wreaked havoc
Recently, we mentioned that something had wreaked havoc with our PC. We were fairly quickly corrected by someone who said, "Shouldn't that be wrought havoc?" The answer is no, because either wreaked or wrought is fine here. A misconception often arises because wrought is wrongly assumed to be the past participle of wreak. In fact wrought is the past participle of an early version of the word work! Wreak comes from Old English wrecan "drive out, punish, avenge", which derives ultimately from the Indo-European root *wreg- "push, shove, drive, track down". Latin urgere "to urge" comes from the same source, giving English urge. Interestingly, wreak is also related to wrack and wreck. The phrase wreak havoc was first used by Agatha Christie in 1923. Wrought, on the other hand, arose in the 13th century as the past participle of wirchen, Old English for "work". In the 15th century worked came into use as the past participle of work, but wrought survived in such phrases as finely-wrought, hand-wrought, and, of course, wrought havoc . . . . Havoc, by the way, comes from Anglo-French havok, which derived from the phrase crier havot "to cry havoc". This meant "to give the army the order to begin seizing spoil, or to pillage". It is thought that this exclamation was Germanic in origin, but that's all that anyone will say about it! The destruction associated with pillaging came to be applied metaphorically to havoc, giving the word its current meaning.
--The Institute for Etymological Research and Education (http://www.takeourword.com/Issue048.html)
haha this, is indispensable the nerd handbook. i know a guy who this was written almost to the letter about.. haha. check it out.. it will shed a lot of light on what the article calls "the nerd" (and everything in it is oh so true)
so, for those of you having this problem (yeah i seem to be running into too many problems this week.. luckily also their solutions!) if your thunderbird has been giving you a "cannot write to mail file"-type error, and you know this shouldnt be the case.. and you cant then do much more.. and remounting the fs on which your mail resides and deleting the mail index (.msf) file they tell you to doesnt work.. then let me guess, you are sharing your mail file between windows and linux.. am i right? or at least have your mail files on a vfat partition and not linux native ext3 or ext2.. if this is so, then let me save you weeks of hardship and tell you exactly what the problem is (probably). run the following commands [where /dev/hdaX is the partition holding your mail files]:
# if you see any errors reported, you can fix them with:
fsck.vfat -y /dev/hdaX
and that should do it.. tadaaa! anuthah one bites da dust-ah!
does this remind you of something? yeah i understand they arent the same.. but holey geeze, remember how much you saw that thing in "biology" textbooks as supporting "evidence" (or at least illustration) for evolution?? dont you feel kinda cheated? these things looked soo weird and "ancient".. man.. what a crap, seriously.. not to mention the coelacanth ordeal.. "oh yeah its been extinct for millions and billions and jillions of years.. and its where land reptiles evolved from.." and oop! whats this? a live one in south africa? and huh? theyve been eating these things for years?? sheeesh.. so whats up evo people?? whats the dilly? how many of these living fossils will we have to find for people to finally say "ah ok.. fine.. you got us.. life on earth isnt really that old. and therefore obviously macro evolution cannot be true.. GOTCHA!!" ?? i suspect never, humans are to proud to recognize their faults. especially if it means acknowledging that they will have to face their creator and judge at the end of their life. (and suddenly realizing all the stuff theyve done they will have to account for.. and no more lack of responsability for their actions and decisions.. )
2. Mix together some lemon juice, vinegar and salt. Smell the mixture. The fumes should stop the bleeding.
that one is dedicated to bahb for requesting the continuation of postage.. and to dean for asking me how to stop a nose bleed, and me trying to remember that there was something you could smell to stop it..