Merry Christmas!

I thank all of those who read my blog! Merry Christmas! And my Christmas gift to thee? No drivel to read! :) err.. something like that... May the reason for the season bestow grace and mercy upon you and yours during this joyous occasion!

Creator of Linux defends its originality

Linus Torvalds, creator of the popular Linux computer operating system, defended his work Monday as not always lovely but original--and certainly not copied, as a Utah company has contended. ... SCO has for months made the broad claim that Linux included large chunks of copied Unix code. But the letters being sent out--urging companies to stop using Linux or to pay SCO license fees--listed for the first time more than 65 software files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code and contributed to Linux." ... ... The files listed in SCO's letter are written in the C programming language. Citing two files, "include/linux/ctype.h" and "lib/ctype.h," Torvalds said "some trivial digging shows that those files are actually there in the original 0.01 distribution of Linux" in September 1991. "I wrote them," Torvalds noted, "and looking at the original ones, I'm a bit ashamed." ... ... He observed that some of the macros, or programming shortcuts, are "so horribly ugly that I wouldn't admit to writing them if it wasn't because somebody else claimed to have done so ;)"--ending his comment with the e-mail symbol for winking and smiling. ... ____________________ Generally, in a copyright ownership dispute, if you can prove the 'process' by which the work was created, you've pretty much won the dispute. "Here is my original work, and here is revision B,C,D, & E along with this final revision." I think Linus has the documentation to 'prove' he's the originator of the Linux kernel. Along the same lines, Novell Inc. is reasserting the claim that it, and not The SCO Group Inc., owns the copyright to the Unix System V source code that has been at the heart of a protracted dispute between SCO and the Linux community. ... ... Novell purchased rights to the Unix System V code for $150 million from AT&T Corp. in 1992, but later sold the Unix rights, which were eventually acquired by SCO. In May, Novell said that it had retained copyright over the Unix source code, but seemed to back off this claim after SCO produced a 1996 contract amendment that appeared to grant it the Unix copyright. The amendment "appears to support SCO's claim that ownership of certain copyrights for Unix did transfer to SCO in 1996," Novell said at the time. ... ... But Novell clearly hasn't given up the fight over copyright ownership. In addition to the media statement, the company also provided copies of correspondence between Joseph A. LaSala Jr., Novell's vice president, general counsel and secretary, and SCO, which argued that the amendment provided for a copyright transfer only under certain conditions and that SCO had failed to meet those conditions ... ... McBride (SCO Group's CEO) accused Novell of registering the Unix copyright in order to help IBM with an ongoing legal dispute between SCO and IBM. "Very clearly, they're getting money funded to them by IBM right now," he said, referring to a recent $50 million IBM investment in Novell. "We get a lot of communications that come from Novell where they CC IBM." ... ... Whatever Novell's motivation, its latest moves help IBM with its court case, Byer said. "IBM can now wave around SCO's registration and say, 'They don't own this at all,' and that means that SCO will have to put up more proof," he said. "It's an effective trial prop for IBM." ... ____________________ Well... duh? Yes, that was a smart move, especially if Novell can 'prove' they own it (the jury is still out on that one :)). They can finally put this issue to rest. It's the SCO's fault for not enforcing the copyright from the very start. We need to have the copyright law state (in one form or fashion) that if you don't enforce your copyright, you lose it - period. This is the same issue with the .jpg & .mp3 file formats. No one tried enforcing copyrights until those file types were so widely used. It basically rendered those file types as public domain. Ok, SCO - get over it. You were/are a dying company. Be dead, already! Look at Disney. The time was coming (and passed) that their precious copyrighted characters were about to step into the public domain - so Disney bought a Senator or two and received 25 extra years on their copyright. Umm.... so what's gonna happen when those copyrights are up? Buy another Senator? That's ludicrous. I think the SCO needs to pay me for having to read and hear (on the news) about their last, sorry efforts to make money. I think the time has come and gone to enforce the Unix copyright. At best, they could (if they really are the owners - still out for debate - albeit, not much of a debate...) start charging for any new usage of "their" code.... But what happens when its proven they are not the owners??? It's a waiting game.... gak.

Freedom Tower to rise 1,776 feet from ashes

Antenna raises structure's height to more than 2,000 feet NEW YORK (CNN) -- The Freedom Tower to be built at the site of the devastated World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan is still planned as the world's tallest building, according to a revised model unveiled Friday by the architects collaborating on its design.

Welcome to Narnia

Tolkein's good friend, CS Lewis, also wrote a good series of books entitled The Chronicles of Narnia. This too will be made into 5 movies (yes there are 7 books - not sure why 5 movies offhand). I am looking forward to them. Of course, I will be more strict in how I would like the movies to be made (hehe - as if I had input...) The Chronicles of Narnia is a series that is Biblical Allegory. The basic things they should not change is the allegorical meanings.... We shall see....

Emails of the YEAR!

Reversed for easy reading "-----Original Message----- From: Mr. A Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 10:59 AM To: Mr. J Cc: Mr. C Subject: Mr J Hey man, I just want to let you know that we here in tech support believe Nancy Z, from < Customer Company Name >, acct. # < Customer Account Number > has become a resource hog. Furthermore, we think she is either 1, using us for presales advice and then buying from another source, or 2, has purchased product from another < company >, and is calling our support team for trouble shooting guidance. Her last invoice is dated 11/11/03 yet she has called in 8 times since then looking for support on other items. We generally don't complain about that but it seems this woman is quite rude at times. We always act professional yet she seems to be on the war path. If she continues, we may begin to play hardball ourselves. I mean their company has done 17k worth of business since Jan 1. Not a big customer on your end, but a frequent flier on ours, with a tude. Just giving you a heads up that's all. I you want to call her on this we certainly have the documentation to back it up. See ya, tough guy. A- Mr. A < Company Name > Technical Support Mgr. < Phone Number > -----Original Message----- From: Mr. J Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:34 AM To: Mr. D Subject: FW: Mr J Mr D, Nancy strikes again. Can we tell a customer that we don't want to do business with them. or can we start charging for her tech support calls? Mr. J < Company Name > Sales < Phone Number > < Fax Number > < email > -----Original Message----- From: Mr. D Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:52 PM To: Mr. M Cc: Mr J Subject: #< Customer Account Number > < Customer Company Name > Mr. M, Is it OK to stop doing business with this customer? Based on their revenue vs. required support, I do not see where we turn a profit on them. If you approve this, I will make sure everything is clean in Credit before we do so. Thanks! From: Mr. M Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:29 AM To: Mr. D Cc: Mr. J; Mr A Subject: RE: #< Customer Account Number > < Customer Company Name > We should probably fire this customer in the same way that we fired < Customer R >........ Tell her that moving forward all support calls will be invoiced at a rate of $30 per call. For every $5K of business she does with us she can have one call -- bitching not included, for every $20K she gets one call --- limited bitching included.. And if she does $1MM or more, she can bitch all she wants.. " The names were changed to protect me and my job. :) Please forgive some of the wording. I left all the words (except proper names and information) in their original form. Wouldn't you love to do this with your worst customer? hehe Tech Support Call: $30 Smacking down your customer when they cross the line: $50 Firing your customer: Priceless

The Towers Are The Players

Albino Black Sheep presents: The Towers Are The Players. Very funny!

Newseum Front Page Headlines From Around The World

Pretty cool site. You can view headlines from newspapers from all around the world in different languages. Check out the PDF of today's Wall Street Journal headlines: http://www.newseum.org/media/dfp/pdf17/WSJE.pdf Coo...

12 Days of Christmas Cost Index

PITTSBURGH, Dec. 8, 2003 – While stiff import competition is driving deeper discounts on merchandise sold in the United States, skilled labor cost is on the rise, resulting in a 16 percent increase in this year’s PNC Advisors Christmas Price Index – the biggest jump the Index has seen in its 19-year history. Each year since 1984, PNC Advisors has provided a tongue-in-cheek economic analysis, based on the cost of the goods and services purchased by the True Love in the holiday classic, “The Twelve Days of Christmas.” Indeed, the cost of the five gold rings dropped by 5.6 percent, and the pear tree is down a full 28.6 percent from last year. However, these discounts were offset by the dancers, pipers and drummers who have seen significant increases in the cost of their services over 2002. If you want to read more, click here.

Old Family Picture

Below is a picture of my Dad's family. My Grandfather (pictured on the left) set the camera for delay then rushed to sit down. My dad is the boy sitting on the right. It's quite the unique picture. It think it's just a cool pic!

Call centres 'bad for India'

The mass transfer of call centre jobs from Europe and North America to India is bad for the subcontinent, a leading Indian newspaper writer has warned. The huge growth in India's call centre industry was highlighted again last week, as British company Norwich Union announced they would be cutting 2,350 UK jobs and relocating them. "They work extremely long hours badly paid, in extremely stressful conditions, and most have absolutely no opportunities for any kind of advancement in their careers," Mr Bidwai told BBC World Service's One Planet programme. "It's a dead end, it's a complete cul-de-sac. It's a perfect sweatshop scenario, except that you're working with computers and electronic equipment rather than looms or whatever." hmm... sounds like... err.. if you know me, you'd know what I was about to say :) hehe j/k

Wireless Doc

I found a neat blog regarding technology & the medical industry. "My source of greatest satisfaction has been my involvement with implementing new systems and technology." Bill Koslosky, M.D. This is an interesting read. His bio page is umm... deep, but somewhat broad. He sounds like a smart fellow....

Left Behind: Review....sorta....

Wow! Have I found a live one! I found a blog in which an extreme critique of the Left Behind series takes place. The critique(r) is on Left Behind, pp. 25-27. There are some good/valid points throughout his critique. For instance, he mentions our hero's (Rayford Steele) plane loses 50 passengers, and they do not know what happened to them. RS radio's to another plane (coming from another direction) who knows exactly what is going on while RS never heard a thing on the radio until he initiates a call. The critique(r) also points out "LaHaye and Jenkins would have us believe that nearly 50 born-again, evangelical Christian millionaires were visiting Paris and were willing and able to spare no expense to return to New York City as fast, and in as much luxury, as humanly possible. This seems unlikely." I see his point. He moves on to say "The Concorde pilot is at least thinking straight. He compares the disappearances to: ... the old Star Trek shows where people got dematerialized and rematerialized, beamed all over the place. It was about time somebody mentioned this. Even if you're not Jim Trafficant or a fluent-in-Klingon obsessive, if you see people everywhere suddenly beam up and disappear, one of your first mental reference points is going to be remembering those transporter scenes from Star Trek. Your next logical thought should be that this would seem to imply someone, somewhere, doing the actual transporting and you might start scanning the sky for the mothership. No one in LB does this, however, because as already noted, all the characters in this story have read the book jacket and they know they're in a story about the rapture." It is obvious the critique(r) is not a believer. "Rapture enthusiasts stake their hopes on being whisked off to heaven like Enoch or Elijah. Technically, I suppose, that patriarch and prophet didn't "die," but this seems a rather fine distinction. L&J's raptured saints have taken their mortal coils with them, but they have still shuffled off; they have met their maker; they have joined the choir invisible; their earthly life has ended and they rest in peace. L&J cling to the hope that there is a shortcut from life to resurrection without that messy step in between." He needs to study the Bible. But when you study the Bible, remember 3 things: context, context, context The reason so many views about the Bible are skewed is too many people super-impose their own presupposition or pre-existing philosophy and apply it to the Bible - instead of allowing the Bible tell you exactly what it means. In regards to "People everywhere have disappeared. Orly lost air-traffic controllers and ground controllers. Some planes have lost flight crews. Where it's daylight there are car pileups, chaos everywhere. Planes down all over and at every major airport. ..." Someone makes this comment: "On the rapturing of air traffic controllers and flight crews...do the people who disappear believe/know their rapturing is imminent? It just seems to me that, if they did believe/know it, they shouldn't have been working in jobs where their disappearance would endanger others. Planes are crashing because bozos like this are being assumed into heaven? Knowingly putting other people in danger ought to automatically disqualify one from being raptured." Interesting statement. In some ways it's a good point, but others it's misworded at best. The commentor should have phrased it as "Knowingly putting other people in danger ought to automatically disqualify one from being a controller." But anyway, their points are hit or miss. Remember nonbelievers are going to think the 'Rapture' (and the like) is ludicrous and 'way out there'. But I say, does anyone believe in the 'Big Bang' theory? :) Anyway, take it or leave it, folks. The critique(r) seems not to have much to do during the day except being nit-picky about a ficticious book (even though the basis of the book is suppose to be biblical) - nonetheless it is fiction - nothing more than a good read.

Saddam's Capture

Dec. 14: Captured former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein pauses while talking in Baghdad Dec. 14: Captured former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein undergoes medical examinations in Baghdad. Dec. 14: Saddam Hussein is pictured in coalition custody. Want to see more pics? Click here. BTW - Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason President Bush Sr always called Saddam (sadd-em) was Saddam (Sadahm) means 'high and exalted one' within his own language and Saddam (sadd-em) means 'dirty feet' hehe - doh!

Flaw That Could Help Fraudsters Create Fake Web Sites

"Danish information security consulting firm Secunia ... says it has found an "input validation" error in Internet Explorer. By exploiting this vulnerability, known as a URL-spoofing vulnerability, attackers can display any URL name they wish in the address and status bars of IE." Microsoft Internet Explorer Multiple Basically, be careful when you end up at a site that it is the right site. Otherwise, you might as well give your account numbers and passwords to people so they can take your money and whatever else.... The point? Just be Cautious. Careful. blah, blah, blah.

Study: Windows 98 prevalent as end of support looms

Microsoft will end support for Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition on Jan. 16 "AssetMetrix Inc., an Ottawa-based IT asset analysis tool vendor, collected data on more than 370,000 PCs from 670 businesses in the U.S. and Canada. It found that 80% of those companies have at least one PC running either Windows 95 or Windows 98. The older operating systems accounted for about 27% of operating systems found." Basically, any form of support for Win98 is gone Jan. 16. FREEWARE!! ok. Maybe not.

Part Three: Lord of the Rings by Douglas Wilson

I wanted to express the two previous posts before I shared this one. We need to understand Tolkein's biography. We need to understand what motivated him from which his writings came. "J.R.R. Tolkien had an objection, which he shared with C.S. Lewis, to those people who tried to understand works of literature as mere extension of the author's biography. While this is reasonable, we cannot simply dismiss the outline of someone's life as irrelevant to the work they do. ... ... in Africa, when he was first beginning to walk, he was bitten by a tarantula and ran terrified to a nurse who sucked out the poison. He said this left him with no particular fear of spiders, but perhaps it left him with a peculiar awareness of them. It ought to have ... Tolkien and his brother were once chased out of a field by a farmer they called the "Black Ogre," who was displeased at their picking of his mushrooms. A nearby inventor of cotton-wool dressing was named Dr. Gamgee, and so cotton wool was called gamgee. ... ... Tolkien grew up without a father, but under the influence of a gracious, cultivated mother. The small family was not wealthy, but his mother knew Latin, French, and German, and was artistic in her gifts. Tolkien, as we all know by now, was brilliant, and had the kind of upbringing which could frequently leave him alone with his own thoughts—including in his case, invented languages. He loved the sounds of words. ... ... Tolkien made his acquaintance with Anglo-Saxon—a language which combines in a strange way the familial and the remote, both characteristics of Tolkien's writing. ... ... 'There was a custom at King Edward's of holding a debate entirely in Latin, but that was almost too easy for Tolkien, and in one debate when taking the role of Greek Ambassador to the Senate he spoke entirely in Greek. On another occasion he astonished his schoolfellows when, in the character of a barbarian envoy, he broke into fluent Gothic; and on a third occasion he spoke in Anglo-Saxon.' ... ... in the First World War ... Tolkien saw ... the Mordor of modernity. ... Tolkien never forgot what he called the 'animal horror' of trench warfare. The modern age clanks, grinds, and devours. ... ... It was at Oxford that he met C.S. Lewis. The two men were wary of one another at first. Lewis wrote in his journal, 'No harm in him: only needs a smack or so.' ... ... England had no mythology, unlike the Scandinavian nations, and unlike the Mediterranean nations. Tolkien's avowed aim was to write one. But 'inventing' for him was more a matter of 'finding out.' 'Is all this true?' he was once asked. 'One hopes,' he replied. According to Tolkien, the writer does not bring things into existence; he finds. When he finds, he assembles. But as a sub-creator, under God, he never creates ex nihilo.' ..." But now, as we focus on the epic Lord of the Rings.... "... The whole point of magic is the manipulation of matter in order to acquire power, which is the lust that makes magicians and other assorted alchemists do what they do. But the world of The Lord of the Rings is the reverse of this—if anything, the good guys represent a photo-negative of this kind of magic. The ring of power is the ultimate symbol of magic in the traditional sense, and the whole point of the book is to destroy it, resisting all temptations to use it. ... ... Some Christians are troubled by the apparent absence of God. Part of the problem that Tolkien had with the Arthurian stories is that they were explicitly set within the Christian era, and this made the "remoteness" which he wanted for dramatic reasons impossible. The long-ago-ness and far-away-ness would not have been long enough ago, or far enough away. But God was not excluded because of any embarrassment. At the ultimate level in the mythology (in the Silmarillion), God necessarily fills the place that only He can fill—and His name is Illuvatar. He is the only Creator. And this is why, as one said, that God is nowhere mentioned in The Lord of the Rings, but everywhere present—although Faramir does say grace once. ... ... Mankind is represented in a realistic and complex way, and clearly bears the imago Dei. Recall that Elves "represent really Men with greatly enhanced aesthetic and creative faculties, great beauty and longer life, and nobility—the Elder Children" (Letters, p. 176.). They are biologically one with men, which is why they can and do intermarry with men. And this means that Orcs are corruptions of Elves (Letters, pp. 178, 191, 287), representations of man's potential for sin. Tolkien goes so far as to say that many men "to be met today" are as horribly corrupted as the Orcs are (p. 190). The hobbits are also men. "The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race" (Letters, p. 158). This is why they can dwell with the Big Folk at Bree. For Tolkien, they represent the sturdy heroism of ordinary men. The only "children" of middle earth who are not men in some way are the dwarves. ... ... No virtue (or fault) is ever found in a transitive verb. We do not know if someone is virtuous simply because they "love." What do they love? Or that they are wicked if they "hate." What do they hate? When literature like The Lord of the Rings is criticized, it is often attacked for being "escapist." This means we should ask a question. What is being escaped from? As Tolkien once put it, the people who are so concerned about escapism do have a name—we call them jailers. "

Part Two: The Meaning Of Magic by Jared Miller

To follow up on my last post (Part One: Potter's Magic by Ben Merkle), I wanted to express my viewpoint on "Magic". I am using the articles to express what I think because the authors of the articles articulate it better. "The practice and description of magic does not alarm me; more alarming is the fact that we possess a category for "magic" in our heads and don't have the foggiest idea of what it means. If the use of magic in literature is to become a bone of contention in Christian circles, we at least had better know what we are talking about. ... ... Perhaps we could think of it as any means of control or knowledge which makes use of "supernatural" beings or forces. ... Such an idea is as problematic as the idea of "supernatural" itself--we so often assume that nature is an inflexible, frictionless atom billiard-table, cheerfully banging away until some observing spirit (possibly a human spirit) doesn't like what he sees and intervenes, causing a brief jumble until the machinery takes over once more. If this is the case, as Lewis once pointed out, you would be performing magic every time you move your hand or think a thought. The Christian, who believes in concurrent Providence, must also admit on this definition that everything is magical, because all events and causes are a direct exertion of the power and will of a supernatural God—but what good is a term that denotes "everything"? Furthermore, how can this view distinguish "magic" from "miracle"? ... ... As one might expect, much of the magical phenomenon in literature is merely a reflection of the culture's perception of magic in the historical sense: thus Faust and the clichéd Shakespearean witch. But we also find misfits: fairies, elves, Merlin, Galadriel—representatives of an earthy, personal sort of power over matter and spirit, proceeding from both something good in itself but capable of corruption, something intuitive, creative, and artistic, which is neither a supernatural intrusion nor a mechanical lever-pull. It is something like a creaturely imitation of God's creation, providence, incarnation, and efficacious grace. Tolkien and Lewis took great care to distinguish it from "magic," and we should pay them the complement of believing them. ... ... They are not describing heterodox sources or means of power; they are translating orthodoxy into another realm, consistent within itself, so that we might experience it afresh. ..."

Part One: Potter's Magic by Ben Merkle

A good discussion has risen about Harry Potter and LOTR (and even D&D has been thrown in) here at work. I thought I'd pass the discussion on. I am highlighting quite a bit of the article to which I linked. I think it explains our discussion. To give background to the discussion, we have two viewpoints - mine is the same the article points out and the other viewpoint is "Magic is bad. Period." To sum up my viewpoint: Basically, there are stories of "magic" in both the OT and NT. Saul sought help from a witch of Endor (1 Sam 28:7). Paul faced a couple in the book of Acts. There are witches in Scripture who did "magic." But one can look at some OT prophets and NT apostles and say that they did "magic." So the point is not that they do magic. The point is from whom their "magic" comes. In LOTR, those who get their magic from Sauron are shown to be evil. they are NOT shown to be good. Gandalf and the elvish "magic" are from the creator which is what you learn if you read The Silmarillion. So Tolkein was not making black magic look good and good magic look evil. he was handling it biblically. That's the short of it. Read on for the deeper length of it. "An amused DJ on a local classic rock station reported on a pastor in New Mexico who had organized a Harry Potter book burning. Apparently the pastor had claimed that the books taught children to do magic. How accurate the DJ was being in his representation of the event is probably questionable, but the existence of the event points out how typical it is for evangelicals to grab the entirely wrong end of the stick. ... ... Most of the defenders of the Potter books attempt to defend them by arguing that they are more or less "harmless." And this is where the real problem with the book comes in. For the most part, the book is harmless. Not only that, but, for the most part, the magic is harmless. The magic of Potter is frequently a cheap mimicry of modern technology. Little magicians covet the latest model of flying broom (the Nimbus 2000), eat Jelly Beans that taste like ear wax, and agonize over their homework for courses like Levitation 101. In the Potter books, an encounter with magic is not an encounter with the transcendent, but merely a mimicry of the pedantic. ... ... This is where the book becomes dangerous. Magic is anything but pedantic. ... ... Potter's magic is a magic for materialists. It is a magic that comes from nowhere and leads to nowhere. It attempts to make magic a neutral category that can be approached however one wishes. Everyone gets a degree from the same school and does with it whatever he or she deems fit. But the magic itself is impersonal. Sure there is a hero and an arch-villain. But they both draw from the same neutral force. And it would seem that this impersonal force could probably care less whether either of them existed, let alone which one of them was to win. ... ... This is one of the things that Tolkien did well. His magic is always personal. The Forest of Lothlorien feels the way it does, because it is under the power of Lady Galadriel. Mordor feels the way it does because it is under the power of Sauron. One can't use magic in Middle Earth without immediately orienting oneself to cosmic powers. Every spell is biased. It comes from somewhere and leads to some ultimate purpose. ... ... Consequently, Harry Potter doesn't need to be burned, unless of course we are going to burn the bulk of our literature collections. He's a fine read for a Christian, so long as we pity all the things that the book is missing."

How Stuff Works

Have you ever used something and wondered, "How does this thing work? Well, there is a place you can visit (virtually) that explains how your cable modem works, or how microwaves work or even radios work. The topics include: ComputerStuff AutoStuff ElectronicsStuff ScienceStuff HomeStuff EntertainmentStuff HealthStuff MoneyStuff TravelStuff PeopleStuff Enjoy!

Strange Homes

Thanks to Boing Boing, I found this interesting site about The Mushroom House. There are two versions of the site - FLASH or HTML. The FLASH site is pretty cool. That's pretty wild it took 22 years to make this house. I wonder if they made The Shire too? :)

Peter Jackson

I was checking out Peter Jackson, the director of the LOTR trilogy. He has done some pretty strange/weird movies - mostly horror types. His next big project? King Kong. Then when KK is done he's considering the prequel to LOTR, The Hobbit.

The Case for OSS (in other countries)

Check out the case for OSS. Windows isn't for everyone, especially at the current price point M$ has slated. Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting viewpoint....

DVD Aficionado!

ok - Here's My DVD List at DVD Aficionado. Now to start cataloguing my PS2 games....

DVD Collections

Just recently I began to look at my ever expanding collection of DVDs. I remember when Digital Video Discs were being invented. I heard all the hype and wondered if they would ever catch on. They did. And 47 DVD sets later, I am still going strong. Let me see.... I don't have the collection in front of me, but I'll give a whirl in trying to think of the titles.... Anna and the King - Excellent remake of The King and I Annie - Good remake of a classic Bed of Roses - gak!! suppose to be a chick flick, but we're planning to get rid of it - so my collection? 47-1 Bugs Life - Funny, funny Chicken Run - Funny Clear and Present Danger - Good suspence Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) 2nd Season - One of my fav programs Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon Drunken Master - I love Kung-Fu Fighting! Family Man - Ho Hum... It's ok (Chick Flick) hehe Frequency - Intriguing story about life choices Gladiator - Great story - incredible graphics Ice Age - Cute, sorta funny movie Jonah - Veggie Tales - Trying to get our 'kid friendly' DVD collection going Jurassic Park - Loved it Jurassic Park 3 - Can we say 'smackendy-doich?' Knight's Tale - If you're a history purist - it's not for you Little Princess - Shirley Temple - Old classic LOTR - Need I say more? LOTR: Two Towers - wow. Matrix - Great action flick - awesome effects Matrix: Reloaded - ditto Michael Jordan: To the Max - I like b-ball & MJ Mission Impossible - Decent remake, it turned out to be 'Hi~ I'm Tom Cruise' kinda flick - although it was good... Monsters Inc - Funny movie Mummy - Good stuff Mummy 2 - Even better National Geographic: LOTR - Interesting history on LOTR & Tolkein Patriot - Great action flick - Classic Mel Gibson Pearl Harbor - Good story - too long - shoulda cut the 'love story' which made it too cheesy Peter Pan - Disney Quigley: Down Under - Very funny Tom Selleck movie - "Wow. That's good shootin', Tex." Recruit - Great action - good twists Reign of Fire - Not my first choice in movies, but it's ok Road to Perdition - Good/Sad drama movie - I loved it Sabrina - Good/Funny remake of a classic Shrek - hehe Signs - It's amazing what you'll find at yard sales.... Sixth Sense - Good suspense Snow White - Disney Spiderman - Another good adaptation of the comic book Superman - Great classic Swiss Family Robinson - Great adventure of a family Time Machine - Different, but good adaptation of the classic Toy Story - Funny, funny - great animation TS 2 - ditto Unbreakable - Another good suspense Xmen - Great adaptation of the comic book Hmm... I still have 1 or 2 that my bro borrowed. I forget which ones. I still have some more I want to get to add to my collection So roughly, that's 48 DVD sets and 70+ Discs

Yahoo! Sets Up Christmas Tree With Internet Receiver

Yahoo.com has set up a Christmas tree in Herald Square with a wireless Internet receiver on top. "And every shopper who logs on to the wireless tree gets an ornament with his or her name on it. Yahoo! will donate $5 to the Salvation Army on behalf of each user." Neat idea....

Blogshares Down.... Permanently!

Blogshares Down Bummer. That was a fun service. Oh well. Such is the life of technology....

As date with Supreme Court nears, man seeking pledge ban is relentless - Part 2

Mr. Michael Newdow says "I'm for the country as much as anybody,'' said Newdow, 50. ``But I'm for the Constitution." Wait a moment. Take a look at my first comment in my last post: "When it comes interpreting The Bill of Rights (and other such documents), you must interpret them by the language (and the use thereof) during the time period written. In other words - stop trying to place our particular modern meaning of a word to a word that does not mean that specific meaning b/c of the time period it was originally used (the word meant something different than it does today)." When you look at old documents (such as the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or anything else), you need to read the document in the vernacular the authors wrote. When the authors penned the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), they meant that the government has no jurisdiction dictating what the religious realm can or can not do. They did not mean that the religious realm can not have an influence on government. Think for a moment about our laws. From where do laws come? Opinions? I say, 'no.' From where does moral conduct come? Opinions? I say, 'no.' If that were true, then how do we know which 'opinion' is right? How would we know what is right and what is not right? (See previous post). If our laws are based on opinions and not absolutes, then what validates them? Or what legitimizes them? My point? Religion must have an influence. Whether you want to admit it or not, your philosophical/theological standpoint influences everything you do. Whether you believe in God or whether you are an atheist. Atheism is a religion. Just as any Theism is a religion. The basic idea of religion is a belief in "powers that control human destiny." Most Atheists still believe they are in control of their own destiny or fate - of which they place themselves as a god - thereby they can not be an atheist, but an agnostic theist. err.. something like that. You could look at Mr. Michael Newdow (and others like him) as an oxymoron. He's trying to take out the very thing he (indirectly) claims to be - god. Why is 'In God We Trust' so disturbing to him? Can't he just say, 'I trust in myself' ? Just another course in food for thought.... (I may say something more later)

As date with Supreme Court nears, man seeking pledge ban is relentless

DRIVE AGAINST `UNDER GOD' ONE FACET OF HIS LEGAL EFFORTS. Wow. What a crock. What is this guy smoking? When it comes interpreting The Bill of Rights (and other such documents), you must interpret them by the language (and the use thereof) during the time period written. In other words - stop trying to place our particular modern meaning of a word to a word that does not mean that specific meaning b/c of the time period it was originally used (the word meant something different than it does today). I have decided to change the topic from what I've just said to what I'm about to say It is typical for people to say, I'll believe in God if you can 'prove' that he exists using reason and science. But God is a foundational concept, an ultimate criterion--for believers he is the way we explain and understand everything. Therefore, he cannot be proven any more than skeptics (ie - our dear Mr. Michael Newdow) can 'prove' their foundation, their 'ultimate criterion'--namely that through reason and science we must explain and understand everything. No one can 'prove' an ultimate criterion for truth without using it (or using another one). For example, if you say, "we can only be sure of what scientific observation proves" we can ask, "how do you know that, how can you 'prove' that?" You can't. Foundational concepts are assumed, and used to understand the world we see. Therefore, the way we test one foundation over another is by asking: "which view of the universe explains rationally what we see?" That is how we test scientific theories about entities that are not observable (such as quarks)--that is also how we test faith-based worldviews, which we all have (including our dear Mr. Michael Newdow - he has faith that God does not exist). When we put the theistic (believing in God) world view up against the non-theistic world view, we see that it makes much more sense of four things we see: matter, morals, mind, music. Let's take a quick look at morals. What do we see? That we recognize some behavior as wrong absolutely, not just as a matter of opinion or taste or culture. If there is a God, the universal experience of a moral obligation, of moral outrage would be perfectly rational and expected. If there is not a God, we would not expect them at all. These things are (in a non-theistic world view) difficult to account for yet impossible to live without. When the secularist says, "well, though there's no God, some things are definitely wrong!" that means that though the Christian world view DOES lead to expect this experience and conviction, and your world view leads you to expect the opposite, you are simply going to hold to your theory anyway. But if your premise/theory--that there is no God--does not lead you to expect what we know (that some things are wrong, that some laws are unjust despite what the populace says)--why not change the premise? If God does exist, we can see that there is a true basis for morals. But if God does not exist, then what makes our morals (and thereby laws - laws are based on morals) legit? If morals are not based on absolutes (ie - God exists), then what makes one opinion more right than another? How do we know what is right? The funny thing is a person who says there is no God is asserting himself to know more than anyone else (General public assumption is 'God exists'). You also assert that without any question everyone who believes there is a God is wrong. Since you can't prove there is no God, you are at best an Agnostic b/c you can only ask 'is there a God?' The Bible says, "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork." The Bible does not try to prove there is a God. It simply assumes He exists. The Bible then explains what and how He does the things He does. Just food for thought...

Disneyland Ride Kills Rider...

"Poor maintenance blamed for coaster crash" at Disneyland. "'Our own analysis found that the accident was caused by incorrectly performed maintenance tasks required by Disneyland policy and procedures that resulted in a mechanical failure...' ... Less than an hour before the accident a third train was added to the ride. The train had not been in use since it underwent routine maintenance three days earlier. The report found that workers had erroneously failed to tighten two screws properly." uhh.... I can understand cutting costs, folks, but "Don't tighten that screw" is a little, uhh... let me see.... stupid!!!