-archimedes-

I'm going to suggest the "safe mode" bit also, but instead of pressing the control ("Ctrl") key, try repeatedly pressing the "F8" key during a restart to access the "Safe Mode" feature of your OS. Then once you've accessed the Safe Mode program, run the "Disk Defragmenter" utility. Sometimes it'll lock up on you after only a moment or two. If this occurs, instead of clicking on the "Defragment" button first, click on the "Analyze" button instead. This will initialize the utility and open the door to actually defragmenting the drive once it is done as a littly window will pop open suggesting that you do so. You still may have to stop and start it a couple of times, but be patient and let it do it's thing and it'll eventually works all of the kinks out of itself.

The car has it's appeal (aeroplane/cockpit style cabin-aesthetics, acceleration, and the use of a heat pump for interior climate needs is ingenious), yet it's overall size is somewhat intimidating/daunting given the predominant LARGER-sized vehicles on the roadways, so I perhaps can see a marketable application for it in the future in some parts of the world, if not all, e.g., taking the place of the motorcycle, though there are a few competitors already weighing in on this niche: Think Nordic > http://www.think.no/; The REVA > http://www.revaindia.com/; The Corbin Sparrow > http://www.corbinsparrow.com/; The CityEl > http://www.cityel-import.dk/ (German translation required), just to name a few, though there are more out there. The obstacle to adaptation of such vehicles in the United States is less technical than cultural and political. The mandates by regulatory powers that such vehicles meet full U.S. safety regulations ensures the unavailability of vehicles suitable for use in the mixed traffic conditions that predominate in U.S. suburban areas. As I've said before, it's the "size" thing that gets me (and likely several other commuters around the world), though I can see a ready market for motorcycle replacement, but for my tastes I'd prefer something that it already somewhat more so market friendly, i.e., The Tesla: http://www.teslamotors.com/ (for the "sports car" enthusiasts amongst us), or the Eliica: http://www.eliica.com/ (for the more so conservative/family/business class amongst us who hasn't yet let go of their youthful vigor). Either (or both) of these would do one quite nicely both in today's world, as well as the future...and I've got video too: Tesla > http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-The-...l_1S10jTk.shtml Eliica > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2539535432368595777

I voted "moral" on this issue not only because I feel that whatever actions are appropriate in light of the circumstances surrounding matters of "terrorism", but also in expression of my confusion over the uproar that this issue has and is still receiving in the mainstream media and elsewhere, afterall, just where do the people of this country think that we got our interrogation tactics from but those opponents who've captured and tortured our military during times of war...it's not like we devised these techniques ourselves, rather they are practices that we had to learn/were taught by our captors. Besides this point, I also fail to take note with employing whatever tactic/method/technique/device necessary to extract information from individuals who teach their women - http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/mohammedism...ammedism15.html - and children that it is wonderful to achieve "Shahada" (martyrdom) and to die for Allah, be it in thier own country or in other countries as well. Or who just use them as decoy bombers - http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/15754 - whether they're handicapped - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6889106/ - or not - http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle...ion=focusoniraq . And let us not overlook the fact that these are a people who would use toxic chemicals on their own - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm - or hijack planes full of innocent passengers just to crash them into buildings full of other innocent people - http://www.space.com/news/attack_folo_010911.html - and that was after a previous failed attempt in '93 to topple the towers, and then some - http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm . These people are simply not sane. I could go on about this all day, but the simple fact of the matter is that, in order to defeat your enemy, you must sometimes resort to employing his own tactics against him because that is the only thing that he will understand...why? Because that is all that he was raised, taught and educated to understand and the sooner that the people of the U.S, albeit the World, realize this fact and stop all of this damnable belly aching over a sense of misinformed morallity/compassion for our fellow man, the sooner that we'll be able to do away with terrorism and the deaths of millions of people in the pursuit of fanatical idealism based on the corrupted religion of some tyrannical regime entertaining delusions of godhood.

By way of reaching a wider audience, I submit a layman's purview of the above referenced Objectivist principle of subjectivity vs. objectivity couched in the form of a well known, commonplace query/riddle (which has actually come up in a conversation elsewhere on this forum) in hopes of making the principle's distinction more so relative, i.e., "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" The answer, of course, is YES!

Not disparaging the comments of sN, might I suggest "satellite" as a viable alternative to the three common denominators noted above? All that is required is "a clear view of the southern sky..."

While it could be, and to an extent here and elsewhere has been, argued that the video poses substantive questions of the propriety of the stop, i.e., whether the party of the first part (the officer) was justified in making the stop (e.g., speed trap/entrapment scenarios), which facilitated the actions of the party in the second part (the driver), the real/causative/actionable question here is whether or not Utah law mandates/authorizes arrest/the use of force for refusing to sign a traffic citation...a question that can only be answered via a review of the relative Utah traffic/motor vehicle/arrest statutes and laws. Everything and anything outside of this, the relative context, is little more than supposition and conjecture fueled by ignorance of the facts and circumstances pertaining to any given situation in the absence of the guiding laws and precepts, mixed with a healthy dose of knee-jerk reflexive responsiveness to the apparent and dramatic use of force displayed in the video. By and large, an all too generous portion of the problems with today's world is the resultant misunderstanding of things being taken out of context. In this instance the "center" is that piece of our world known as "Utah".

The resounding answer to this question, as has already more than aptly been addressed by other members hereto, is... YES!! But here's a little more reference materials to support the magnanimous contention: http://conservativethoughts.us/2007/07/26/...ne-they-expect/ http://pervscan.com/2007/04/15/airport-bathroom-hookups/ http://pandagon.blogsome.com/category/sex/ http://sovo.com/2006/11-24/view/bitchsession/ But come on man, do your own research! (Please)

Thank you...I appreciate the compliment. I endeavor to note even the most obscure of obscurities in order to deduce true meaning & understanding...it all is to be found in the details, details that are all too often unfortunately overlooked.

Introspection and reflection in the first, perhaps even some longing; relaxed playfulness with a hint of insecurity/bashfulness (the hurriedly concealed face) in the second; deep thought/introspection, perhaps with a hint of bitterness/regret (in the downward tilt of the head), but also with a sense of contentment and self-fulfillment in the third; & restful/exhaustive slumber in the last. Hmm...the subject puts me in mind of Victoria's Secrets/Sports Illustrated model Marissa Miller. An overall good effort at capturing and portraying ambient tone, texture and shadow by way of implying mood to the viewer.

Alright, I said: The intent of the phrase in question ("fanciful indulgence") was to imply that for a man to desire to be/treated as a woman, though he is clearly a man (as in the case of the fictional character Mr. Garrison of the animated sitcom South Park, season 9, episode 901, entitled "Mr. Garrison's shiny new vagina"), is preposterous. My comment was not given in reference to those unfortunate individuals born as hermaphrodites, though I did address this sexual ambiguity later in my post. As I've asserted, and have now demonstrated, you've taken my comments "out of context". You said: To which I expressed an interest in whatever other resources that you might be able to provide in support of your position, i.e., merely taking you up on your offer which, I believe, is commonly considered as being quite respectful of another individual's views, perspective/opinion. Oh, and I read e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g...which is why I asked for additional input (perhaps even a link to the parenting article from "Nature" itself"?") You stand corrected and duly so.

Objectivism, or metaphysical objectivism, is the view that there is a reality or realm of objects and facts existing wholly independent of the mind. Stronger versions of this claim might hold that there is only one correct description of this reality; they may or may not hold that we have any knowledge of it. If it is true that reality is independent of the mind, the reality of Objectivism is thus inclusive of objects which one may not know about and are not the intended objects of mental acts. Objectivity in referring requires a definition of what is true, and is distinct from the objects themselves which cannot be said to be true or false. An object may truthfully be said to have this or that attribute, such as the statement "This object exists", whereas the statement "This object is true" or "false" is meaningless. Thus, only references, or the statements one makes about objects without assigning truth value to the object itself, are true or false. Essentially, the terms "objectivity" and "objectivism" are not synonymous, with objectivism being an ontological theory to which a method of objectivity would apply. In this perspective, it is a matter of whether or not the "subject" possesses the mental faculty to perceive the existence of the "object" as failing to do so does not preclude the actuality of the "object's" existence, imperceivable though it may be to the "subject's" mental acuity, as existence does not require acknowledgement thereof, e.g., as an infant you/we were unable to perceive the existence of the automobile, aeroplanes, homes, clothing, our sexual orientation, the sky, the Earth, etc., etc., etc., however, once our minds developed the mental acuity to perceive their existence, they then became real to us though they had nonetheless always been so.

You've taken my comments out of context in an effort to, I can only conclude, promote your position/agenda of homosexual/trans-gender legitimacy by disguising it as a dissenting opinion in that the/my phrase "fanciful indulgence" is directed towards those individuals, though clearly born male, prefer a feminine orientation over that of their natural sexual orientation, ergo, "fanciful indulgence". Alright...I'm waiting.

This statement is wrong on so many levels, afterall, we've the observable fact of George Michaels getting busted in a restroom for lewd and lascivious behavior (later reduced to public indecency), and then there's the recent incident of a state's senator (Larry Craig) being busted for (homo) sexual solicitation...in a restroom. In actuality, public restrooms have become the modern day version of the antiquated Roman bath houses of the past and for you to deny the factual content of this undeniable reality is an excursion into deception.

Yeah...that is pretty bad as it's all about spontaneity, right? (LOL) But it's the thought that counts.

THIS...IS...SPARTA!!* That's better. *I've not seen this movie and do not plan to.

Disregarding the actuality of physical, physiological and biological orientation/disposition in favor of some fanciful indulgence is what constitutes "ignoring reality". If you look down and see a twig and berries (euphemistically speaking), then you're a boy...whether you like it or not, so conduct yourself accordingly. You'll find that this method of approach to your life will save you needless harassment, familial alienation, psychological disassociation (along with a miasma of other psychological neurosis), societal confusion, emotional duress, and the endless expenditure involved in years of psychiatric counseling, among other issues. Alternatively, if you look down and don't see the ol' twig and berries, then you're a girl. Conversely, should you look down and find both forms of genitalia...well...then take a trip to your local medical establishment so that they may examine you to determine which is your dominant sexual orientation, based on physical and physiological disposition, and allow them to construct you accordingly (a matter which your parents should have resolved long before you reached puberty). Oh, and it would have been really helpful if you/your parents had avoided drug usage, the most likely cause of chromosomal cross pollination/contamination/intermingling...outside of arbitrary environmental influences, e.g., radiation exposure. BTW, excluding the last citation in your post, it's always a good policy when endeavoring to establish the validity of one's claims of homosexual legitimacy to avoid the usage of sites specifically oriented to, authored/sponsored by, and intent on the championing of, homosexuals...i.e., of course they're going to say it's o'kay/appropriate/true, it would be antithetical to their cause for them to do otherwise.

After a review of the bill and it's associative amendments it appears that dadmonson, as well as others here, have taken the bill's actual intent/language out of context as it's only purpose is to insure the right of access to educational services and institutions without discrimination based on "...disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained the definition of [what constitutes behavior associative of] hate crimes...", period. As such, it would appear that John McVey has aptly defined the post in question as little more than "foaming at the mouth", largely due in part to misunderstanding the issue/misconstruing the facts/simply reading entirely too much into it I would presume, though my comments should not in anyway be construed as belittling the inane proclivity of those of sexual ambiguity/confusion for shooting themselves in the foot (e.g., boy/girl going into boy/girl's bathroom because of confusion over their own actual sexuality/sexual identity), but that remains to be seen at this point. *BTW...Miscommunication/misunderstanding is what starts wars!

Am printing it out for review and research even as I type my thank you to you...thank you!

~Sophia~'s words of wisdom (beyond her years no less) notwithstanding (kudo's to you!), I would take this, all of this that you have written, and send it in a letter to Oprah at: Ms. Oprah Winfrey c/o Harpo Studios 1058 West Washington Chicago, IL 60185 I initially thought to suggest that you e-mail it to her, but after some checking I discovered that they didn't allow enough space for you to get all of your story down in an e-mail and I felt that all of it needed to be seen by her. I suggest that you do this because I'm aware that cosmetic surgeons have managed to accomplish great and wondrous things with plastic surgery, particularly full facial reconstructions. Good luck and best wishes.

I would like to see a direct quote of "SB-777" (perhaps you could provide a link to the actual language of the bill(s) itself/themselves"?") before I submit any commentary on the matter so that I may be allowed to draw my own conclusions instead of being spoon fed those of another...please indulge me.

First, what is meant by "anti-man movements"?? In the initial phase of the hypothetical situation, yes, Trein was "on a collision course with Earth...", the hysteria of the event ever more so heightened by playing on man's inherent paranoia of such an occurrence, in turn hastening his efforts to repel the asteroid, yet this catastrophe is avoided by the then unforeseen eventual intervention of the second asteroid, Soter, all of which contributing to delegating your hypothetical situation to the ranks of a paradoxal contraction/logical fallacy in that it collapses in upon itself, though the examination of the potential demise of man given in your scenario and his reaction thereto is sound as the time element wouldn't preclude the reactionary response given man's nature.

I believe that the purpose of the reference has something to do with the "statutory limits" instituted by our criminal justice system in which an individual has to seek remediation for an offense committed against them, their family or other.

The utilization of sexual innuendo by your English teacher as a vehicle of insuring you're understanding of the grammatical information that she was relaying to you aside (kudos for the witty teacher though), the placement of the punctuation mark, comma, in relation to the word but is all dependent upon the context it which it is being used in a sentence that determines whether it's inflection is as a conjunction, preposition, adverb, noun, or idiom...it's not what you say, but how you say it.

Much the same as it is not the gun that killed the person but the other person pulling the trigger, taking the chocolates would not be stealing but for the person having stole them. Technically speaking, the individual facilitated the act in his commission thereof, making it an actuality. The taking of another person's life is and has often been considered one of the most heinous crimes against humanity possible inasmuch as it is antithetical to all that is "life" itself...that the "statute of limitations" (which is what I'm presuming your time reference is meant for) has expired for whatever given offense (in this instance, "murder") is often a conundrum faced by many victims of such offenses, posing a frustrating situation in which one is trapped by something of a paradoxical problem as our societies regulations conflict with our own sense of propriety/justice/morality/ethics. To this end, a "life for a life" is the most prescribed method of punishment though, as with all things, it is necessary to take into consideration the circumstances surrounding any given situation in which such an act is committed as it is all relevant to the eventual, inevitable, outcome. To this reviewer sexual molestation of children, be it pedophilia, incest, or especially a combination of the two, is the most heinous of all offenses that any person can commit against mankind as an individual or a whole, i.e., there is nothing more base, more un-mistakenly evil, more utterly despicable that a person, a parent, can do than to take advantage of the innocence of their own child by abusing the trust, love, obedience and worship that the child holds for it's parent. To me, these people deserve a long, excruciatingly painful and drawn out death consisting of the most torturous and degrading punishments that the psyche/physical being can handle before being rendered unconscious, only to start again once consciousness has been regained by the perpetrator and to continue until their eventual, inevitable demise...I'll stop here before I resort to inflammatory language, enraged as this subject makes me. Agreed. Are the children not "changed" themselves because of the abuse? Will they not suffer the ramifications of their parent's insidious behavior, of their betrayal? Is it your contention that the trauma of the abuse somehow magically goes away merely because the abuser has had a change of heart? If so then you, sir, are as unscrupulous as the perpetrator. If you came here seeking vindication or retribution as some means of pacifying your own guilt or the guilt of another, you've come to the wrong place. ***I emphatically express my apologies to all of the members here if any of my commentary is considered offensive or repugnant and further state that my opinions do not, either vaguely or implicitly, express/represent the sentiments of this forum or it's members as they are solely my own, particularly as they pertain to the incest/molestation of children, and I solely take responsibility for them should such action become necessary***

An interesting vehicle...I'm looking forward to going over actual specs, though the mention of a diesel power plant, irregardless of how minuscule, is somewhat disenchanting given their (diesels') infamy with CO2/particulate matter emissions, which is greater than that of petrol/gas burning engine. Several other engineers, enterprising entrepreneurs and even automobile manufacturers, have toyed with the idea of mass producing a "micro-car", possibly foreseeing it's inevitability with the rationale that our Earth's oil resources are finite and planning ahead to fill the impending ("?") niche. A couple of the more so (IMHO) promising ones are the Kneeslider, which is an electric powered vehicle, or BMW's C.L.E.V.E.R., which runs on compressed natural gas.