Bmw

I feel the smae way about bush... But my real role models are David Suzuki, for his work in the environmental field, and Isaac Asimov oh, and Andre Norton, for their great work in the SF genre. Foundation is the best series ever :XD: . I also respect the makers of Warcraft 3.lol. I met David Suzuki at the 2006 Air Summit in Toronto this year! He showed up not as a guest speaker, but simply out of his own interest, and sat a table away from me. He's a pretty interesting guy :P

I don't HATE Bush. I dislike him as a President, but certainly not as a person. I don't want to make this a political thread, but Clinton embodies many aspects of presidency that I feel Bush fails to. PM if you're interested, but I don't want to turn this thread into that. I respect McCain in many of the same ways as Clinton. :D Fair enough :P

Not to criticize anyone's role models, but mad...I dont see how you can say Clinton is your idol when you seem to HATE Bush. Clinton is similar to Bush in some aspects. With that being said, I idolize Bush, in certain respects. The negatives outweight the positives, but I respect many of his decisions/actions. However, on a different level, I truly look up to my grandfather and my parents.

Yay for the self-esteem boosting post :roll: You probably didn't pay attention to the Dr. Gupta's show or something...there's no way he said that if you can do that question you're working on a genius level. If that's the case, most of our world is working on a genius level, defeating the meaning of the word genius #-o

I'm hoping to attend the University of Waterloo for Computer Engineering. After that is complete, I would like to move to the States and settle for a few years, before taking a job in the military as a Computer Analyst and such. I haven't looked too greatly into the latter yet. At mid-age, it would be incredible to work my way into the world of American politics :P Another possible route is to stay in Canada, and work for Microsoft or ATI after University.

:o You're at Carleton! Awesome! What are you taking there? I'm moving out in just under a year now, hopefully on Res. at the University of Waterloo, and then probably renting an apartment for the off season :P

I'm surprised to hear how many people didn't know that the swastika wasn't developed by the Nazi's :shock: I'm also a Hindu, and I've seen it here and there, no one has made a big deal of it. I figured most people knew. However, with that being said, it's not like the symbol is being used all over the place in Indian-Western areas, as we all recognize it as a sign of the Nazi's :wall: Do you know if they use it commonly in India?

I got my learners a year ago, when I turned 16. I'm in driving school right now though, just completed my 25 hours in class. I'm required to do 10 hours in car, and I've had 4 hours of lessons so far. Hopefully I can be on the road alone by the end of october!! :P

I must disagree. You should research the terms deeper. Atheism: The belief that no God can possibly exist That's not what I imply. It's possible for one to exist, I have just as much information about the 'reality' of God/God's as you do, therefore I don't dispute your beliefs as false. But you also, can't state for sure they are the 'right' views. You can only believe so, not state so as a fact. You assumed, that when I said I don't have a religion, I don't believe in a God. I find the statement fallible. Any person can be spiritual without having his name registered in some office papers with the box Christian [ x ] / Buddhist [x] / Muslim [x] crossed. Religion is not the same thing as being spiritual necessarily. Many people who belong to religions (with the main example of christians) are in fact not spiritual in any sense, and they'd go to a church just once a year and only because their elders asked them to come. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. You said you can live a good life without belonging to a religion. I was just clarifying what you meant by that. What I was trying to say was, does "without belonging to a religion" mean one is neither theist nor atheist (thus classifying atheist as a religion)? Looking back on my posts though, I still believe that there is proof of several religions. However, because there are no global lines of what is solid proof and what isn't, I suppose that in the minds of some people, agnosticism is the only way to go. However, since what I view as proof may not be what others view as proof, I suppose I would be right to believe in my religion, atheists would be right to believe in theirs, and agnostics can do the same.

RIP Steve Irwin :(

True, many events can be explained by science, but in turn, many cannot, and I am not just talking about healings. The events that science can't explain, you may just pass off as a coincidence, or perhaps nonsense. Again, that's where religion and opinion mix. It's definitely natural to question God's existence like we both said, but to question his existence for your entire life, in my views, is kind of awkward. I haven't "chosen" to believe in God because of my parents or friends, or my temple. I've developed my own views, my own opinions on what to believe and what not to believe. That's the great freedom we have these days. It's not as if religion is forced upon me. By the way, when you say that you can live your life without religion, I suppose you're counting Atheism as a religion? :?

Heh, some people, meaning me? I wasn't aiming my comments at anyone, simply stating what went on in my mind after I read the post, that's all. :oops:

Being agnostic doesn't mean searching for proof, or lackthereof, of God's existence. It means accepting that you can't. Ok, I admit to knowing nothing about the term agnostic. If that's what it means... #-o So one wouldn't believe or disbelieve in God...great. Who really cares then? I mean, not to be a mean guy or anything, but really, who cares if you have no distinct opinion? The opinion of agnosticism seems to be "no opinion", if you get what I mean. You can go through life saying "I don't know" to everything, and if that's what makes you happy, great. If you have no side or opinion, then really, who cares. You all of a sudden become obsolete in the arguement of atheist of theist. To put it in perspective: Someone says "Choose, Jessica Alba, or Jessica Simpson." You reply "I like both." The person who asks the question just gained nothing, but wasted like 10 seconds of their life, probably giving the reaction --> :roll: However, I'm not trying to make fun of anyone's beliefs, or lack thereof. I really could care less if someones agnostic, atheist, or theist. The world has basically established that no matter what, people will remain atheist or theist, regardless of what the "other side" says/tries to prove. Agreed?

What sort of evidence are you looking for Blue? God descending to earth himself, and saying "Hey people, I'm real!" :? There are a ton of events that happen around the world that restore people's faith in a higher power. Now this is regarded as proof to them, but may not be to you. This is exactly where religion and opinion mix, and it's usually not too pretty. People are so narrow minded that we rule out the beliefs of others (like you mentioned in your post). I, however, have an incredible strong belief in my religion, Hinduism, which also accepts the religions of others. There are specific writings that talk about God as Jesus, being the son of god, or Allah. If often talks about whatever the name we choose to give him, in the end, God = God. I think in everyone's life, there's a point where one questions God's existence, agnosticism as you call it. I think one would be incredibly confused living their lives continuously searching for proof, or lackthereof, of God's existence. You just have to understand the concepts of religion as a whole, and your ideologies and views on the world should guide you to follow a religion, or follow none. I don't know how clear that was, hopefully you understood it. In short, living life in the grey area just isn't living life. :?

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that you were calling him stupid. I do pay pretty great attention to what he says, it seems to be a matter of interpreting it from different points of view here. You see the acts of martyrdom as negative, while I don't necessarily. Those are volunteers btw, but they do know that their families will probably be paid compensation. However in terms of the nuclear effects on surrounding nations, it's completely different. They aren't in total agreeance to all suddenly deal with the horrors of nukes in order to remove Israel from the map. They aren't prepared to deal with the consequences either. I don't believe we can say that 1)He is pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place and 2) He would attack Israel if he had them. If Iran had nukes, I would view it as a scare tactic rather than actual implementation. I agree that Iran won't stop developing nuclear power. I agree that something needs to be done. I think we've lost sight of the topic, on what to do about Irans nuclear policy :-k

If Iran's president has made repeated comments about wanting to eliminate Israel off the map, why would you NOT take him seriously? Besides, Iran has survived so long without nuclear power...why the sudden change? It's so expensive and the technology is so hard to do... The Security Council IS the United Nations. It's called "Veto Power." Anyway, Iran has kicked out lots of nuclear testers from the UN. Anything that would do that could be corrupted or ignored. Besides, China and Russia are pro-Iran and won't do anything. Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike if this continues much further. Then if the Arab world goes crazy, the US will defend Israel. The last paragraph is what I think though so don't take me that seriously. Ok, stupid to say the Security Council is the United Nations because of the veo and all of that. I did an essay about this not too long ago, the UN is so much more than the Security Council. In a presentation which was originally geared as an anti-UN speech, I had to change every "UN" to "Security Council". The UN is so much more than just that, but let's not argue about them, I'd really rather not. China and Russia are on Irans "side", which is why it should be up to them to act. Maybe they won't do a thing, but if they were to as I'm suggesting, it could help things positively. As for Iran nuking Israel, again, I don't see it happening.

Ok, hopefully things were cleared up there. My opinion is a bit different though, I don't necessarily believe Ahmadinejad's intentions are to create nuclear weapons. It's amazing how everyone acts like he's a complete idiot or something. Yes, he has made extreme statements in the past, and yes he is a bit of an extremist himself, but he is not a stupid man. True, he has what was it, 52 000 signed and ready to attack the US in acts of Martyrdom if a war was to happen, but I don't see how that makes him crazy. Call me an idiot, but I honestly don't. If I felt threatened by another country, I'd do the exact same. Bravo to him for admitting that. I'm not saying killing innocent people is good, so don't confuse the two. I'm saying his admittance of the martyrdom program was a commendable act, in my view. Of course he's not a man to be trusted, by the western world. Why would/should we trust him? But in my opinion, it's the west who constantly makes mistakes, not Iran. Constantly extending Irans period to end uranium enrichment with new proposals...it's ridiculous. Obviously Iran won't stop. In terms of Iran wanting to nuke Israel, can you clear something up for me? I am unaware of the geographical damage a small nuclear weapon produces. Iran is a small piece of land in the middle of arab dominated nations. Wouldn't a nuclear bomb produce after effects into these nations? :? After all of that, my stance still stands on what I think should be done to handle Iran...forcing China and Russia to act.

I don't know how you can make the comment about "sensible posters" when you make a post like that. Iran's intentions are good? Did you miss out on the whole "I won't stop until Israel is blown off the map?" I don't necessarily support a war with Iran yet, but give me a break. U.N. sanctions don't do anything. If Iran was going to comply with the U.N. - we wouldn't even have a problem to discuss. What's ridiculous about this entire thread is that people believe that U.N. sanctions are going to solve this problem. If the U.N. could solve this problem, we wouldn't be where we are right now. When are people going to quit having this baseless admiration for the U.N.? What was wrong about my post? The last sentence, which I should have specified, was what Ahmadinejad has said time and time again, in relation to the nuclear program, which is what this topic is about. Anyways, keyword in my sentence was "if". Why are you talking about Israel when we are discussing Iran's nuclear policy in particular? We all know how Iran feels towards Israel, no need to point that out :roll: Are you implying Iran wants nuclear weapons to destroy Israel? Do you really think Iran wants to attack Israel with nukes, causing M.A.D.? :? Did I specifically say that UN sanctions will fix everything? I am against the Security Council as it is, you're acting as if I am pro UN or something. I said something needs to happen in terms of monitoring Irans nuclear facilities. As the UN is still viewed as the international "government", it would probably come in relation to them, with the support of China and Russia. Please properly read my post before you make mis-guided statements. :?

=D> Finally, some sensible posters hit this topic. Iran has to have the right to nuclear technology, that's no doubt. If they don't, they can easily argue that the west is preventing them, along with other arab nations, from advancing themselves in the relm of energy. The problem is how to deal with it, without war. The idiots suggesting we bomb them...I mean, I don't even know what to say to that anymore. We can't just bomb them, like...come on. :roll: I don't understand what exactly the US/UN proposed that was rejected time and time again, but my suggestion is as follows: There needs to be some sort of regulations on Irans nuclear program. From a global stand point, Russia and China need to step in and have their officials thoroughly inspect Irans nuclear facilities on occasion. Obviously this doesn't make the US happy. Of course, the officials would be in relation to the UN. What does Iran say on that issue? It is to my understand that Iran does constantly turn away IAEA officers...but if they're intentions are good, I don't understand it. :?

I've been debating for a bit whether to post on this topic or not. It just hurts me so bad to see you aimlessly talking about the US, Iran and Iraq. I really don't know where to start, but by simply reading your last reply, you make it sound so easy. "Oh, we'll just bomb their main buildings via our Air Force." :wall: Are you kidding me? Do you not know anything about...anything?! Ask ANYONE in an administrative position in this ENTIRE WORLD if they supported the US attacking Iran. Every one of them will say "What are you, stupid?!" :roll: A war against Iran is a religious war, whether you want to believe that or not. It becomes a Christian/Jewish war against Islam, plain and simple. Do you know how many Islamists are living in the US? Do you have any idea what kind of damage a war with Iran will do to the global economy, cost of oil, as well as the number of lives lost? To sum it up with 1 word: Stupid.

Forgot about the X2's. My bad. Just remembered that the place I get my hardware from doesn't stock them yet so they slipped my mind #-o And which benchmarks are you refering to? I had a look around and most of the reports I found (from a lot of sources) have the X2 on top in the majority of cases :-k Take a look at the following sites: TG Daily Benchmark Gallery Toms Hardware Benchmark Testing The Core 2 Duo knocks out the X2s without a problem, and often tkos the FX's also. Blade, I don't really understand what you're saying. Well, I do understand, but I'm just confused. I know that the X2's have two separate cores in one chip, acting as two separate cpus and all. Are you suggesting that the Core 2 Duo's simply have 1 core which has the power and specifications of two? I don't understand, but you could very well be right I suppose. Can you perhaps find me an article?

Not suprising since there are no dual-core AMD chips on the market yet :uhh: But even still, the results aren't that great. AMD could bring out another single-core chip of 4ghz that'd most likley perform to the same level as the "awesome" Core 2 Duo from Intel. Sorry, you said there are no dual-core AMD chips on the market yet? Am I misreading something? The AMD X2's have been out for a while, and that's what I currently have in my computer... As for the results, the cheapest Core 2 Duo (E6300) at 1.86ghz is outperforming the AMD X2's regularly up to 4400+ at 2.2ghz, as well as outperforming the 4800+ in some areas. So I doubt any single core 4ghz chip will perform as well as any Core 2 Duo. All benchmarks are in the Core 2 Duo's favour, over the X2 and FX.

Im curious as to why you say you're getting an AMD processor...limiting yourself right off the bat. If you have that much money to spend, go with an Intel Core 2 Duo, which beats the AMD on nearly every benchmark. I was going to get one myself, but didn't have the extra 100 to spend over the X2 3800. Core 2 Duo ftw.

Have you even heard of the movie? Or are you just judging it because it stars Outkast? It's a musical anyhow, and the rating for this thing have been off the charts. I'm hoping to see it this weekend. :P

Yes, it's perfectly safe.