LostInSpace

You might enjoy this little reading Do intelligent design disclaimers on public school books violate the Constitution?

quote:Originally posted by Prez: In other words, I really don't see religion being able to put the clamps on science; as a matter of fact, I fear the opposite. Let us hope the lessons of the past don't repeat themselves. As for science, there is no worry there. I've yet to see groups of scientists gathering in local neighborhoods handing out pamphlets or sticking little notes on doors in apartment buildings proclaiming the Universe lives. Repent now to save your soul for the universe was born from a big bang. The day I see that is the day I will tell you to worry.

IÔÇÖm going to by carry this over from: So it begins: Kansas school board redefines science. quote:Originally posted by Prez: quote:I'm watching some people here make sweeping generalities to the effect that religion is anti-science and religious people want to return to the dark ages when in fact science before, during, and after the enlightenment was conducted by people who felt that the nature of that discipline was to uncover the wonders of God. Exactly right. I know I said I was done with this topic, but I had to back up Zane on that one. I had no idea you were such a scholar, Marlowe. Most impressive. Okay, I'm going to address this to both of you. I'm not trying to be antagonistic but to answer this issue in the way I've understand it. I'm not quite sure if the issue about generalities was aimed at me, let's assume that it was. I offered generalities in the beginning because I'm more than sure most know the repression by religion of the scientists and scientific thoughts and I kept away from specific cases to keep the post as short as possible. I'm not talking about the individual scientist, most were as religious as they come as can be examined here Isaac Newton.org, but the religious hierarchy; the ones at the top that control, to most extent, what the millions of followers hear, read and think. As for the dark ages, I never said that todayÔÇÖs religious or religion wish to return to those times (well maybe some). However, there is a real danger of that by-product if we allow religion to call the shots again on scientific thought and power over the scientist. Wikipedia: Religion quote:Many early scientists held strong religious beliefs and strove to reconcile science and religion. Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about the sun, but also said that angels may have to give the planets a push from time to time to keep them going. Sometimes, however, conflicts arose between science and religion. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has reserved to itself the right to decide which scientific discoveries are acceptable and which are unacceptable. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for unacceptable scientific theories, while Galileo was tried and forced to recant the theory that the earth goes around the sun. The modern Roman Catholic Church accepts most current scientific theories, but still reserves the right to make the final judgment.That statement says it all. If I might add to that, a majority of Religions accepted most current scientific theories in time (well as long as it fits in with their beliefs). Sometimes it takes generations for the acceptance. However, think of all the progress lost because of the repression of those discoveries. If you will note the statement of the last sentence in the paragraph, "still reserves the right to make the final judgment". Repression is still there. Which is why, IMHO, Religion should not have a relationship at all with science. Science should be allowed to come to whatever conclusions the evidence guides us to even if that conclusion is, without a shadow of doubt, that God does not exist or even the other way around (which we wouldn't need to worry about repression from the later). Getting back to Isaac Newton: MSNBC. Isaac Newton: Dark Secrets. quote:MSNBC ÔÇó Nov. 14, 2005 | 8:40 p.m. ET Newton renewed: Even the best scientists can believe weird, unorthodox things. For an example, you don't need to go any further than Sir Isaac Newton, who was one of the world's most brilliant scientists as well as an alchemist and closet heretic who believed the world would end in the year 2060. Both sides of Newton's life are explored in "Newton's Dark Secrets," a docudrama premiering on PBS' "Nova" series on Tuesday. The title may make it sound as if the show is about some sort of "Da Vinci Code" conspiracy ÔÇö and admittedly, there's something to that. Newton believed that he was privy to secret insights, and he put great stock in arcane scriptural references and anagrams. (One of his favorite Latin anagrams for "Isaacvs Nevtonvs" was "Ieova Sanctvs Vnvs," or "Jehovah's holy one.") But "Newton's Dark Secrets" is really about how Newton (1642-1727) was able to create the foundations of modern physics in spite of his weird ideas, or even because of those ideas. "I think that his early optical theories owed a debt to alchemy," said Bill Newman, an Indiana University professor who has spent years studying Newton's alchemical roots. Alchemy is often thought of as a pseudoscientific quest to turn base metals into gold, or to do other virtually impossible things. But in the 17th century, alchemists were the closest thing to a modern-day chemist. They learned how to break substances down into their constituents, then synthesize those constituents into novel materials. Newman tried to re-create Newton's alchemical experiments, and "despite the negative image of alchemists as being incompetent in the laboratory, most of the experiments we tried worked." Newman said it's clear that Newton adapted alchemy to his investigations into the nature of light. Just as Newton broke down and built up compounds in his alchemical experiments, he used prisms to separate sunlight into a rainbow spectrum, then recombine those colors to form white light again. "These experiments are recorded side by side in his laboratory notebooks," Newman said. With the support of other scholars, Newman has put together a Web site titled "The Chymistry of Isaac Newton" that goes into the alchemical connection in much more depth, and he also expands upon the subject in a Q&A on the "Nova" site. Newton also held strong and unorthodox views about religion ÔÇö in fact, his anti-trinitarian, crypto-Arian beliefs could have gotten him fired, if not jailed. But he was generally able to separate his scientific theorizing from his religious speculations, Newman said. It's instructive to note that on at least one occasion when Newton mixed religion and science, he turned out to be dead wrong, at least from the perspective of modern quantum physics. In Query 31 of "Opticks," he wrote: "All these things being consider'd, it seems probable to me, that God in the Beginning form'd Matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable Particles, of such Sizes and Figures, and with such other Properties, and in such Proportion to Space, as most conduced to the End for which he form'd them; and that these primitive Particles being Solids, are incomparably harder than any porous Bodies compounded of them; even so very hard, as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary Power being able to divide what God himself made one in the first Creation." Nowadays, the mainstream view is that matter is made of fuzzy stuff or strings that are by no means "solid, massy, hard, impenetrable." But even in the case cited above, Newman said that the phrase "it seems probable to me" signaled that Newton knew he wasn't on solid scientific ground. "The entire content of the 'Queries' is usually taken to express Newton's personal point of view, but a point of view that he realized could in no way be taken as a point in fact," Newman said. You don't need to subscribe to Newton's religious beliefs to appreciate his greatest achievements ÔÇö his pioneering work on calculus, his discoveries in optics and his groundbreaking theory of gravitation. But at the same time, "Newton's Dark Secrets" demonstrates that you can't understand Newton's scientific career without considering his religious side as well. "Ironically, that's very anti-Newtonian, because Newton argued that God had to be present," Newton biographer Gale Christianson says during the show. "You couldn't read him out of the universe." A guy with strong religious beliefs ... who didn't let religion determine how the science was done? Are there any lessons there that could be applied to the debate over evolutionary biology and intelligent design? Feel free to let me know what you think.

I agree with Jaguar on his point. Anyway, the bottom line is by adding creationism to this specific scientific study where will it end? What's next? Forcing on a geology class the concept that their measurements are wrong and that the Earth and the Universe is still only 5-9 thousand years old. You and I know the push for religion onto this one particular science will not end there.

quote:Originally posted by Zane Marlowe: I've read the link in question, and I'd encourage you to create a separate thread so we don't get busted for off topic stuff. I'd like to read primary texts on this guy if possible, instead of the editorial slant of positiveatheism.org. (I'm not taking issue with their facts mind you, but someone like Pierre Bayle, for instance, was widely and wrongly thought to be a proponent of atheism when he merely suggested that you couldn't rationalise everything about faith; he was in fact a pious Calvinist.) Also, a note on Bruno. It was a matter of church policy at the time that you wouldn't burn people unless they were actually preaching false doctrine as truth. If Bruno fell afoul of the church, then it's likely because he was making claims of a religious nature and teaching them as church doctrine, though I admit I'll have to follow up on this. Most people's problem with the church during the enlightenment was a problem with Aristotelian scholasticism, not christianity per se. Let me ask the follow up question here, and that is, would you argue that Bruno's fate was the norm? I ask because I'm watching some people here make sweeping generalities to the effect that religion is anti-science and religious people want to return to the dark ages when in fact science before, during, and after the enlightenment was conducted by people who felt that the nature of that discipline was to uncover the wonders of God. I don't think this thread will off topic with that. It was just to answer an question. If I see that it is wandering off, I'll make a seperate thread for it. In response to your last two sentences, that's what's got my head scratching about the whole religious v. Scientist antagonism. Maybe the church feared that popular knowlege of such thoughts and discoveries was a threat to their power. If the church and bible is wrong about this or that, how can we believe anything they or it has to say. That's the only thing I can come up with to answer that.

Let me rephrase that. He is one that stands out. There are plenty more. quote: Today, 17th February 2000, is the 400th anniversary of the martyrdom of Giordano Bruno who was burnt alive at the stake in Campo de' Fiori square in Rome. Bruno was one of the most famous victims of the Inquisition, which was responsible for the death of thousands of heretics. He was killed by an order of the Holy Office, in the Holy Year of Jubilee under the reign of Clement VIII, pontiff of the Holy Roman church. Late in the 19th century, a statue to the cause of freethought was erected on the site of his martyrdom, where his death is commemorated every year with a public demonstration, which was forbidden only during the period of fascism. People tend to forget the Inquisition. Nice people eh?

quote:Originally posted by Aperson: I'm 99% certain someone was killed for his findings, I just can't for the life of me remember his name. You are correct. There is one. Between the year 1582 and 1592 there was hardly a teacher in Europe who was persistently, openly and actively spreading the news about the "universe which Copernicus had charted, except Giordano Bruno. A little later on another and still more famous character was to take up the work: Galilee. He is one martyr whose name should lead all the rest. He was not a mere religious sectarian who was caught up in the psychology of some mob hysteria. He was a sensitive, imaginative poet, fired with the enthusiasm of a larger vision of a larger universe ... and he fell into the error of heretical belief. For this poets vision he was kept in a dark dungeon for eight years and then taken out to a blazing market place and roasted to death by fire.

MSNBC: Despite reporting a narrowing loss on its operations, video rental giant Blockbuster(NYSE: BBI) is slowly unraveling as it faces increasing pressure from creditors, competition, and the loss of revenue streams. The company has begun hinting that it might even need bankruptcy protection. While Foolish contributor Rick Munarriz holds out hope that the leading movie-rental chain will be able to reclaim its star power, it looks to me like the company is really just getting dressed for its own funeral.

quote:Originally posted by Aperson: Well, that would be nice except for the fact that the "Wedge Strategy" is used by many supporters of ID (obviously not you). Especially the ones who provide funding, like the Discovery Institute. linky Thanks for that. How did you come across or even find that. I don't think in all the things I've read even mentioned that.

quote:Originally posted by Prez: As for the ID crowd, their "agenda" could be just a scientific validation of their beliefs. I don't know, since I don't have an agenda. I believe in intelligent design, I believe that scientific evidence supports it, and I teach it to my kids at home. Case closed, for me. What the public schools do, I really couldn't care less about. I have no problem in the world with that. It is a constitutional right of what you do in your own home and what religious belief you hold. One can also teach it in Catholic school, Sunday school or a Church sermon for all I care. But once one starts trying to force it on the scientific community or public school occupied by students from many different ideological backgrounds (from athiests to religious fanatics) that's where I draw the line as well as the country should. I'm sure something like that is covered in the constitution. You also have to remember the past violent and antagonistic relationship between the scientists and the religious. Not on the scientists part but the religious. It is only just a foot step away for the scientific community being under the thumbscrews of the religious again. Which not only hurt the scientists greatly but the worlds population also by keeping scientific discoveries under lock and key for a thousand years or more under the guise of blasphemy.

quote:Originally posted by Prez: Where did you find that, Nomad? At any rate, I haven't heard a single person on these boards claim evolution isn't a perfectly viable theory. Who are you arguing against? The hundreds of millions of people across the globe who don't buy into your disbelief? Evolution is a good explanation for how we came to be how we are today post-creation. Most normal Christians recognize that. We've all said it here on these boards. Why do you persist? The argument is that ID (as of now) is not a science but a faith based concept. Just because we don't understand something fully or has the circumstantial appearance of a deliberate design because we don't understand it fully, doesn't mean there is ID. Ask yourself these questions, who are the proponents of the ID movement? What is their agenda? Who or what is the force behind this concept of ID? Science is the teaching of current principles, theories and discoveries. I could easily come along and say that based on the complexity of everything it must be of ID. I could easy arrive at the conclusion that the universe itself is alive and conscious as well as the Earth and it is they who are the creators. I could easily go to the public school boards and demand that they teach this idea in a science class as well. Does it scientifically pass water? No. ThatÔÇÖs the point. While ID and my concept put forward are both just fanciful concepts, they have no bearing on current scientific principles and discoveries.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: 15:We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution. I thought this one was pretty good though. So I will start with that. Okay, so you've disarmed the population. Woop, out goes the constitution because the powers that be know they can't be stopped at the point of a gun. They will have no fear to trample the population as we've seen in other countries.

quote:Originally posted by Darkling: 1:So what you're saying is that it's appropriate to believe in the "Big Bang" Theory, you know, everything in the universe was once the size of a spec, then BANG!!! The Universe was born and has been expanding ever since. Oh yeah, that's VERY scientific. Please, it takes even MORE Faith to believe that than Intelligent Design. It only defies EVERY law of Nature that there is. 2: However, even if we move Billions of years into the future to the puddle of muck/water/whatever, to say that Life somehow evolved from "Nothing", there's another one that takes BLIND faith to believe in. First of all, water is a Solvent, it doesn't cause things to "Come Together". And Second of all the number of Enzymes, Protiens, Nucleic acids and so forth that would have to come together at just the right time, at just the right amount for even the absolute "simplest" single celled life form to spontaneously form is so rediculously minute and so far fetched, that if Darwin would have understood the complexity, I guarantee you that he would not have put together his theory. 3: Take apart a Swiss Watch, then imagine something about 1000X more complex and say to yourself, would this be able to put itself together... I don't think so. 1: Did I ever say anything about science is faith? Faith has noting to do with it. I also never said anything written in science should be written in stone and never change. That's the difference between science and religion. Scienctific discovery is every changing (evolving) whereas religious theology is static: God created everything that's all we need to know. It may even be proved that Einstein didn't get it completely right: NEWS.com.au: Einstein's wrong, relatively speaking Who are you to say that the universe didn't begin that way? What scientific discovery did you make that can either prove or disprove it. I know I can't make that assertion one way or the other. However, seeing how gravity works it's not such a far fetched concept but more plausible than some esoteric belief in GOD. 2: Amino acids are created in laboratory 3: Oh that argument. When I was in high school, I use to work in a small retail store and the manager was/is a Jehovah witness. He told me that Dinosaur bones were buried in the ground by the devil. Something for you to ponder: quote: Creationism Meets Bird Flu Politics by jclifford @ 4:53 am. Filed under General, Science, Religion, Bumper Stickers Over the weekend, weÔÇÖve had an interesting debate forming about the H5N1 avian flu story. The debate over whether to treat the hype about H5N1 seriously doesnÔÇÖt seem to break down strictly along party lines - yet. As I first mentioned last night, however, I have noticed a perplexing dedication among Christian fundamentalists to promoting the idea that a deadly avian flu is poised to make a merciless sweep across the United States. Perhaps their dedication has to do with providing political cover for George W. Bush. Perhaps the H5N1 obsession among right wing evangelicals has to do with the strange hope that the plagues of the End Times apocalypse are almost upon us - first we get sick, and then Jesus returns. Whatever the motivation, itÔÇÖs amusing to see the rhetorical contortions that Creationists get into when discussing the bird flu story. Last night, I mentioned how the Christian Broadcasting News is republishing a story from the Associated Press about the way that H5N1 may mutate into a new strain - in other words, about the fact that the current bird flu being discussed could only become a pandemic if it evolved the ability to pass more easily from human to human. Without such evolution, the H5N1 bird flu story has no wings - so to speak. Right now, itÔÇÖs only people who work closely with birds and their families who seem to have cause to worry about the bird flu. So, when the Creationists try to get the fear factor going, they have to step lightly, and play around a little bit with the facts. For testimony in this case, IÔÇÖll call upon an article written by Pat RobertsonÔÇÖs people at the Christian Broadcasting Network especially for the CBN TV show The 700 Club. In this article, a biography of Dr. Mitchell L. Gaynor, the 700 Club audience is warned to brace itself for the bird flu. But why? Well, according to this article, bird flu is already in the United States! Well, of course, thatÔÇÖs true. New strains of flu virus that are transmitted from birds to humans come into the United States quite often. Almost all of these strains of flu arenÔÇÖt much to worry about, though. It was way back in 1918 that the last big deadly bird flu hit the USA. That one died off long ago. Right now, there isnÔÇÖt any deadly bird flu in the United States. You wouldnÔÇÖt think that from reading the 700 Club article, which speaks of, ÔÇ£increasing rates of human diseases and epidemics such as ÔÇÿbirdÔÇÖ flu. The avian ÔÇÿbirdÔÇÖ flu came to the U.S. after severe outbreaks in Asia. Bird flu was discovered in 2003 on a Texas chicken farm. The virus was spread by contact with chickens to humans. Symptoms of bird flu include the following: fever, sore throat, muscle aches, headache, lethargy, conjunctivitis (eye infections), breathing problems, and chest pains. Dr. Gaynor says what people fear most with this epidemic is human-to-human transmission, which has not yet occurred.ÔÇØ What this article doesnÔÇÖt mention is that the bird flu thatÔÇÖs already in the United States isnÔÇÖt greatly feared - even if human-to-human transmission were to take place. ThatÔÇÖs because itÔÇÖs the H5N1 bird flu virus thatÔÇÖs most deadly - and itÔÇÖs only in Eurasia right now, not much of a threat to the United States. Then thereÔÇÖs the issue of human-to-human transmission, which has occurred, but is extremely rare, with the H5N1 bird flu virus. The 700 Club article doesnÔÇÖt mention why human-to-human transmission is so rare with the H5N1 virus in Eurasia, and doesnÔÇÖt happen with some strains of bird flu now in the United States. The fact that the 700 Club article is struggling not to mention is that it takes evolution for a virus that is not easily transmissible from human to human to gain the ability to spread easily among humankind. Viruses donÔÇÖt have minds, you see, so they canÔÇÖt just come up with the idea to spread from human to human even though theyÔÇÖve never done so before. They donÔÇÖt come up with plans to invade new species. The only way that a virus can gain the ability to move quickly from organism to organism within a species it hasnÔÇÖt touched before is for it to change the genetic code of instructions that dictates how it behaves after invading a host cell. ThatÔÇÖs evolution, and thatÔÇÖs what the 700 Club doesnÔÇÖt want to tell its audience. What the 700 Club audience suggests is that there is only one bird flu out there, and that when people talk about the bird flu threat, the threat from bird flu already existing in the United States is the same as bird flu in Eurasia. Of course, this description completely ignores the existence of large numbers of different strains of bird flu. Really, what different strains of bird flu have in common is that birds are their most common carriers. So, pretending that there is only one bird flu is like pretending that everything that lives in trees is the same thing - so that monkeys, squirrels, racoons, owls, and gypsy moth caterpillars would all just be referred to as tree animals. ThatÔÇÖs the big biological mistake that the 700 Club makes when it lumps H5N1 bird flu in with the other strains of bird flu already in the United States. Of course, itÔÇÖs difficult to cover health and science news when your theological taskmasters require you to deny the reality of biological evolution. So, I at least have to give the people at the 700 Club points for creative writing. But, you know, when it comes to getting information about science and public policy, it may not be the best idea to go to the creative writing community. Instead, I suggest a more post-medieval approach to the truth: Consider getting your information from professionals who donÔÇÖt require all pieces of information to conform to the ideas of a book 2,000 years old.

Ugh, time ran out on the edit: quote:Originally posted by nomad: The tokens: "unconstitutional amendments" "Constitution of the United States" or "unconstitutional amendment" "Constitution of the United States" are such a relevant discussion subject among the 280 million US citizens and the 528,270 US lawyers that Google returns between 18 to 181 results. Really a hot issue... And you are supposedly our specialist in Constitutional matters and pretend to know what people think ? LMAO ! The fact is that every Constitution represents an agreement between political entities in a given environment at a given time. If these entities agree to modify this document, who are you to say that's anticonstitutional ? A Constitution is only a contract defining the framework that people will implement to live and interact togheter, a bit like a marriage contract, at a much lower level, defines the rights and obligations of a couple. Nomad, I don't profess to know every constitution on this planet, but I do know the one where I live. The U.S. is a constitutional republic not a constitutional democracy. What does this mean? The mob or the goverment does not rule the day. The U.S. constitution was framed around the individual not the mob. The U.S. constitution was not framed to form restrictions on rights but to protect rights. The only restrictions to this is as long as my rights doesn't infringe on the rights of others. However, sadly, year after year the U.S. has been slipping towards a constitutional democracy. This law that was just voted on in San Francisco proves just that: Government and mob trying to impose it's will the constitution be damned. However, there are checks and balances in our system. If they are working properly, this law will be overturned. On this line of thought, I highly believe that smoking laws/bans are unconstitutional. "George WashingtonÔÇÖs belief that arms are the liberty teeth of the people." "Benjamin FranklinÔÇÖs admonition that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Lesson 1: A 66-year-old Arlington grandmother shot and wounded a 22-year-old fugitive who broke into her home and hid in a closet early Wednesday.

Wow, didn't know anything about that. I have the game but haven't played it online just the single player. You are correct about the single player. The reason I never went multi is because it was a lot like the unreal tournament so I just play that one multiplayer. Explains why it flopped at retail. I wondered about that but never looked into it. Thanks.

quote:Originally posted by Prez: T Tribes V has a good single player campaign, but there is huge controversy surrounding its multiplayer. Quite an infamous title, that one. What's the controversy? Just curious. Don't know anything about it.

quote:Sony defended its right to prevent customers from illegally copying music.Well duh. No one's telling them they can't. But this current scheme they came up with was way too intrusive and problematic.

Oh yeah. I forgot about that. Was laying in bed last night scanning the channels when I hit on the Jimmy Kimmel show on ABC and he showed that in his opening routine. I laughed. I would laugh so much more if it was discovered that ID is indeed a fact but that it was no God involved at all. Just a space alien species that was bored and had nothing better to do than to experiment and create life. Might explain all the ufo traffic. They are observing their experiment.

quote:Originally posted by Matchoo: I'm looking for a new game to play, but I don't want to spend more than $20. There are a few I have been considering. I've searched the forums here and read reviews at other places, and they tend to get mixed results. So if you could pick one game from the list below, what would you pick and why? Also if you have other suggestions feel free to list them. 1. Tribes : Vengeance (I've had no experience with the series) 2. Homeworld 2 (Played the demo. It was pretty fun) 3. Freelancer (Never played, just read reviews and it sounds fun) 4. X2 - The Threat (I've had no experience with the series) 5. Thief 3 (Payed Thief 2, great game) 1: A lot like Unreal. Good game but you are better off playing the Unreal series. 2: The first one was great. Played the demo on the second also but never got around to picking that one up. Seemed pretty good though. 3: Same, never played it. 4: I've only played the first one X: Beyond the frontier. I liked that one. Never played the follow ups. 5:I love the thief series. Still, the first one was the better, IMO. The third one had a little more of the creepy factor which I liked. I'll stick with what I've played series wise. Homeworld2 or Thief 3 would be your best bet. I would slant more towards Homeworld2 because of it's multiplayer giving it a longer life span game wise.

I noticed that. I'm a smart fish and didn't take the bait.

quote:Originally posted by Aperson: Soback: That arguement is rather silly as baseball bats and fishing rods primary purpose isn't violence while a a fire arm is created to injury or kill things and it's kind of hard to use it for anything else (Its recreational use could be/is considered practise). Well, I could convert one to a cigarette lighter (ooo there's that other nasty bane to society), use one to crack open nuts if I didn't have a nut cracker handy or use one as a weight on my fishing line if I ran out of proper weights. There are so many uses one can put a fire arm to other than your stated uses.

from CNN: quote:Jordanians rally against the bombings. Al Qaeda in Iraq, a group led by wanted militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is claiming responsibility for three suicide bombings in hotels in Amman, Jordan, according to a posting on a Web site today. Several of those killed in the bombings were Palestinian officials. Most of the victims died when a suicide bomber detonated himself among Jordanians celebrating a wedding.I so hope this is the catalyst that finally causes the average muslims such hatred for Al-Qaeda.

KTVU: SAN FRANCISCO -- Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San Francisco and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters. With 100 percent of San Francisco precincts reporting on Wednesday, 58 percent of voters backed the proposed gun ban while 42 percent opposed it. Measure H prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and make it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses. Only two other major U.S. cities -- Washington and Chicago -- have implemented such sweeping handgun bans. Can anyone say: Easy Targets.

I did not see this one coming at all: Ubisoft: Dark Messiah: Might and Nagic You have got to check out the two trailers. I am so there when this one comes out. Hmm, let's see Gothic 3, Oblivion and now Might and Magic. (faints) Release Date: Q3 2006