Blog Jones

Great post.Thanks for sharing!

Comment by Gucci Jewelry — May 10, 2011 @ 9:08 pm

Thanks for share Pandora Jewellery!

Comment by Gucci Jewelry — May 10, 2011 @ 9:08 pm

Thanks for share Pandora Jewellery!

Comment by Gucci Jewelry — May 10, 2011 @ 9:09 pm

You could bring back a comment preview that really previews with my plugin. After all, it was inspired by the hack you used to use.

Comment by filosofo — June 3, 2006 @ 11:15 pm

I had remembered our email conversation about the preview hack, but I couldn’t remember where to find the plug-in. I’ll have to think about that; personally don’t use previews all that often unless they’re the live previews like the one I’m using right now. It’s nice to not have to go through that extra step, ya know?

What’s the advantage of making people click on another button to get their preview as opposed to a live preview?

Comment by Blog Jones — June 3, 2006 @ 11:26 pm

The live preview isn’t exact. For example, it doesn’t create smilies, filter profanity, or represent any other custom filters you might have set up, so some people’s comments will appear differently than they expected.

But it’s certainly better than nothing.

Comment by filosofo — June 6, 2006 @ 2:15 am

You don’t have a copy of the idiotic web page they pulled, do you?

I can’t access it on the Internet, even through Google’s cache or the Wayback machine. They seem to be trying to purge it from the Internet.

If you have a copy, in print or saved, I’d be very grateful to get a copy. I need it for research purposes.

Thanks,

Hans Bader

Comment by Hans Bader — June 9, 2006 @ 11:39 am

A commenter at the Volokh Conspiracy has posted the full text of the webpage in the comment thread.

Comment by Blog Jones — June 9, 2006 @ 1:05 pm

Looks great. I thought that looked like an Antec case

I’m pulling some funds together this summer to build a new system, but still fighting off the urge just to do some upgrades on my current speed demon. I’d need to upgrade MB, Processor, RAM, and Video at least, so it’s probably smarter just to build a whole new system.

Comment by Jared Sutton — June 2, 2006 @ 11:05 pm

Yeah… at that point you just need a motherboard, case, and hard drive and you’ve got yourself a new computer. You can always use the old computer as a file server or something.

Comment by Blog Jones — June 2, 2006 @ 11:20 pm

But I’ve already got a file server (an Athlon XP 2000+ with 512 MB Ram running Fedora Core 4 with several large drives for “data storage”); one more’s not going to do me any good

Maybe an Apache2/MySQL server for testing…

Comment by Jared Sutton — June 4, 2006 @ 4:35 pm

Ooh, ooh! Plug in a video capture card and make a Tivo-like DVR out of it. Just replace Windows with the MythTV linux distro. (See http://www.byopvr.com/ for more.)

Comment by Blog Jones — June 4, 2006 @ 10:38 pm

Cool thing. And very appropriate about Mr. Bush. Hillary Clinton gets you “only I can thrill”. Condi Rice is a “cried icon”. Hmmm…

Comment by Stephen — May 30, 2006 @ 4:14 pm

Thanks for posting that on LH. But I think its incumbent upon you to give full credit where it is due. The text file app.bat was really inspired by the blogger at GTD Wannabe, who interacted with the fellow over at the 43 Folders Google group.

The post that started it all: http://gtdwannabe.blogspot.com/2006/01/slickrun-as-poor-mans-quicksilver.html
…and then updated through several iterations and revisions at her site. She is truly a Slickrun rockstar.

Comment by Jim — May 24, 2006 @ 2:17 pm

That’s right, I’d forgotten about that. I only remembered the connection to the 43Folders board because it was listed in the comments at the top of the file, and I did mention that fact in my comments on LH. Thanks for pointing that out.

Comment by Blog Jones — May 24, 2006 @ 3:04 pm

That list doesn’t even include BJUopoly, which came out in the 80s, I think.

Comment by filosofo — May 11, 2006 @ 11:36 am

BJUopoly added.

Yehuda

Comment by Yehuda Berlinger — May 17, 2006 @ 2:45 am

monopoly heaps cool screw you guys if you don’t think it is but I think its super woohoo

Comment by David — January 4, 2008 @ 7:26 pm

Thanks for posting this, lifted my day.

Comment by Bathroom suites — January 7, 2010 @ 3:28 am

Congrats!

Comment by filosofo — May 6, 2006 @ 9:36 pm

Congratulations, Jeremy. Way to go on the summa cum laude!

Comment by Bet — May 7, 2006 @ 10:30 am

Congratulations!

Way back, (I think it was when you started the blog), you posted about some reservations you had in terms of faith/belief. If I had a better memory, I could recall exactly what you wrote, but I cannot. Anyway, now that you have graduated, perhaps you would like to share the ways that your view of faith, Christ, the Bible, has been shaped by the last couple years.

Jeri

Comment by Jeri — May 7, 2006 @ 4:07 pm

I actually found it a little scary, on the day Hispanics were supposed to boycott work and businesses, to see on the news all these people in streets making demands (yes, I know they weren’t all making demands, but a lot of their signs were demanding and demonstrated a lot of “attitude”). If we turn that around and think of Americans going to live in another country illegally and then “demanding” all the rights of full citizenship while bypassing the due process, we’d consider it ludicrous. There are some countries Americans can’t go and work in unless they are specifially invited by a citizen — at least there were at one time, because some friends of ours couldn’t go to Australia years ago without a specific invitiation.

Bypassing the legal process is the main problem — to come in illegally and then expect to be approved would be rewarding and encouraging that illegality. No one likes ‘cutting ahead in line” in any venue.

Comment by Barbara H. — May 17, 2006 @ 4:43 pm

The problem is that our immigration process is seriously screwed up right now. It’s a complicated, time-consuming maze of bureaucracy like only the government can produce. I think that if we made the legal immigration process easier, less complicated, and less time-consuming then we would see a dramatic drop in illegal immgration.

Apparently, we also don’t let just anyone in. In my international business class, we discussed this issue with a number of foreign-born students who were attending the class. Only a small fraction of the people who want to are allowed to gain citizenship, and the easiest way to get in is to bring a million dollars to invest in the United States. It’s a long way from “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to break free.”

Comment by Blog Jones — May 17, 2006 @ 6:11 pm

Isn’t it also hard to get into some other countries? Don’t most of them want to protect their jobs and resources for the people who are already there first?

Comment by Barbara H. — May 18, 2006 @ 7:55 am

It is. But that isn’t how it should be here.

As far as protecting jobs and resources goes, I think that by adding people to the economy you are increasing your resources, not decreasing them. If we didn’t have illegal immigrants doing work in our country, then overall prices would be higher for everyone, not lower. By making it difficult for immigrants to enter the country, we cut ourselves off from valuable workers, both unskilled laborers and scientific experts.

Comment by Blog Jones — May 18, 2006 @ 9:10 am

They have to check on every houses i guess. So they can find more people.

Comment by Bingo — May 25, 2007 @ 12:21 pm

although im just a child.
i think that its stupid that illegal aliens don’t pay taxes like the rest of us.
even though they are here getting payed a low wage, i dont think they should be here at all.
They are taking our jobs, our money and they are making us pay more for medicare, and other things we all need.

Comment by Johnny Brown — December 8, 2007 @ 5:38 pm

:cool:I DONT LIKE THWEM TYDFUYJKHLOUILYHUKTYRR

Comment by LA DICKIS — February 13, 2008 @ 7:57 pm

EVIL IS COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Comment by LA DICKIS — February 13, 2008 @ 7:58 pm

The issue on illegal immigrants is very debated. I believe that if we allow more immigrants into our country than we do now; which is only about 140,000 immigrants per year, and we also invest money into helping mexico build schools, housing, and increase sanitation, mexico will be a much better place to live. Mexico’s economy will rise and much good will come out of our investments. Also, less illegals will move into our country.

So instead of everyone arguing whether or not we want illegal immigrants or mexicans in our country, why don’t we just find a solution that everyone can agree on and benefit from?

Comment by Gabby — August 29, 2008 @ 5:05 pm

Well my father is a illegal immigrant buy the only year he has not payed taxes was his first year here in the states. Up to now he has been paying taxes for about 13 years and has never missed a single one so i would think that maybe a high percentage of them maybe dont know how to get started.

Comment by Deivy — October 8, 2008 @ 2:29 am

strong>:arrow::shock::idea::idea::idea::idea::oops::razz::roll::wink::cry::eek::lol::mad::sad::!::?::mrgreen::neutral::shock::arrow::twisted::evil::grin::idea:

Comment by Dylan C — December 4, 2008 @ 9:34 am

hi guys wut r u guys up to i dnt like illeagal immigrants ant im writing a research paper on them so can one of u guys help me out here???:?:

Comment by Dylan C — December 4, 2008 @ 9:35 am

Habbo Retros…

Habbo Retros are slowly attracting more users with each passing day, most people prefer to play Habbo Retros with pets according to a recent google study, further evidence also supports that Habbo Retros have lead to an annual decrease in revenue for s…

Trackback by Private Servers — February 12, 2011 @ 8:00 am

It does sound far-fetched, but I doubt such a brief news summary accurately reflects Swinburne’s book-length argument.

Comment by filosofo — April 28, 2006 @ 11:43 pm

That’s possible, but the report ought to be able to get at least the basic assumptions right. Assuming he did–assuming that the professor does start with a 50/50 chance for God’s existence and ends up with a 97% chance that Jesus was resurrected, then my argument stands.

Comment by Blog Jones — April 29, 2006 @ 9:36 am

While this article may not (or may) reflect Swinburne’s argument, assuming for the sake of argument that it at least bears some resemblance to Swinburne’s argument, I’d like to know how one could reasonably determine the probility God exists or the God would choose to incarnate (is this a verb? oh well) himself amidst his subjects. I mean really, can you take seriously any such claim? Do we have a supply of alternative universes, each with or without God’s influence, that we can draw these statistics from?

It’s patentedly obvious that any attempt to assign numbers to these is just absurd handwaving. Hence, any mathematical argument relying on such numbers is just so much air in motion.

Comment by Mark VandeWettering — May 2, 2006 @ 1:32 am

No real surprise…crackpots are as old as the earth. It is a fine line to balance between checking what the Bible means and what science shows, however, there are several simple guidlines to remember:
1. Bible, being inspired, is infallible and inerrant.
2. When a “seeming” contradiction arises, remember that science is subject to the imperfect mind of man, thus any seeming contradiction must be decided in Scripture’s favor.
3. There are no true contradictions between the Bible and science (properly defined at least).

This guy takes his Scripture out of context. The first reference Psalm 93:1 is allegorical describing the majesty and strength of God.

His second passage Job 26:7 and indeed the earth “hangeth upon nothing”, but that does not prove Copernican theory…Gravity, magnetic pulls, etc…are nothing (not matter or energy). So this verse does not disprove or prove anything.

The greatest pity is that secularists will look at his website and see it as confirmation that all Christians must be ignorant hicks…poor testimony.

Comment by Paul — March 31, 2006 @ 1:33 am

Sure there are crackpots out there who reject all science. But wrong on the other end of the spectrum is the naive view that science is based on “objective” evidence. The Copernican revolution is a perfect example: when it occurred, it was not because suddenly there was new evidence, or anything like that. In fact, all the facts had been the same; even more, the Copernican theory was actually more complicated than the Ptolemaic theory. What changed? A shift in interpretation, which is never so clean-cut as “objective evidence.”

Comment by filosofo — March 31, 2006 @ 8:06 am

Filosofo: The point is that what changed was interpretation of the evidence. I emphasized objective in my post to differentiate it from the misinterpreted and false evidence of the crackpots.

Paul: See, here’s the problem: You and I might believe that the Bible is infallible, etc., etc. But a scientist attempting to base his research on the evidence he sees around him can’t accept the alleged testimony of God here. From his point of view, the Bible is no more inspired than the Koran, the Upanishads, or the Washington Post.

For science to be any good, it has to be based on evidence or on interpretation of evidence or at the very least estimates and theories based on the evidence; it can’t be based on the untestable words of any religious text, including the Bible. We might be able to rely on the Bible as infallible, but you can’t use the Bible to prove something to anyone scientifically.

Comment by Blog Jones — March 31, 2006 @ 3:38 pm

Jonesy, you might consider that “objective evidence” can only be evaluated by subjective perception! In other words, you and I can look at the same material thing and come to distinctly different conclusions about it because our perception might be different. Obvious examples are color, optical illusions, etc. Perception can be fooled. Why should our perceptions be different–depends on what we believe, have been exposed to, learned, ate, drank, smoked, etc. Everything we observe has to be interpreted by our own little brains. So perception is really a “belief” about “objective evidence”.

Next consider that the Bible is one “kind” of revelation of God and that “objective evidence”, i.e. the world around us, is also a revelation of God (the Heavens declare the Glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork).

So “objective evidence” then is understood by putting tests to it. Dropping apples out of trees, dropping big and little balls off leaning towers, and such. Doing these tests (of God’s revelation) long enough leads to a theory, which leads to a model (or law) that explains what we observe. Keep in mind that the model is only an explanation of what we believe to be true based on observations.

So too is Biblical revelation analyzed. We should put it to the test to verify it in our own experience. Finding a promise of scripture to be consistently true causes us to have a rational belief in the statement of scripture. Sure, someone might arrive at an errant interpretation, but this wouldn’t invalidate the reality of the “objective evidence” of the Bible. (Just like a color blind person might conclude that the green light was red, even though the illuminant maximum was “measured” to be 550 nm wavelength–but most would consider this to be a defect in the person, not the “objective evidence”.) Of course the measurement is only another means of perception–but it has been a pretty useful model to explain light.

So it really does come down to belief, huh.

Peter said, comparing to his own personal senses and experience “we have a more sure word of prophesy”. So just as it is logical, “scientific”, sensible that I am sitting and typing right now–so much so that I can say I “know” that I am doing so–I can even more so say that the Bible is true, without error, etc. If you don’t believe so, test it.

Comment by microfab — March 31, 2006 @ 9:37 pm

Blog Jones: I couldn’t agree more with your statement that you can’t use the Bible to prove anything scientifically. However it is important to keep in mind that “science” changes its collective mind frequently.

So our only option is not what you posted in your original posting (”If your interpretation of the Bible is right, then it will stand up to the evidence. If it isn’t then you need to fix your interpretation of the Bible.”)

The contradiction will come as frequently (if not more frequently) from faulty, but accepted, science as from a wrong interpretation of Scripture.

Comment by Paul — April 12, 2006 @ 12:12 am

The better response would be for both the man and the woman to take responsibility for the child they produced.

Comment by Barbara H. — March 9, 2006 @ 9:36 am

Well, yes, of course. That’s the ideal.

But what happens when the man wants to, for whatever reason, give the child up for adoption and the woman does not? Shouldn’t the man get some say in the matter?

Comment by Blog Jones — March 9, 2006 @ 10:25 am

In the situation you’re suggesting, the man does get a say; however, the woman vetoes it.

Comment by JaQuann — March 9, 2006 @ 4:53 pm

Absolutely we need to show support for this man! I was lured into a marriage with a woman who was
marrried to another man! Although I was duped into getting this woman pregnant NY has ruled that I must
pay child support even though I never intened to have a child with a married woman!!!

If bigamy, and duped pregnancy are allowed to be ruled against men what rights do we have???

Comment by Fred — March 9, 2006 @ 9:35 pm

I was duped into marrying a woman who was already married to another man. I unknowingly fathered
a child in a bigamist triangle. Her husband is a 28 count felon, she was arrested in two countries as
a criminal. I thought I was having sex with my new wife, but no it was with a married woman. I am
kept from my son with restraining orders against me for crimes I have not committed.

Yet I pay child support God Bless NY State!

Comment by Fred — March 9, 2006 @ 9:38 pm

The man, boy, Dubay says he has no choice in the matter. Some of the comments will say they did not have a choice in the pregnancy either. HEY BUDDY THIS IS YOUR WAKE UP CALL. You had a choice and you chose to have sex. If you did not have sex you would not be in this position. I have no compassion for the people who can not control their own actions. My 2 year old does the same things. BE A MAN and step up and take responsibility for your actions. Grow up control yourself and your actions. THE ONLY PERSON TO BLAME IS YOU. I will let you know, HAVING SEX MAY LEAD TO PREGNANCY.

Comment by cory — March 9, 2006 @ 11:36 pm

Cory, in most cases I would agree with you. But what about in cases of deception, like Dubay and the commenter Fred above? In Dubay’s case, he was assured repeatedly that the woman could not become pregnant due to a medical condition.

He was lied to. Why should he have to pay for the sins of others?

Also, should I assume that you are opposed to adoption programs?

Comment by Blog Jones — March 9, 2006 @ 11:56 pm

He was lied to. Why should he have to pay for the sins of others?

The fact that he was lied to doesn’t negate his sin of fornication. He thought he could sin and get away with it. The fact that he was sinned against, which led him to think he could commit his sin without consequence, doesn’t erase his responsibility. And he may not have been lied to — his girlfriend may have thought she could not get pregnant. I’ve known couples who had trouble conceiving, got tested, were told they could never have kids, then a few years later, voila, they get pregnant not once but a few times.

Several years ago a family member was pregnant out of wedlock and planning to place the child for adoption, and I really wrestled with whether she was abdicating her responsibility by doing so. She didn’t ask my advice, but I just wrestled with the concept in my own heart.

Where I do think father’s rights are violated is when the woman can have an abortion or raise a child without the father ever knowing he did father a child. I think with adoption you do have to get the father’s consent.

I suppose the woman gets the say, in the courts, because she is the one who would bear the child and likely raise it. But I think the attitude of both should be not, how can I get out of this responsibility, but the attitude of taking responsibility.

Comment by Barbara H. — March 10, 2006 @ 8:27 am

I believe that if a woman has a choice of getting rid of an unwanted child then why the father can’t have the same choice. I truly believe that the courts are for the woman only and could care less what the man wants or feel Lets face the facts here. The will give women what ever they wish because they are afraid if they don’t then it is DISCRIMINATION. That card has been played way too much by women and I think the days of Bra burning and refusing to stay at home and take care of the kids is over. Hey, if the women have the right to vote, work, choose what happens with her body, then give her this one also, make her a single parent if the man don’t want the child. She has the means to work now, you can choose if she wants the child, then if she wants it let her have it and don’t PUNISH the man for not wanting it. And for god sake don’t force the man to be a father if he don’t want to be. We wouldn’t force the women to be a mother if she didn’t want to be. Now would we?

Jeff M. -Bay City, Michigan

Comment by Jeff M. — March 13, 2006 @ 7:35 am