Sketter

It's black and white cause i was trying to copy something from 1 more to another. and i guess when it crashed it messed up with the clipboard. Was coping tiles. No it did not have the same tile set, however the crash came in this order; Open map. Open new map. Copy a set of tiles about 20x30 tiles in the second map. Open 3rd map. Crash. I hope i was detailed enough. Sketter DCME.log

Left

Yep. I really have nothing to add. He's got it spot on.

I'm sorry, you really can't put a pharmacist in the same category here. One is about human rights, the other is about killing life. There are "rights" involved, but it's to big and complex to tie this and make this a proper comparison to this thread. I would love to comment on the pharmacist issue, but that's totally going off topic. It's probably why everyone above ignored that part of your post. Lets stay on track. Forget this.

You made me smile. I love this part. "Church and state are distinct en!@#$%^&*ies. If you go to work for the state(government of any level) you must be either prepared to uphold state mandates or change jobs." Not to say that the state law is discriminative. Law allows individuates to practice their beliefs inside the work place as long as it does not interfere with the safety of the job, and or the safety and general practices of others, and in some business, customers. By marriage of state, they are asking of service to be recognized (law permitted), and therefore you can not be discriminative to the customers, even if your religion asks you to be, even if you believe it to be. But "if" her faith is catholic, then isn't it wrong to believe an in any religion to begin with. So isn't it morally wrong to provide this service to anyone who isn't catholic? Isn't it wrong to provide the server, if they weren't recognized by any sort of higher power let alone the catholic God? Wouldn't this be then discrimination? It would, and you know it would. And not only that, it is also hypocritical. So what is protecting her rights? She has the right to her own beliefs, just like everyone else. But her beliefs are now discrimination. (and here is a little secret, that you might not actually like, but it is in fact true) Government is (and think about it first) above faith. Yes, yes it is. In this world (or country) that you live in, Law is above all. However delicately they handle it not to cause conflicts, it is reality. I can seriously provide facts and examples, but i want to keep this rant shorter then my last. But if you really want, ask, and I'll provide. But i hope you will seriously think about it first, and not just jump and type down on your first reaction. In the end, what is asked of us all, is not to be discriminative to one another, even if your religion dictates that you should. It doesn't mean what is being asked of you is to believe a different way. If your religion is going to send you to deepest part of the fires of !@#$%^&*, because you were asked to provide a service, (not that you believe in) then that is their prerogative. And some can view that to be struggle of equality recognition within the society of the religion. But in government, equality is what is practiced. It may not be perfect, but that is human. We learn, we fail, we make mistakes, we change to continue the evolution. Change is part of the human evolution. And changes are going to keep happening to everyday life, in all aspects in humanity. If she believes she should not be providing her services, and can find no compromise, then she needs to choose. The country she she is in, or her religion. And it isn't even the government that is asking her to choose, it is her religion. Tell me who is not being fair. Sketter Yes, i wanted feedback on this! <_<

There was a lot of funding that didn't even come from religious groups to push prop 8. My statement was meant more for the government in general, but i guess my statement there was off topic, so fair enough. Well the last part was already commented on. Back then, all there is was religion. The church was law. The church itself WAS a controlling en!@#$%^&*y...the church at one point, was in it's own way GOVERNMENT. There is a lot of history you need to look up when it comes to the ruling hand of the church and what role the church/Pope had for centuries. Back then the government had to answer to the church. Kings and queens in a political way, answered to the church/Pope. This practice is no longer followed. And it took a long time for this change, with small changes first. (and clearly there are still struggles) Look at it this way; the government is no longer a slave, no longer has a master. (Sounds familiar?) Perhaps the principles of the government where founded by religious beliefs, (why not, in some ways the church principles in today are generally acceptable (thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal..)) it certainly does not carry the burden of the church. In today's world, church and government ARE different en!@#$%^&*ies. Founded on principles, is not the same as following the hand of God, just because you based you're rules on a previous existing working system. Government adopted the !@#$%^&*le and use of the word "marriage" Marriage by law, and Marriage by church are similar, but are not the same. (example: By the church you must get "married" in front of god, so you need a pastor, or priest, or religious icon to represent the higher power for acknowledgment. But that alone grants you nothing by government law, unless the government says ok. By law, all you need is a judge. You don't even need any church to say, yes we will acknowledge them as a union. Why can it work one way, but not the other way unless one really has nothing to do with the other...O.o) Because the church had no issues with how government was using "marriage" there was no fighting. Government does not, will not, should not, enforce church to acknowledge same sex marriages, if they do not chose to do so. What gay people want, is the governments acknowledgment as their union together, so that they may have the same equal rights as a non same sex couple, under law. I don't think they could care any less if the church said "we would never hold a gay marriage here" or asking for their approval. This doesn't even come close to the issue. It is about legal rights. In a same sex relationship, if one partner dies, his properties (bank account, land and so on) does not then transfer over to his/her partner. A family member ( who may have cut off his brother or sister because they were gay) then has the legal right to the property.This is just one example, but this is what they are fighting for. If the government never adopted the word "marriage" but still granted the same rights I wounder if that would change anything. Sketter

Prop 8 passed, wow. I thought it wouldn't. Another step backwards for them i guess. People try to tie this issues into the religious beliefs, but as time goes on and on, and as government and religion separate more and more, the issue does not becomes a religious matter, but a cons!@#$%^&*utional right. (Everyone needs to understand that the church and government are DIFFERENT en!@#$%^&*ies, one's law and judgment can not apply to the other) If the cons!@#$%^&*ution permits same sex marriage, then it should be allowed. But what is right, and doing what is right seems to be an issue the States can't seem to grasp You guys have a lot of messed up people in high power, and will still be there even when 09 starts. And the feds will dodge this for as long as they can. It would not be wise for any left wing activist to bring this to federal courts. Not yet. But lets look at it this way. Change is imminent. Who ever knew a black man would be president. Who ever knew a woman would be considered equal as man and able to vote. Who ever knew slavery was wrong, and a black man had rights. Those were the things we considered to be imposable to archive. You can suppress, but you can not remove the dream. It will happen, it just will take time, and effort. I know in Canada Harper can't remove it. Even if he tried to revoke it, it would have to p!@#$%^&* the senate, and there are too many left wings sitting on the senate for that ever to be removed any time soon.

Longer. There really isn't a piratical use for one. It's not a computer where you need one to recive emails, prints, games, shop, bank and so on. There is no vital importance to have Surface other then eye candy. The avg Joe won't be needing one. I'm looking at 5-10 years.

There is still a long way to go before you see Surface (in the manner shown) in the everyday home use. I can see it being used hotel lobbies, work presentation, and so on as a commercial use. The structure of a computer, and what Surface is, are different things.... this is more of a new type of product all together, not another version of a computer. But this is something M$ should keep investing in.

Clearly someone looking for attention. You're thread is completely based as if time stood still. If no one did anything with continuum, and all you had was SVS zones, this game would be dead. And to you, that might as well, but not everyone is stuck in the past. The proof is in the population of these zones (after you subtract the bots of course) and so you completely ignored simple facts. Clearly shows your education in basic accounting. This just sounds like a post that belongs in 1999, some 1 close this and send it back in time.

Doable, just give me what exactly you want in it.

I don't spend my days looking how to get stuff on vista to an XP. Didn't know it could have been done. Now thanks to chambs, I know I can now. If it wasn't for people sharing stuff online and telling one another stuff, no one would know anything. It is interesting to know. People got to stop jumping people just because you already knew about it. Thanks Chambs. Chambs +1 Noobs -1

thank you

To where? auto updates says there is no update 3.4.1.

Shouldn't be hard. Just get in touch with BDE and have them contact Steam, if they're interested. As the old saying goes, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Bde owns subspace, prittk owns continuum......what do u think now?

This came up before. Another community member (i'm sure it was posted on this forum) contacted steam to place Conitnuum on the list. Valve asked for the creators of continuum to contact them for further negotiations on that process. And as the most experience will know, that goes to a dead end on so many levels. It is an ideal idea for low cost, if it only wasn't for the above.

Well said! Nostalgia I think.

The problem with this is that it would then need to be determined if it is in fact an "emergency" situations. In an ER situation the doctors have the right preserve life. But in this cause, it was a scheduled appointment for a cir!@#$%^&*cision. The problem with cancer could have been quite severe, but not at the emergency level. With limited information from the article you can only assume symptoms prior to the incident. I don't think if his penis was in pain or if the patient had complained about problems, he would have asked to get cir!@#$%^&*cised. Doctors lose. As to being left in a vegetative state. You can get around that with a DNR, since the patient would required a feeding tube that can be refused with a DNR. The wife, husband, family (sorry but common laws are rejected by law) can sign one, and the feeding tube would be removed. (also applies for ventilator) And you would die in a matter of days from dehydration. (Yes, this does happen more often then you think. I have witness family first hand getting their feeding tube removed. ( she was 85, had cancer, and already asked not to be kept a alive if her cancer ended up putting her in a coma...which it did. ) And death by this means is never a petty sight. Sketter

The Doctor has no right to remove the penis. There is a reason why paper work is required. Legally, A patent has the right to refuse treatment, even if refusing treatment would be terminal, that is their right. (DNR's is a good example. It is actually a loop hole for a doctor to let some one die, since they take that "do no harm" oath .) Doc should have done his job, then told them what he found. The odds are the doctors will try to settle, and this story will be pushed out of the news. Sketter

I'm not a big user of facebook, and haven't gone over everything There are some good things to the new look. For one, it looks better then the old style. Some of my facebook friends has their profiles filled with stuff and took forever to scroll down to the end of there page just to get to their wall. So they have removed a lot of useless junk viewing someones main page,(now moved to "boxes)" they basically organized it all into tabs. Bad side. I hate the main page. It is poorly organized, and ugly. I also can not for the love of god find my friends groups as easily. Facebook stocking might be more tedious now. There are some layout displays that could be fixed or changed to make it more appealing. Oh and you should be able to attach videos to to poto/albums. I had a camping trip and some vids where made but can't attach them to any albums other then the people. Overall the new look isn't to bad, but it needed some more fixing before forcing everyone to use it. Sketter

I love how sometimes he talks to himself. It's cute Sketter

Doc, well said. But at the same time, I'm sure you can apply those examples to other country's, but none the less food for thought. Here is a trailer of the movie i was talking about. Taxi to the dark side

Do tell us of your experience gitmo. I think a lot of would like to know what exactly you experienced. I know I do. Edit: Has anyone seen "taxi to the dark side" by Alex Gibney? There is some insight of what happens at gitmo. Torrent it, i think it's worth it. Sketter

. . . Are you under a rock?