LuvToFly

Never really going to lick this problem until you upgrade the operating system. Rather than try to fool around with the spyware or adware programs (Ad-Aware IS a good one) invest your time and money getting away from the lame-o Windows 98 operating system. That sucked from the onset - and was known to have tons of bugs. Your time at this point since things are hosed a bit would be better spent at least going to Windows 2000 O/S - But do a clean install, install your virus protection, ad trackers, and then put your data and programs back on. You will be happy that you did - TOM "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

You had better be careful dude! If the insurance companies can claim a natural disaster, or as they sometime refer to it in their policies, "an act of God" they will deny this claim. I would NOT want to be payin' for this kind of damage out of pocket! If I were you, I would get some stuffed rabid looking squirels, take a picture of them seemingly attacking the deck and chair, and say you just about got away with your life! (After all, we know squirels certainly aren't from God!!!)

No sweat!

Who said I was thinking?

Close to 100 words per minute!! Hey, thought this was the unabridged novel forum... you mean it's not??

Karen, Appreciate your well thought out response, and I respect that. You stated that it is a beautiful story - but in truth, there is nothing beautiful about this story other than the motivation behind it. The story at this point is about betrayal, greed, lust for power, bearing false witness against someone, unquenchable pride, the inner workings that drive one person to abuse another, and the fact that the world killed him who came into the world to love and save it. It is a bane on all of humanity's existance that this even happened - Gods plan to resurrect him or not, it is a most horrifying story. Most other Jesus movies have focused more on his ministry life, giving less emphasism to the final hours. You know, these blue-eyed frail looking dudes that speak very softly - so as not to offend the audience or to get in their face - But the final hours must be told too, and must be given the same, if not greater access. The brutality towards Christ is offset by the fact that he had the power to stop it. He had divine power to take anyone who touched him and turn them to stone, to dust, or send 'em to hell if you will. But he did not. If you or I were being dragged down that street with cross on back, there would be little or nothing we could do to stop it. But Christ layed down his life willingly - and that, you are right, is a beautiful concept. But it is certainly not a beautful story. It is, if anything, a time of inhumane treatment, corruption and greed. I think where Gibson is coming from is that of a seasoned filmaker, and as someone who has come to know audiences. I believe he approached this from the angle that the divine, unfortunately, has carried less and less weight in this world. More than ever, life seems to be based on what one can feel, touch, or have. Even the concepts of relationships with deep meaning have many gone by the wayside in exchange for feeling good for a few minutes. Just putting the divine out there should evoke feelings of great identification - but more than any other time in history, it does not. As a people, we have become a very jaded group. Some would say that a form of numbness abounds, perhaps even some of that coming after Sept 11th. Not resolve, but perhaps the ability to dream or to imagine a bit. It's like we "know better," now. The U.S. itself has lost ground in it's image as one of the most spiritual countries on earth. While established with the freedom of state ruling religion (or vice versa) as a big part of it, so is the very reality, acknowledgement and sovereignty of God as he is acknowleged and revered through many of our most important founding documents. For filmakers like Gibson, they have decided, right or wrong, that the only way to reach people is through their emotions. That you cannot appeal to their sense of the divine, believing instead that our spritual senses have been so dulled through the years that the message would no longer be life-changing. And if you say that someone was beaten brutally, he shows them beaten most brutally. It is one thing to read, "and so the guards beat him and mocked him, laying a crown of thorns upon his head" but quite a another to see that. Things are different when you have to face the reality of things. There was study some years back about capital punishment. There were a lot of people who supporting capital punishment - but it was interesting to see how many people would not watch someone die, and certainly would not be able to pull the lever themselves. It's easy to believe in things, or not to believe in things, when you are never really forced to look at them realistically. If imagination is all that is needed to get Gibson's message out, then he could do a public service spot telling everyone that every time they go to a hotel there is a bible there; and that you should read it. Millions of dollars have been spent on doing special effects trying to show how it looks when someone's head explodes after being shot so it can be shown in some abrasive movie - and most of them - fictional in nature - This really happened. He really was brutalized, and I think it is important we know that Christ's life was not all about taking walks, blessing people, healing the sick, and preaching. He really, really paid big time for who he was, what he stood for. And understanding more about what the payment entailed, helps to understand what one should be grateful for. Could it have been done with less graphic violence? Probably. But the intent is clear: Jesus did not live and die in a benevolent society. Instead, he was mocked, beaten, tortured, maligned, slapped, spit upon, cursed at, and ultimate crucified - then he was desserted by his followers who stepped into the shadows as he was accused and put to death. That's a really bad story - but one that has to be told. "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

That's not actually true! I understand the shoeshine industry now figured out it can save 25 cents per shine by sending people's shoes to India, having them polished by an 8-year old working for 25 cents per day, then sent back... (Okay, a little cynical.. but was just in the mood to... what can I say??) "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

You are right... that is where this all started! I saw the movie yesterday, and a few impressions- 1) Yes, it was very violent and spared nothing in that regard. That was a little disturbing to me, and did not initially know how to feel about that - I mean, after all, this person was being brutally tortured and enduring seemingly constant beatings. Seemed very excessive. But.. As I read the gospel accounts of these events, the brutality appears to have really happened in the way it did. I think we folks living in the 21st Century just don't really understand what went on there because our country is so much more civilized. It is recorded that he was whipped close to the point of death with whips that had metal pieces in the end of them. This would tear the flesh each time the person would be struck - there would have to be blood just pouring out of these wounds as they were deep. This was no simple "caning" that was being done to him. 2) Some have said they felt Pontius Pilate was being portrayed as too nice - but I did not get that feeling at all. He seemed to be a pure politician of his day. Looking to do whatever he thought would keep enough peace to not have a dissention rise up to Cearars's attention. It appeared to be pure CYA - 3) The walk with the cross through the street was excruciatingly brutal in that He (Jesus) kept falling down completely exhausted, so weak he could barely raise his head. I believe a big part of the reason for this actually happening was not just exhausion, because Jesus was raised a tough carpenter and not the frail Jesus that many movies depict. No, I believe one of the big reasons was because of loss of blood. Who ever was beaten like this person was would have lost tons of blood from their wounds. I am amazed frankly that he was able to keep moving at all! Folks were not exactly whimps back then in terms of physical stamina. I believe he probably had internal injuries as well from the brutality in the prison. The crucifixion scene was very distrubing. But isn't this all supposed to be very disturbing? It's hard to watch, and a little over the top with the effects in terms of wounds = but it seems clear the intent is to try to get folks to understand what being beaten this savagely would do to a person; what being crucified really meant. But also what losing a son really means. Mary's grief over her child was much more in keeping with reality than some have imagined. This was a big factor in the movie as well. I came away with a further appreciation as to how one person could have sacrificed so much, for the greater good of everyone else. And that is what shines through for me - If ever there was a sign that God loves you, then what his son (for those of you who believe) endured on your behalf is so great an example of that - "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

Being a fellow IT person, I understand your need completely for hard info. It is the way us logically-trained folks are wired. I guess what I am saying that the highway is only paved so far, and then stops. At that point, you have to make the leap of faith to complete the journey to the belief. And that is faith incarnate. "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

That is some very interesting background info, and shows a lot more thought into this topic than one might have known! In the end, though, of course, it is still about faith.. and that's okay because as previously stated, everyone has faith in someone, or, even faith in the absence of something - "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

Folks - It is pointless to actually "argue" about this topic. There is no winning, no convincing others, etc. What you are all talking about here is faith. For some of you, you believe you don't have faith in anything. That is faith. You are hedging your bets on the idea that there really is nothing out there, but like an athiest recently said here - even stating that there IS no God cannot be positively proven. That is faith. Nor can many of the points that everyone is arguing on this thread - in either directions of belief. Faith has been defined as, "the evidence of things, unseen." That is an impossible statement to reason out and it was meant to be that way. Faith is not about proof, argued points of view, or logic. It is a belief in something that you may not be able to prove by it's very nature. We trust our spouses not to cheat on us because we have faith in them. That is where the term being faithful comes from. But we cannot prove that they will not cheat on us in the future. It is what we choose to believe when we have faith in them. There can be no proven consensus for faith, because faith in of itself in anything is not provable. Faith is often a misused term too. If you are walking across a steel girder, and someone asks how you can do that.. and you say, "I have faith in the steel manufacturer.." that is not faith. There is a specific tensil strength inherent with that item - and the weight of one mere person is far, far below that breaking point. Faith is that which you cannot really dissect and prove. It is not something that comes with a spec sheet with arguable facts. If we want to consider one of the strongest statements of faith, ironically evolution has been seen in recently years by even secular scientists to be such. There are so many ifs (thousands) necessary to have made a continuance of some original spark of life that the leaps between them can only be filled with a type of faith - because they are unprovable. So each has faith in something as it relates to the eternal, or even that there is no eternal. One cannot prove it, and that is faith. Faith is just that folks. And the bible is no different. Someone has stated that folks believe in the bible because they "choose to." That is completely true. So do we choose to believe in anything we cannot prove. It is all about what you put your trust in. And trust, many times, involves a leap of faith - "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

Hey, Your Mama, There is a rule on this forum against making personal attacks. Your comments about white trash, double-wides, and having no brains are personal attacks in the context that they are directed specifically against a person who may have written you with beliefs other than your own. No one who identifies NOTHING at all about themselves in their profile - I mean NOTHING - should have the right to make such statements about other people, let alone a legit participant. Your argument has nothing to do with religion or Christianity whatsoever. You are seething with resentment and feel that this is a "forum" for expressing that. I would advise everyone who believes in the bible who has been arguing with this non-person to cease. If they have such strong opinions that they feel they can trash other people, then they need to come forward or be ignored, particularly as you are given to insulting others in the way that you do. "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

The point of the story can be derived midway through your bible reference, from ACT 5:4: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God." The person involved did not HAVE to sell the land, or shed all their posessions. This is not about land, about money, or about having to give everything to God as you suggested. It is about lying to God. It is about trying to make yourself look good before God, before the congregation, and before the world by claiming to do a selfless deed in the name of God, and yet lying in the middle of it for one's own personal greed. "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

If one reads, and pays close attention to the writings in the new testament gospels, one may draw some important observations. If you believe that Christ was the son of God, and posessed the character of God (and I realize many here do not... not trying to argue that point) then I think it is important to note what made Christ the most consistently angry. It was not the woman caught in adultery who was thrown at his feet to be stoned. It was not the lost, the general sinners if you will. It was not the misguided, stumbling, or even the purposefully disobedient. It was the religious leaders of the day wherein Christ poured his wrath out. He lashed out at them like no one else. And in that act, we might see what God considers to be the greater of sins. And that is - those who say they have no sin, are good, are pure, and beyond reproach, and who forcefully impose that brand of perfection on others under them. It is this act of ruling over others with the intent of elevating oneself in the name of God that Christ seemed to clearly despise the most. That is important for all of us that consider themselves Christians to remember. We must not say that we are better than others - because we are certainly not. We must not brag in this regard, because it will be our downfall. The second area that Christ seemed to be warning about is those who hurt children. When he held the child in front of him and warned that those who hurt one such as this, "it would be better for him if a millstone was hung around his neck, and thrown into the sea" then to deal with the consequences of hurting a child - I think that also said something about what God thinks is particularly bad. These are not definatives about what sin is worse, but I think a lot can be gleaned by Christ's reaction to the particular sin that was encountered. Just one Christian's perspective, though - "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

You believe that Ponchos Pilot was a benevolent, impartial mediator and went along with the will of the Jews? In reality he was a tyranical dictator who sentenced Christ to crucifiction for the crime of sedition. Jesus said he was king of the jews. That was treason, only caesar could be King, that's why Pilot condemned him. I don't know about the accuracy of the physical torture that he suffered, but the reasons portrayed for his condemnation are very inaccurate. Unless one of us were actually there - we will never know whether Pontius Pilate had kind moments or not. But you see, this is not the point of the story.The nuances - or even the more significant points that serve as a backdrop to the story are not central to what the bible, and the faith associated with, are talking about. The story as told in the bible, and the real meaning behind all of this is about a supreme sacrifice made on behalf of others. And this was made by a person who did not deserve to die - but was unjustly accused of things, trumped up so as to make him a candidate to be put to death. It is not about blaming Jews or Romans. It was Christ's (or more precisely God the Father's) plan to come and to die for the sins of the world. This, to pay a debt owed. It is completely moot as to who actually "killed" Christ. Mel Gibson has said he takes his share of the blame for this. But I would go so far as to say that indeed, no man killed Christ - nor could they. He let himself die and in that way, no one could have even prevented it. To do so would have been to be able to usurp the will of God in this matter. As He said, " there is no greater love than he who lays down his life for his friends." In all of the comments and even fury flying around about this movie - the central message should not be lost in the side arguments. The message is about life-saving grace offered at a great cost, and it is in that act, that we understand what true love is, and what is worth dying for. It is curious, if not peculiar, that many people who have complained about the graphic nature of the torture think nothing of watching Friday the 13th, Halloween, and all manner of rip-into-their-guts movies without complaint. Or movies with close up shots of people getting shot in the head, etc. It is a very violent world, and it was 2000 ago as well - perhaps even more savage in some ways. If the graphic nature helps someone to understand how much he suffered for others, and one has faith to believe what is being said, then it will be well worth the trip having had that appreciation. It is, after all, about life and death we are talking about - even if that implies a belief in eternal life or death. For those who choose not to believe in this - that is completely their choice and you will receive no critism from me. But to get hung up on trying to dissect and correct personalities of the day misses and avoids the entire point of what is for many considered the best example of divine Love and forgiveness through a selfless sacrifice. An act that few would aspire to, let alone live out. For those people, as for myself, this act, in all it's pain and suffering, means clearly that God loves us that much - and Pontius Pilate, the Jews of the day, or the believers who followed him are just the backdrop in the big scheme of things as God's plan was fulfilled. "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

Hey there - thanks for your comments, Josh - The heart of the matter is missed though. As stated, the central objection is corruption - not capitalism, as stated in my post - "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

Thanks Mark! That link to Washington Tech is very interesting reading. I think you could repeat Washington's woes across the nation in other states as well. "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

That's not how Outsourcing agreements are made. The outsourcing of applications and application servers is quite prevalent. In North America, many ASP's are vying for business in this arena. But off-shore is in this market too, and the response time is negotiated beforehand as a service level. If the offshore entity can meet that, they would get the business based on bid. The practice of Service Levels, which include response times for a given application like, say, SAP, is a very common performance metric for corporate enterprise applications. This metric then becomes the measure through which an outsourcer becomes compliant. It is written into the contract as a maximum reponse time which must be adhered to as part of the agreement. It's not about technology delays caused through latency - it's about a corporation determining what is acceptable. This is not a barrier to Outsourcing because it is agreed upon up front. Of course, operations like Help Desks who have traditional low bandwidth operations (reset passwords, enter tickets, etc) and Remote Server Management are common practices wherein the location is largely irrelevant. None of this though really touches on the concern, which is not capitalism per se - but corruption. Ask any Enron employee who lost everything while those financially responsible for the company pulled a fast one. The us vs. them is forced upon reality by wake up calls like this - it is not the desired course. The disconnect between what is truthful, and what is being communicated to the employees is where my concern lies. "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

well I ask about the group as a whole. That may be, but I think it is very relevant to your statements about IT people since I am the one who started the thread on this topic. "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

Unfortunately, that's really apples and oranges. Reason being, that there is a strong perception, largely supported by reporting agencies such as consumer reports, that the imports - for a long time now - have been MORE RELIABLE. Repair records have shown this trend for a long time now - (although US repairs rates have been descending). This being the case, you are getting more when you invest in something that works better, is more dependable, and creates less problems. IT outsourcing in not like that at all. You don't get a better product because you went outsourced off-shore. You don't get less problems, certainly not better reliability, nor better communication with language difficulties. Oh, and yes, by the way, I drive a Ford - "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

Agreed... but still, how do you connect the router to the modem if the modem is built in??? Cable/DSL modems should have Ethernet port, whether built in, or external. You tie into the router through there - "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

I just got done working with a client who started the same way - and after a couple of times tripping over the cable, they went wireless. The point there was - if you have a portable computer - you will want to roam around, on battery or whatever. All my laptops have NICs in them, but all are wireless as I find I can get a lot more done if I am not restricted to one location - But you will have to evaluate your individual needs. Still, with the wireless units sporting 4 10/100 ports for very cheap, might want to invest the mere few dollars more to plan for that flexibility in the future - "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

ISP's are generally not giving out multiple simultaneous IP unless you pay addition charges per IP number. It also involves going to static IP in some cases with ISP's. All the equipment is DHCP at this point - and he shouldn't need anything additional at least on the hub end to serve up multiple computers. "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

Whenever there is a laptop involved I always recommend going wireless. The cost of the hubs and the cards are so low now, that it make sense. You really defeat the portable aspect of your laptop when you have to hard wire it in, and if you have to buy wireless later - you will double pay. Get a wireless hub with 4 hard wire ports in it. Then you can have to best of both worlds. Then you can hardwire the desktop and put a wireless card in the laptop - Drop me a PM if you need information on how to get all of this to play together nice - TOM "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

Hey, that's good news for you - However what you are talking about is the difference between virtual on on-site work. If you have a vehicle broken down, and it needs to run in the US - of course you need US mechanic/techs to fix - keep running. But telecommunications, data management, and other forms of infrastructure are not location dependent. With high speed data communication lines one could house their data anywhere on the globe - and still function. That's why this thread was targeted towards the IT industry. In an industry where invention and innovation go hand and hand, the IT gurus over the years have refined the ability to manage system remotely. There is very little a modern-day admin cannot do remotely - except if it involves hardware issues perhaps. That was innovation. With that innovation, companies decided they could and would reduce costs by outsourcing to - well - wherever it is cheap - to manage the operations. This actually displayed a lack of innovation on their part. For instance, I have yet to see a company that I have been exposed to at least, change from brick and mortar to a completely remote work force. It can be done, and quite easily. You CAN have very talented american IT people (sorry folks, I have yet to see an outsource individual compare with the person they replaced) working from home in just about every capacity - and meetings can be video conferenced or just phone conferenced. Having worked in the IT industry a long time now, I have seen nothing, if anything, that could not be accomplished in that way - This would represent absolutely huge savings. Some of the IT campuses I have worked on cost millions and millions of dollars to operate, power, heat, cool, maintain. But the american company mindset has not embraced this idea at large - instead opting to just send the work offshore. (generalizing here - I know - ) Hard to believe that it takes an MBA to think of that. BUT Before anyone starts dissecting my post into little quotes and responding - be reminded first of the original point - The problem I complained about in starting this is not that we are capitalists - and not that we are a dog-eat-dog business world. That IS the way it is - My problem with the outsourcing game is that it is being done in the name of "saving the company" and "difficult, but required personnel cuts" WHILE, in too many cases, the most upper eschelons are giving themselves fat bonuses and raises with the money saved - So if anyone responds to this post, please respond on that basis as this is the gripe - that the people going out the door are being lied to as it is not really about savings entirely, after all - but about transferring money from their pockets to the uppers - That is little rough and generalizing, I know. But this stuff goes on so much in the IT industry that it will make your head spin. Can't speak to other industries. For those of you saying that IT workers just have to adapt, I have never seen more folks learn more skills than in this industry to add value to what they can offer. But it's not a value proposition anymore. The standards of customer service and other services have dropped in many cases due to a host of factors - quality is no longer job number 1 in many of these industries - Also, I do believe there is a time coming when engineering jobs at large will be highly outsourced as well. After all, folks from offshore are training in the same universities here in the states. Once that happens - I wonder how many people really will be able to adapt, or will they find, like in IT, that many of them just have to leave the field altogether to continue to work - IF you can find work in that other field. Just my own .02 cents - "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky