obfuscator

I highly doubt there is zero evidence that he was a terrorist. More likely the government just hasn't released said evidence.

Well, you'd need the same IP address I assume, which is certainly possible on an unsecured network... At any rate, I digress. Thanks for fixing it :thumbup:

Of course, but if you still enforce https on the rest of the forums you can encrypt the cookie(s). Of course, it helps just using https on the login, as anyone running a sniffer may not be able to get your login details; but your cookies can still be stolen if all the other pages aren't using https as well.

The login page is fine. Using https on this page is still giving me problems, but perhaps that isn't your intent...

The certificate itself has always been trusted for me - it just shows the https as crossed out because "other resources are not verified". I'm on chrome 15.0.874.58.

Here's what it looks like prior to accepting the "insecure content", that's what makes me think it's the scripts/stylesheets.

It can't be the advert, I use adblock. And iirc the new version of adblock completley prevents the ads from being loaded....

Lol and the vikings are still 0-4. We've been in every game, just haven't managed the win.

Gets are for the weak.

Yeah I imagine the capes would get confusing. Nice thought though.

There are applications that compare registry keys. Basically you can scan the registry and record it, make your change, and scan it again. System mechanics is one such app, but you'll have to pay for it. It also might only tell you if a key has been added or removed, not had it's value changed, so don't quote me on it.

Oh.

The certificate for the forum is fine. It says "other resources are not being loaded securely". Looks like the stylesheets and script files aren't loading properly - even if I load them anyway it looks glitched using https.

Why aren't they equal? Because one is older than the other? I'm not sure I understand your point of view. Sorry, by equal I mean "the same". The right to life supersedes the right to comfort, for instance. So the argument in the article posted is that ALL rights of the woman supersede ALL rights of the child in ALL situations. I think this is only the case when you're talking about the same right. So, for example, I'd make the following listing of rights (a composite list). 1. Mother's right to life. 2. Child's right to life. 3. Mother's right to comfort. 4. Child's right to comfort. 5. Mother's right to pleasure. 6. Child's right to pleasure. This is the way rights are categorized in all facets of our society except when dealing with the unborn. For example, I have a right to drive my car, and you have a right to life. If you are standing in front of my car, my right is superseded by your right because your right is more important. I just think this standard should apply to unborn humans as well.

Well you could take up a predetermined amount of space for all the images/video.

Depends how many posts you wanted to put on a page.

AND MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Please use this topic to continue the discussion: http://forum.tip.it/topic/302452-beliefs-religion-and-faith/ Locked.

Implying INTJ's are incapable of socializing

I'm quoting this here for the same reason that I've quoted the interracial marriage post. I don't see why one must so hasty to refuse to accept the idea and notion that an abortion may be a better choice than to allow a fetus to continue developing. Would you care to explain your line of reasoning? Well, I feel abortion is immoral. Because I feel abortion is immoral, I do not want my child subjected to it. Since I legally have no say in the future of my own unborn child, I get around this by refusing to date or have sexual contact with anyone who would possibly abort it.

That's one of the major problems with what they're saying. They're also stating that one right must take preference when two beings inhabit the same body; and I agree, but only when the rights are equal. For example, most people wouldn't say the mother's right to binge drink should take preference over the baby's right to health. Hence my position that abortion is only acceptable when the mother's life is in direct danger because: Mother's right to life > baby's right to life mother's right to happiness > baby's right to happiness mother's right to comfort > baby's right to comfort But you can't take a lesser right of the mother's and make it supersede a higher right of the child's; which is what 95% of abortion does.

Perhaps posting it on the abortion thread would make more sense and be more likely to elicit a response.

Was just going to say, this shows up all the time. From last test I'm yet another INTJ. Perhaps it's changed...

The vikings game is actually on TV. Excellent.

Yeah. Three of our main PK'ers were out though so that probably affected things. EDIT: Oh, and ron wilson (confirmed) is on twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/coachrw63 This should be interesting :D