I would like an avatar from Charlie. I need something unique and interesting, you may decide whatever you think this should be. If you choose to include animation, use only very simple animations please.
EDIT:
How about this one.
About half the files that i-tunes found for my library wre on a hard-drive that got fried. They're still on my Ipod tho. Is there any way to get them off my I-pod back onto my harddrive and then library without I-tunes whiping them from my Ipod when I plug it in.
When you purchase a new computer from X vendor, while you are paying a reduced rate, you are still paying for a Windows license.
So I assume you DIY for all your comps (which isn't unheard of, just wondering)?
And while WMV can be played in Linux, it is illegal to do so.
What's happening is, that the site disallows the accessing of those contents on a Linux platform. So unless you're using Opera, which has the ability to Mask as Firefox under Windows, you can't access it on a Linux computer.
I know what's happening, but like I said before, I seriously doubt that they actually have an anti-linux agenda, and its more likely that they have stupid IT people.
Your library should be in My Documents\My Music\iTunes\iTunes Music, save the itunes music folder (which should have other folders in it, which is your music, to a cd or thumb drive. Then boot up your sister's account, and take the folder off the cd or thumb drive, now it is in the right part of you comp.
Friend me up please. I play Piano and Tenor and Alto sax. When I'm on the piano i like to play classical music, but I like jazz on the sax. I'm also in a blues/rock/jam band where I play keyboard.
So, we should allow Linux users to be treated as second-class citizens for not paying their $200 tribute to Microsoft.
You've actually bought windows by itself? Not just got it on you comp? Also, its doesn't seem like linux users are being actively discriminated. However, I don't know enough about the file formats to really tell, but I will soon *turns on wikipedia*.
1. point no we weren't seeing how the laws that were put into place were based on religious views. What are founding father didn't want is the government being able to tell them how to worship or the church taking over the government that did not mean that they through out there religious beliefs.
Of course they didn't throw out their religious beliefs, but they did try to make sure religious doctrines couldn't influence the government.
2. There are people out there that are not religious who do not agree with it therefore it is completly a moral objection. There are plenty of laws that are there based on moral objections. murder, rape, stealing, voilence. the people that do these things think they are in the right but they are not do to the moral objection of society. Some of the greatest serial killers thought they were right in what they did. Society thought otherwise. moral objection
The crimes you mentioned are crimes not just because of moral objection. They help protect the citizens of a nation. You need to go back and realize that just because there are moral objections against certain things doesn't mean that that's the reason these certain things are not allowed.
3. Again they have the right to marry under the guidance of the law. just like everyone else has rights under the law.
Seeing as marriage isn't defined in the constitution, and thus, isn't nessicarily between a man and a woman, they currently don't have the equal right to marry.
5. as for science they have not proofed me wrong. science has yet to determine or publish anything of proof that says you are born gay. while enviroment i believe has more to do with it. it is still a choice just like everything else. and if psychological condition is a factor then that brings up a whole new arguement on gay adoption and its affect on children.
Just like there is no proof that gay couples are so called "bad parents."
6. WHile i have not seen those movies in peticular they are probably the most extreme version trying to prove your point. i have heard and seen other men and women who were gay turn from it. they are happy and are living full and substantial lives as well. some with religion others without it. your point is mute.
How can you be sure they're happy, people can be very good at hiding their true emotions. What about in the 50s and 60s where gays would marry straight? Sure, they said said they were happy, and everybody thought they were, but that turned out to be not so true.
7. some sort of union or ceremony has been around. it does not matter or have any context at all only that those unions were mostly between men and women.
So? People want a change, how does that affect you? O right, it doesn't.
8. Neither one of those amendments has anything whatsoever to do with this arguement. They have equal protection under the law just as every other individual has.
I suggestion you reread them. 14th amendment basically reaffirms people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuir of hapiness? How are homosexuals supposed to pursue happiness if the law denies it to them (which becuase of the 14th, the law isn't allowed to do)?
9. Polygamy and gay marriage fall into the same catagory. they are both not allowed do to social attributes that are deemed as you put it unsafe social dynamics. If people can have gay marriage then polygimists will want the right to marry more than one person as well. its there right is it not? they are not giving fair rights since they are not allowed to marry more than one person. hence the issue where do you draw the line at. you can't argue for one and not the other in your case you have to argue for both. otherwise it is hypocritical.
I don't know much about the psychological affects of polygamy, so I won't comment, but like I said before, their is not evidence of unsafe social dynamics in gay couples.
10. You need to re-read history. The greeks fell do to moral corruption, the empires before them the same way, the romans fell because moral decline, look at the revolts in europe during the middle age why moral corruptness.
But those revolts happened more so because their leaders didn't care about them and were taking their property, which is a much bigger reason than "moral corruptness."
11. So far every time this ban has come up it has passed through the court system. Even in california the most liberal state in the union it passed. if it was unconstitution someone would have over turned it by now they have not. Why because most of the laws provide a system for civil unions. if a judge did find it unconstitutional then they would have deemed it so by now they haven't again your point is mute.
I believe there are judges that have deemed it unconstitutional
12. There are a lot of laws i don't agree with but i follow them because of the consquences that are inherit to them. I find that giving my hard earned money to people that won't by force is stealing but it happens anyway.
Name one that denies you equal liberties.
there are people in this country that have more rights than i do because i am a white male. is that fair to me no. the law says it is. do i have equal rights as others no, and there is nothing i can do about it.
This apathy arguement has gotten rediculous by now. Apathy is no exuse.
the law trys to govern what is best for the most people there is no way to give everyone everything they want. that is anarchy. at some point in time you have to draw the line of where it stops.
Why should we give the church what it wants over homosexuals?
You talk about dening rights. peoples rights get denied everyday due to laws. yet they are not questioned and are accepted by all those who do follow them the only people that complain are those that try and slip on the outside of the lines.
Yet again this stupid apathy arguement. First of all, people do questions laws that deny them rights. People who like equality are the ones who complain.
What baffles is why people act as if the church has a monopoly on marriage. Last time I checked, just about every other major religion in the world allowed people to get married. So why should the church decide how people define the word? They're not even the oldest religion, so they cannot say that they came up with the term first.
Yes you have it right, also, the correct play would have been to remand spell x intially, that way, his counterspell goes to the yard, instead of him letting your remand resolve, and then just playing the counterspell again.
[size=1][font='Verdana']@ForD: You need to work on your pen tool shapes. The bottom one isn't smooth and flowing.
Thanks for the tip Charlie, also, can't wait to see your tut.
@anybody: I'm having this really weird error in photoshop right now, when ever I change an effect for any layer, it the change affects any affect I've made for any layer. For example, I have two layers, each with their own drop shadow. I try to change the angle of the drop shadow on one layer, and the angle changes on the other layer as well. Does anyone know how to fix this?[/FONT]
Don't put it in. CMC can be found by doing addition and all it does is clutter the card and could possibly confuse people.
Google PodUtil, it worked wonders for me.
Really, in the US at least, I've never seen a pc sold like that. Also, only being able to sell whiteboxes by law would be an awesome idea.
So I assume you DIY for all your comps (which isn't unheard of, just wondering)?
I know what's happening, but like I said before, I seriously doubt that they actually have an anti-linux agenda, and its more likely that they have stupid IT people.
You've actually bought windows by itself? Not just got it on you comp? Also, its doesn't seem like linux users are being actively discriminated. However, I don't know enough about the file formats to really tell, but I will soon *turns on wikipedia*.
Of course they didn't throw out their religious beliefs, but they did try to make sure religious doctrines couldn't influence the government.
The crimes you mentioned are crimes not just because of moral objection. They help protect the citizens of a nation. You need to go back and realize that just because there are moral objections against certain things doesn't mean that that's the reason these certain things are not allowed.
Seeing as marriage isn't defined in the constitution, and thus, isn't nessicarily between a man and a woman, they currently don't have the equal right to marry.
Just like there is no proof that gay couples are so called "bad parents."
How can you be sure they're happy, people can be very good at hiding their true emotions. What about in the 50s and 60s where gays would marry straight? Sure, they said said they were happy, and everybody thought they were, but that turned out to be not so true.
So? People want a change, how does that affect you? O right, it doesn't.
I suggestion you reread them. 14th amendment basically reaffirms people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuir of hapiness? How are homosexuals supposed to pursue happiness if the law denies it to them (which becuase of the 14th, the law isn't allowed to do)?
I don't know much about the psychological affects of polygamy, so I won't comment, but like I said before, their is not evidence of unsafe social dynamics in gay couples.
But those revolts happened more so because their leaders didn't care about them and were taking their property, which is a much bigger reason than "moral corruptness."
I believe there are judges that have deemed it unconstitutional
Name one that denies you equal liberties.
This apathy arguement has gotten rediculous by now. Apathy is no exuse.
Why should we give the church what it wants over homosexuals?
Yet again this stupid apathy arguement. First of all, people do questions laws that deny them rights. People who like equality are the ones who complain.
Thanks for the tip Charlie, also, can't wait to see your tut.
@anybody: I'm having this really weird error in photoshop right now, when ever I change an effect for any layer, it the change affects any affect I've made for any layer. For example, I have two layers, each with their own drop shadow. I try to change the angle of the drop shadow on one layer, and the angle changes on the other layer as well. Does anyone know how to fix this?[/FONT]