Hannibal

het is toch engels haal hem dan gewoon in het buitenland :lol: . Yeh im going to buy it, i dont know how you read so fast cuz i did read allot longer :oops: . This is going to sound silly, but I'm travelling back with just a big backpack, after being away for 2 weeks. I doubt a big book like that'll fit in in the first place, and that's not considering the fact that it's heavy. Bag's a pain in... umm, well on the back, already. Plus, I'm sleeping in a tent, along with 1000s of other young 'uns. So odds that it gets stolen are fairly bad, considering everyone likes them and I can't carry it around all day.

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content ... 1668/?o=40 Thank you Google :) Might want to try that stuff :)

Microsoft's compilers are free. They don't have a UI (Visual Studio) for free though, though Visual C++ 2005 might still be in beta. Check their site. Otherwise, GCC (google for it).

I agree, and disagree. What these countries are currently doing in Iraq is terrible, and noone can say otherwise. Hundreds of innocent civilians being killed...no matter what, is a terrible thing. However, I believe that this is a sacrifice towards a better world, rid of terrorists. In Iraq, the purpose of it as displayed in the media is to create a better world for us all. Terroist attacks are just that, terrorism. Such groups admit it, they admit being a terrorist organization. All they are here to do is cause mass destruction and chaos, nothing more. They are not solving anything by fighting, not in the least bit. You can say something similar about Iraq (to all the anti Bush fans out there) but you still have to admit, at least the tiniest bit of progress has been made. Terrorists aren't solving a thing, and they are attacking rich nations at that. Iraq is a third world country, and although we should be helping them rather than attacking them, it still remains that, a third world country. Poverty, disease, inequality, and the list goes on. War is expected in such countries, although it is a terrible thing. The Western world is much more advanced, civilized and developed (in most cases) and this is exactly why it is such a shock to see attacks - that aren't nearly as bad as whats going on in the Middle East- happening so close to our homes. Terrorists main goal (imo) is to do exactly what they did yesterday - causing chaos and panic once more, world wide. They have successfully re-established themselves as being fearless, and still able to live today, despite George Bush's efforts to "smoke them out of their holes" They have proven that they are still alive and in power, and that it'll take more than bombing Iraq to stop them. Bmw Terrorist claim they are ridding the world of the great evil of capitalism. Just like we don't agree with them, they won't agree with us that what's happening in Iraq is an improvement on the way the world works. It's a bit hypocritical to claim we're better than them just because of that. There's something else which was already mentioned in the other topic - the US/UK/Australia and all the other armed forces in Iraq are not making civilian casualties on purpose - terrorists are. To me, that's what separates the armed forces occupying Iraq from being terrorists themselves. On a sidenote, I did not and do not agree with the war in Iraq, but that's another topic entirely ;).

I pre-ordered it too. However, I'm on holiday when it comes out, and won't be able to actually get the book until the 25th/26th. :(

Read the locked thread, or you're going to have an argument with all of us NOW. As for the 9/11 thing... I guess because there are people claiming this was done by the same (organisation of) people who flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. Sidenote: one question mark is enough, and believe me, using a spell checker really isn't that hard.

Err, what are you trying to say here? :?

Yes, but they hadn't done so at that time. Plus, claiming responsibility is not the same as actually being responsible. I think claiming responsibility for the deaths of thousands of innocent people is a major claim which they wouldn't make without just cause. Their 'just cause' is that they want attention to their ideas. This is probably the same reason people put up the note about yesterday's bombings - they want attention, and they can't be caught easily so they feel safe claiming responsibility.

We're looking at round about 50 deaths and over 300 casualties. That's not really something I think was caused without intent to do so...

I'm not saying he was innocent. He killed Russians with money and weapons supplied by the Americans, which can hardly be called innocent. Whether he was a bystander in this case, I don't know. He hasn't claimed responsibility, and to me the fact that 'Bin Laden was behind 9-11' is something largely supported by the media hype of those days, and less so by actual evidence. I got sick of the thing fairly fast, so I haven't looked into what we know by now. If you can provide any real evidence, by all means go ahead and post links.

Yes, but they hadn't done so at that time. Plus, claiming responsibility is not the same as actually being responsible. No, a supposed extremist group posted on the Internet using the words 'al qaeda' in the name of their group. Those words are simply Arabic words, and they nor anyone else have actual proof they are linked to al qaeda (meaning, they didn't say they were, nor did anyone else, except for mindless reporters who read the name and don't know Arabic). Nobody has ever heard of this group before, and everyone on this forum should be aware of how easy it is to impersonate people on the internet (look at the announcement board and search for 'hacked' on these boards if you don't believe me...). Saying islamic extremist are responsible for an attack just because someone posts on the internet saying they are is stupid at best. From what I heard last night, police and several other authorities also had their doubts about the origin of this message. True. But geeh, I wonder why that'd be. If you'd for a moment just tried to use a bit of intelligence (let's not speculate over whether or not you're capable of doing so), then you would have realized that if terrorists want attention, they will have to shock the western world. Killing hundreds or even thousands of Africans who might have died of starvation anyway is going to have less news coverage, and less attention as to why the attacks happened. I'm definitely not saying that's a good thing, but it's the truth (sadly). This is the same thing as the media claiming it must have been Al Qaeda because the attacks were carefully planned, and executed at a time when there were lots of people around. No, of course, nobody but Al Qaeda is clever enough to think that if they want to make casualties, they'd best detonate bombs at rush hour... :roll:

yeah, but id say that most of the "major" religions say that aswell. anyways, has any particular group/organisation taken responcaility yet? Muslim consider Christians and Jewish as people believing in the same God, and thus (nearly) equals. What with all the anti-muslim sentiment in the world right now, it's rather hard to say the opposite applies as well...

'the western world'? 'them'? Who says the attackers intended this to reflect any grudge against 'the western world' as a whole? For all we know for now, it's just as likely a couple of madmen were angry at the London public transport system. Stop proposing scapegoats just so you have people to blame. FWIW, the Taliban were not at all sorry about what happened (hey, you and the US took their country by force, what would you do...), but they did say that they had nothing to do with the attacks. Why we would believe them? Because they'd be all triumphant and gloating if they did have anything to do with it, plus, the response came rather late. If they knew about the attacks in advance, they would have prepared a statement as well. To me, all this simply reminds me of September 11th. Back then, everyone pointed fingers at Bin Laden and his organization. He never said he did it, at least not back then, and I've never seen conclusive proof that he was the driving force behind the hijackers. It's just the media who need someone to blame things on, and the public runs with it. When I was at school on September 12th, everyone was convinced Bin Laden was the one who caused it all, even though there was no indication of this whatsoever, except for all the mass media speculation. Let's not make the same mistake again. In order not to get anyone to get me wrong: I was shocked when I saw news of the attacks, and my thoughts are with those in London who lost loved ones, are injured (physically or psychologically) and I have great respect for the way the emergency services and the population itself coped with this disaster.

The mouse is amazing. It's corded laser mouse. It has a button for almsot anything (I think). Back and forward internet browsing, scroll wheel, swich to program, cruise scroll up and down, and the normal left and right click. 8 buttons total encluding the scroll wheel. Let's just say its the first mouse that has lastest over 4 months in my house and still works just like new :lol: . That'd just annoy the hell out of me :? I have a generic keyboard, and a cheap-[wagon] Trust Optical mouse, with a cord. I'm not using a cordless because the battery replacement drove me mad, and it works just fine like this. The mouse has 5 buttons including the scrollwheel, and I really hate the two extra ones. I never use them, except on accident, which is when they're annoying. I just want a plain mouse that works, but that doesn't seem to be possible anymore nowadays...

That's great news :D. Yay for open source :)

Yeah, I don't have any google stuff installed on this computer yet... if I ever decide to install at all That's not what he meant. What he means is that if you type a word in the address bar and hit enter, Firefox will ask google what its top search result for that word is, and go to that page. That seems a likely explanation for what's happening.

How flattering. But I did think that having an option to do a legal abortion would be called freedom, whatever your opinions on abortion are?

Sorry to pop your nationalist bubble, but that's just rambling. You don't have legalised abortions, euthanasia or gay marriage, the divide between the rich and the poor is just about the largest in the world in your country, making the poor as unfree as they could possibly be without being actual slaves. Your president doesn't give a damn about the fact that you're destroying the atmosphere more than any other nation on earth, your election system is crap (see 2000), and you will only interfere in international affairs if your nation itself gets better of it, not caring who will actually get worse of it. Your nation's will to interfere with the businesses of other nations without any cooperation with the institutions we've been having for that purpose for almost 50 years, your secret services' interference with foreign politics and its support to regimes your own president marked as 'Terrorist', your own government having the guts to call anything an 'axis of evil', while its own country has arguably the largest maffia and organised crime circuit found anywhere in the world, while your country has the highest homocide rate found anywhere in the world, it's all absolutely disgusting. Today's a day I'm proud not to be an American. Please, at least adjust your title so the rest of the world won't be thinking there's something important going on. 'our freedom' - your so-called freedom is the oppression of dozens of nations all around the world - don't kid yourself.

Alright, in about a week I'm leaving for a holiday with a rather big bunch of other people. We travel by car, and leave rather early in the morning. Now, usually everyone takes cd's to play in the car, but none is really suitable for use at 5.30 / 6am (which is when we leave). This year, I wanted to bring a cd that's playable at that time (so hard rock / metal is out). People should still be able to sleep / nap for a bit while this is on, so it should probably be quiety easy listening music or whatever you want to call that. So, the big question, suggestions? I don't really care how many you name in a post, just remember I only need songs for one, or maybe two cd's, so 15-18 songs is probably going to be it. Of course, it doesn't hurt to suggest more, and let me pick what I like ;). So far, I think there's probably going to be some Saybia, Coldplay and/or Dido on it, but I'm very open to suggestions :)

Actually the Bible is a set of rules. We are supposed to live by the Words of God. and it seems like you're saying the Bible is not what God inteded it to be? And the 2nd statement.....goes back to my last post...i gotta spell out everything for people. I'll try one more time. Could you please read what I said? Yes, you can interpret the bible as a set of rules, but they're not so strict they are universally interpreted the same. There is no such thing as an absolutely 'right' interpretation of the bible. If you think that your interpretation of it is correct and all the others are not, wouldn't you say that's a tad arrogant? Umm, and yeah, what Wyrm said. :lol:

Could you please read again? There. Is. No. 'True Bible Believing'. The Bible is not a set of rules that are so strict they are universally interpreted the same. You are saying that the way you see the bible is 'true bible believing'. That's hubris, my friend. I'm pretty sure you're not God, so how can you be sure the way you see things is the exact way God intended it to be seen? As for the bar thing... we actually have a youth service at my church, organized every two weeks by youth for youth. It's fun, we have breaks in the service, and yes, then you can visit the bar and grab a drink / sandwich (no alcohol though).

Right, FWIW, you hadn't posted that verse when I posted the above, or I would have been less brisk ;). However, I disagree that this is black and white. The bible was never written in English, so there is an interpretation being done here.

The fact that you assume that your interpretation is the 'right' one (see above post) is hypocritical to me. I happen to disagree (again, see above post). It is hypocritical. However, let's say there would be someone who runs a supermarket, but who keeps a list of every Christian in the area, and refuses to sell them anything. That's discrimination, you could sue the man for it. He'd have to sell things to you, because society accepts Christians. So now, according to you, we should instead 'accept' the supermarket owner, leave the person be and allow him to stick to his prejudiced way of handling customers? That's not possible. There is no way for us not to be hypocriticial.

Umm, hello??? So you, a 16-year old teenager or something close enough to that, are here to tell us which churches 'got it right' and which are actually heathens pretending to be Christians? You claim you know the 'right' interpretation of the bible? Like, yeah right. It's time for some of the Christians on this board to realize that their own view of Christianity is not shared by all, and that that doesn't make their view better than that of everybody else. Personally, I'm still of the opinion that the New Testament has nothing rudimentary against being homosexual. As for the Old Testament, well, that was written, what, 6-8000 years ago? The culture of that time cannot have done anything but influence the way it was written. And gee, we don't take stuff like this literally anymore, do we? (When was the last time you saw a girl/woman wearing pants?) Right, so taking fruit from someone else is not stealing as long as I eat it on the spot? I could go on if I wanted, but I think this is enough to show why I do not take these parts of the bible that literally. As for the new testament, I've yet to find a passage which explicitly forbids being homosexual. Therefor, I have no problem with it whatsoever.

Allowed, yes. Whether the church will marry them is a separate question, though church marriage for homosexuals has become common in Holland some time ago :). Collegue of my dad had a church marriage with his boyfriend.