Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/17/04 01:55 PM, NotYouZ wrote:

At 8/17/04 01:33 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote: Never mind the rankings, is his wife hot ?

She's like 50.

That does not answer his question, is his wife hot?

At 8/17/04 01:44 PM, Evil_Halo wrote: i don't carer do stfu noob

614 posts vs 62 posts. Smart.

Well it basically comes out to paying 3650 dollars a year on AIDs. Not bad for a person with a succesful job, but still that is a major hit when it could only costs around 600-700 dollars. It's ludicrous for the company to be jumping the costs four fold in a year.

MSNBC

I'll just give a quick overview of what is in the article. Norvir, which was discovered through a 3.5 million dollar grant given by the government, has quadrupled in costs in the lasts year. It now costs $8.57 to take this drug. That price is PER DAY!!! It was $1.71 a year ago. This drug is often taken with a cocktail of various other drugs, so the price for AIDs treatment per day may rise to more then 10 bucks a day. The government has yet to allow other companies to produce this drug, which could potentially lower the costs of the drug.

I personally think that the company should only keep a small margin of profit. This company in 2003 made 2.7 billion dollars. What really bothered me while looking at their financial sheet is the sheer fact that they spend more money on advertising then on research and development. Well, there's nothing I can do about it except to bitch. If I had AIDs and boycotted them, I'd die.

Hmm, just look at the leading physicist today, he has a dehabilitating disease that had rendered him immobile. His muscles no longer work, without medicine he would most likely be dead today. Go medicine!

Well, is there even an engine yet? You need to give out more information on the work needed. I'm a decent C++ programmer, but no where close to being able to make a game.

At 8/12/04 08:03 PM, Spookshow wrote: Anyone know the story behind the shove it comment?

Also, yes. I lost all respect for Bush (and Kerry) near the start of all this.

You couldn't have lost it that quickly now could you?

Actually I believe the Republicans are going to push for a national sales tax after the next election. I wonder what the US would be like today if we were still under the Articles of Confederation....

At 8/11/04 05:06 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: The Springfield Effect is the name given to the phenomenon by which every place named Springfield is hard-linked in hyperspace to every other place of this name. In other words, there is only one place named Springfield, but it is "linked" to various locations in the world.

Sweet I can go visit the Simpsons anytime I want to by just driving to Springfield! Awesome!!!

At 8/10/04 04:24 PM, Skvnk wrote: Ravens_Grin (1/24/04): (Economic Left/Right: -4.12, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23)

You included me! I'm not a nobody on these forums anymore ;).

Anyways, here's my new info.

Economic Left/Right: -2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.82

Radical Change I know.

I have always learned Delphi is a powerful language, but I have never learned it. If you really want to know programming, learn C++, then from there learn Win32 so that you can make programs that don't run from MS-DOS.

I might be mistaken, but isn't that the processor in TI-83 calculators?

You can also say "cash accepted" because most people that ask questions are youngins. Just tell them to post it in an envelope and send it to Blah Blah Street, New York, New York. Except with your real address.

At 8/8/04 03:47 AM, violent_pastries wrote: " put in your Windows CD, goto Recovery Console, type fixmbr "
Only thing is, I haven't the slightest idea as to how to go about getting into Recovery Console. Is it like Terminal? I do have the XP discs however!

It's probably a boot option in the recovery disk. fixmbr basically means fix master boot record, which is what you screwed up. It's basically like the command "fdisk /mbr" for Windows 9X/MS-Dos.

At 8/8/04 11:07 AM, The_Deadly_Spoon wrote: how about posting something about Bush's environmental policies, and his tax cuttings for the incredibly rich, and about how he lied about the no child left behind stuff, and how he idioticly suggested cutting down trees would help prevent forest fires and terrorism,

Thinning forest does prevent forest fires by limiting the chance of trees to die while competing with other trees. More trees=more firewood. But terrorism? "I shall eat this pudding because it might have terrorists in it"

At 8/7/04 10:11 PM, Peter90688 wrote: IN history, the renasansse (Not even close to the correct spelling.. I know Im sry) christianity was THE major influence on the whole movement. The paintings prove that. Yet when we learn about that we dont go into christiantity like we do with Islam, Hindu, Buddism, and other religions... Why is that?

The renaissance in Italy was actually caused by the social structure disturbances and the rise of the merchant class. In Italy where the movement started, it was not a church movement. The Renaissance threatened the power of the church actually from the re-birth of ideas and the creation of the scientific method. The Renaissance movement in the north was a lot secular then in Rome. Many Northern Europeans blamed the Italians for getting away from their Christian roots.

We don't go into Christianity too much because you can go into a store, ask a couple questions to a few random people and know the answers. You can't do this for any of the other religions. Christianity is tought in schools. It's origins and beliefs are tought just like any other religion. There is or should be no bias. It does not go in depth because you can't go in depth with any religion. To fully understand one of them it would take at least 2 months.

Then why not teach white culture because that is the majority just like christianity? There are so many flaws in what you have said that I'm not even going to get too deep into it. You can't teach World War 2 without nazism, and you can't teach Roman and Greek history without teaching Mytholism. You cannot teach the rise of Islamic states without teaching Islam. There is so much history out there that has been affected by religion that by only teaching one religion is so retarded.

I would prefer that you get a book if you are interested in becoming serious in programming. If you just want to look, go to tutorgig.com and look around.

My state I believe has created a good balance between seperation of church and state while still allowing religions. In my state(Virginia) there is a moment of silence. Some people use this time to pray, worship, and what not. Others use it to finish their homework. Also, in my state at least, it is required to teach the 5 major religions and the major ideas behind them and their impact on history.

At 2/19/04 07:13 PM, IWillSetYouFree wrote: personaly i hate all religions,people of religions and anything associated with religions. Religion is something the weak and insecure draw upon to drive them through anouther hopeless day in their otherwise pointless lives. If they really love god then they should kill themselves and all their family and neighbors to get to him faster and help others also get to him. Theres so many things against gods and so very very little for them,mostly speculation and a 5000 year old book incorectly translated. The world needs to wise up and start living their own lives.

That made you feel better saying that, didn't it? I'll say this right now before I start bashing. I'm not a religious man, but I have put a lot of thought into why religion is and how much good it actually has created. Religion is not for the weak or insecure, nor is it for the ignorant or blind. It can be, but most of the time it isn't. Religion instills hope into people, that the impossible is not only possible, but has happened. Because of this, it has inspired many people to do what was known as impossible at the time. Religion has fueled many revolutions and has been important to almost anything historical.

Now the effects of not having religion is slowly becoming apparent if you look. A good amount of people don't like their jobs, divorces are skyrocketing, and the diagnosis of depression in adults and teens has skyrocketed. Good job atheism.

This topic has been centrally Christianity, but don't forget all of the various religions that has already been mentioned. Islam, with the qu'ran, is one of the new major religions. It actually suggests the people to learn the language that the qu'ran was originally written in so that people can interpret it themselves. Buddhism has absolutely no gods. It is more of a way of life then anything else.

I'll elaborate more if needed.

Do "masturbation laws." I haven't checked to see if that comes up with anything useful. Make sure you have the quotations.

We would have a positive balance of trade if it wasn't for petroleum. Solution? Increase funding of hydrogen cell technology and increase renewable energy sources to fuel the hydrogen cells. Also, get rid of power plants that burn petroleum for energy.

I gotta be Butters because of my last name. Think syrup....

Oh back to the, umm, original intent of this topic....
What the hell is wrong with his lousy piece of shit? It ain't hell. It's like Barney the Dinosaur without the raping tendencies.

Well it seems that there are now 2 trains of thought. One that would give people more choices by creating more political parties. Another is to abolish the political parties completely.

The first train of thought would allow ideas to change very quickly because people will be able to jump on a bandwagon. Also, people can get fed up with one party and leave to one that is similar, but has a sublte difference that caused him to leave the previous party.

The second train of thought would actually be harder for both the Represenatives and the voters. The Reps will have problems getting a bill to pass because of the large number of differing opinions. Alliances will be made like someone has said. So it would in turn change into a system with many political parties like the first train of thought.

At 8/5/04 09:23 AM, slicindicin wrote: It's not hard to imagine that at least a few people wouldn't make the 'he's an actor' connection.

If you ever listen to his catch phrases, what he acted on is who he is. Reagan didn't do this. Personally I would rather have Jesse Ventura in the presidency. If you have ever seen him debate, you will know what I mean. He was an 'actor' but it is not who he is nor does he bounce the fact that he was a wrestler to people. But anyways let me tell you why Arnie will not be good instead of all of the cliches he says constantly.

He says he is an environmentalist but yet drives a Hummer. Not only does it get poor gas mileage.

He says he is a strong supporter of the 2nd ammendment but yet prohibits it by also being highly for gun control.

He treated women like crap.

Although I agree with him on a lot of stuff, he does not deserve to be president.

err the k's were supposed to be music symbols (do alt+14 and the 14 being on the numpad on the right)

Would you really want a president that says Terminator clichès all of the time?

kTerminator, Terminator he's our mank
kBustin' a cap in the terrorist's assk
kHe'll be a good because he has a tank

Ok, that was gay.

Well they might be seeing the popularity Alien Hominid is getting and see a potential market. I mean, you guys are #10 on the front page of Gamespot.

Your marine dies in the end, sorry.

Yeah right, I'd want to be a serf.

There are political parties for a reason. They are there because a large group of people support the ideas of that particular party. Today there is a large difference between the candidates in a party so it should not be a worry of whether or not there is a party system. Look at Schwarsenager (definately spelt that wrong) against Bush. They are completely different in many topics, but they are more similar then different.

Also, Political Parties simplifies a lot of the hassle created by voting. If you ever go into a voting booth you'll see at least 4 different elections going on. There is no way you can research all of the candidates to see whether you support them or not in a timely matter. You can only determine whether or not you support the beliefs of the party.