Summit Entertainment has just released the final one sheet for their forthcoming Twilight, the adaptation to Stephanie Meyers' popular teen-vampire book series that arrives in theaters November 21. The poster is nothing all too different from the original concepts that have been hitting theaters over the past few months. The film is about a high school girl named Bella falls in love with a vampire. The new couple leads a rival vampire clan to pursue them and attempt to force her to decide if she, too, wishes to become one of the undead.

pimg src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/10/Spinal_Tap.jpg" align="left" hspace="4" vspace="2" width="494" height="285" style="display:block;float:none;" /The upcoming emThis Is Spinal Tap/em Blu-ray is of course exciting to me. After all, it's been what, like seven years since I last hurled money at Rob Reiner, Christopher Guest and the rest of the lot for their well-deservedly best-selling DVD special edition. But while the Blu-ray will come with an intriguing-sounding game, this latest repackaging of the classic, due out January 20, 2009, could easily be dead on arrival, having choked on not necessarily its own vomit. For starters, it's not recorded in Dubbly./p pNope, according to the press release, it's got a 5.1 DTS HD Lossless Audio track, which is all well and good if this were, say, the emLord of the Rings/em trilogy, or Rob Reiner's other masterpiece, emA Few Good Men/em. But this is emSpinal Tap/emmdash;er, that is, emThis Is Spinal Tap/em! No Dubbly, no dice./p pI'm actually not convinced that a 1080p transfer will change the emotional tone of the movie. This is supposed to be a handheld, herky-jerky film, not some sweeping epic. How can high-def do more for those intimate momentsmdash;Fran Drescher almost not annoying, the late Bruno Kirby explaining the joy of Frank, Harry Shearer, aka Derek Smalls, trapped in his body-snatcher pod. Those don't improve with resolution./p pWhile most of the Blu-ray's special features are identical to those from the seriously awesome DVD, the addition of a BD-Live “Create Your Own Band” game does raise an eyebrow or two. The press release provides very little about the game except that you use it to "create and customize your very own rock-star avatars," and that it will "send those other rock games back to the high-school auditorium." Bold words, MGM Home Entertainmentmdash;my only hope is that Christopher Guest, Michael McKean and Harry Shearer are on your ass right now, making sure it's the most a href="http://gizmodo.com/5059141/tony-starks-boozing-ways-bd+live-snafu-bring-down-paramount-servers"intentionally/a funny thing ever to come to BD-Live./p pbPress release topped with the requisite "11" joke:/bbr/p blockquoteTHE HIGH-DEF EQUIVALENT OF ELEVEN ROCKS OUT WITH THE BLU-RAY DEBUT OF THIS IS SPINAL TAP pMGM Home Entertainment Releases Rob Reiner’s Hilarious Rockumentary Starring Christopher Guest, Michael McKean and Harry Shearer Debuts on Blu-ray Disc January 20th/p pBrand New BD Exclusive Game, “Create Your Own Band” Sends Those Other Rock Games Back To The High School Auditorium/p pCENTURY CITY, Calif. – Ring in the New Year with the revolutionary UK rock band as This is Spinal Tap screams its way to Blu-ray Disc January 20th from MGM Home Entertainment. Directed by Academy AwardÃ’ nominee* Rob Reiner (A Few Good Men), This is Spinal Tap is Reiner’s directorial debut and is the “...absolutely inspired film” (Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times) responsible for introducing mock documentaries to mainstream American audiences. Renowned comedy director Christopher Guest (Best in Show), Academy AwardÃ’ nominee** Michael McKean (A Mighty Wind) and Emmy AwardÃ’ nominee *** Harry Shearer (“Saturday Night Live”) star as the three members of the fictional heavy-metal/hard rock band Spinal Tap. Satirizing the wild personal behavior and musical pretensions of hard-rock and heavy-metal bands, This is Spinal Tap presents a second-rate band made up of aging band members who are desperately trying to cling onto what little fame they used to have. This is Spinal Tap also includes cameo appearances by renowned actors such as Billy Crystal (When Harry Met Sally), Anjelica Houston (The Addams Family) and Ed Begley, Jr. (Pineapple Express). Inducted into the National Film Registry in 2002, This is Spinal Tap has left an indelible mark on pop culture as evidenced by its numerous imitators and its esteemed spot at number one atop Entertainment Weekly’s “Top 50 Cult Movies of All Time.”/p pFor the first time fans can own all of the special features included on the previous standard-def as well as Laserdisc versions with a brand new BD-exclusive game, “Create Your Own Band.”/p pThis is Spinal Tap Blu-ray Disc will be available for the suggested retail price of $34.99 U.S. / $37.99 Canada./p p* 1993: Best Picture (A Few Good Men)br ** 2004: Best Music, Original Score (A Mighty Wind)br ***1980: Outstanding Writing in a Variety or Music Program (“Saturday Night Live”)/p pSynopsis:/p pIn 1982 legendary British heavy metal band Spinal Tap attempt an American comeback tour accompanied by a fan who is also a film-maker. The resulting documentary, combined with powerful performances of Spinal Tap's pivotal music and profound lyrics, candidly follows a rock group heading towards crisis, culminating in the infamous affair of the eighteen-inch-high Stonehenge stage prop surrounded by dancing midgets./p pSpecial Features:/p pThe This is Spinal Tap BD release will be authored in BD-Java presented in widescreen format (1.78:1 aspect ratio) with English 5.1 DTS HD Lossless Audio./p pBonus features include:/p p· NEW Create Your Own Band Game – Create and customize your very own rock star avatars/p p· Commentary by Spinal Tap/p p· Commentary by Christopher Guest, Michael McKean and Harry Shearer/p p· Commentary by Director Rob Reiner, Producer Karen Murphy and Editors Robert Leighton/p pand Kent Beyda/p p· Deleted Scenes/p p· Flower People Press Conference/p p· Spinal Tap appearance on “The Joe Franklin Show”/p p· Music Videos/p po Gimme Some Money/p po (Listed to the) Flower People/p po Hell Hole/p po Big Bottom/p p· Theatrical Trailer/p p· Cheese Rolling Trailer/p p· Rock and Rolls Commercials/p pAbout Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc./p pMetro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., through its operating subsidiaries, is actively engaged in the worldwide production and distribution of motion pictures, television programming, home video, interactive media, music and licensed merchandise. The company owns the world's largest library of modern films, comprising around 4,100 titles. Operating units include Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Inc., United Artists Films Inc., Ventanazul, MGM Television Entertainment Inc., MGM Networks Inc., MGM Domestic Networks LLC, MGM Distribution Co., MGM International Television Distribution Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Home Entertainment LLC, MGM ON STAGE, MGM Music, MGM Worldwide Digital Media, MGM Consumer Products and MGM Interactive. In addition, MGM has ownership interests in international TV channels reaching nearly 120 countries. MGM ownership is as follows: Providence Equity Partners (29%), TPG (21%), Sony Corporation of America (20%), Comcast (20%), DLJ Merchant Banking Partners (7%) and Quadrangle Group (3%). For more information, visit www.mgm.com./p pA recognized global industry leader, Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC (TCFHE) is the worldwide marketing, sales and distribution company for all Fox film and television programming on DVD, Blu-ray Disc (BD) and Digital Copy as well as acquisitions and original productions. The company also releases all products around the globe for MGM Home Entertainment. Each year TCFHE introduces hundreds of new and newly enhanced products, which it services to retail outlets mdash; from mass merchants and warehouse clubs to specialty stores and e-commerce - throughout the world. Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC is a subsidiary of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, a News Corporation company./p p# # #/p pThis is Spinal Tap Blu-ray Discbr Street Date: January 20, 2009/p pPre-book Date: December 10, 2008/p pBD Price: $34.99 U.S. / $37.99 Canada/p pCatalog #: M113258/p pTotal Running Time: 83 minutes/p pMPAA Rating: R/p pClosed Captioned: Yes/p /blockquote br style="clear: both;"/ img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=12841bc5872c9fd31a0d8ccbe9bba0b4" height="1" width="1"/ img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=12841bc5872c9fd31a0d8ccbe9bba0b4" style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/ pa href="http://feeds.gawker.com/~a/gizmodo/full?a=jPwoxh"img src="http://feeds.gawker.com/~a/gizmodo/full?i=jPwoxh" border="0"/img/a/pdiv class="feedflare" a href="http://feeds.gawker.com/~f/gizmodo/full?a=dbJ0M"img src="http://feeds.gawker.com/~f/gizmodo/full?i=dbJ0M" border="0"/img/a a href="http://feeds.gawker.com/~f/gizmodo/full?a=i1YrM"img src="http://feeds.gawker.com/~f/gizmodo/full?i=i1YrM" border="0"/img/a a href="http://feeds.gawker.com/~f/gizmodo/full?a=CGM1m"img src="http://feeds.gawker.com/~f/gizmodo/full?i=CGM1m" border="0"/img/a a href="http://feeds.gawker.com/~f/gizmodo/full?a=qYUNm"img src="http://feeds.gawker.com/~f/gizmodo/full?i=qYUNm" border="0"/img/a /divimg src="http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~4/413360136" height="1" width="1"/

Hopefully someone out there will be able to help me with this issue.

For the life of me, I cannot share movies stored on my iMac with any other device except my Apple TV.

I currently have most of my movie library archived in iTunes (90+ movies) that I converted to .mp4 or .mv4 using Handbrake. All of the movies are available on my AppleTV. I have three networked PCs, one ethernet, two wireless. I have enabled file sharing to all computers. I have installed iTunes on the wired PC as well as one wireless PC. I can share my iTunes music (but no video) between the iMac and PCs.

All three PCs are Windows XP SP2 machines. I can navigate to the movie folder located on the Mac on any computer. I cannot open any movie file. I can open and access shared PDFs, spreadsheets, word documents, pretty much anything I have access to EXCEPT the movies.

I CAN copy the movie from the host Mac to any PC with no issues. Then, Quicktime will play the movie. But, no matter what I try, I cannot stream the movies to any other device, except the Apple TV. (There are no movies stored on the Apple TV. I have a Time Capsule managing a wireless network that streams movies with only a few seconds delay.) I could see there being a time lag streaming a movie to a laptop with 500mb RAM and a G wireless connection, but the wired PC is connected with ethernet. It WILL allow me to copy a 2Gb movie from the iMAC to the PC in less than three minutes.

I initially only had "Read" permissions on the folder in question, but I did try "Read and Write" access to see what happened. Nada.

I cannot find a definitive answer as to sharing movies with iTunes. But, even if iTunes will only share music libraries, I still think that I should be able to stream movies by accessing the file directly. The wired PC is in my daughter's room, and I would like her to be able to stream movies from the iMac. If I navigate directly to the folder in question, one of two things happen. If I try to open a .mp4, I get "Error 50: An unknown error occured" If I try a .mv4, iTunes will open, but nothing happens. I can view the movies playlist under my shared library, but nothing happens when I attempt to open one.

Eventually, I would like to softmod a used XBOX my sister gave me to stream movies on the iMac to another TV. I even tried XBMC on the wired PC to act as a media manager since iTunes would not pull movies off the network. It will find the movies, but it will stall (I did not let it keep trying after 15 minutes of "buffering" a movie.)

I know I'm not the only one trying to share a library. Even if iTunes will not let me do it, I should be able to set something up so others on my LAN can access these files.

iMac specs:
2.4 GHz Intel, 2G RAM
OS X 10.5.5

Wired PC specs:
1.99 GHz Intel, 384mB RAM
XP SP2
XP SP2

Any suggestions? I don't have another Mac to attempt this with, but if 3 PCs have the same failure, I suspect it's either how my network is set up, file permissions on the iMac, or just a fundamental flaw in the way I'm trying to resolve this issue.

Any help or suggestions are greatly appreciated!

MacSpice 3f5 2.10.14

MacSpice 3f5... Circuit simulation is a way of building and testing virtual models of electronic devices. It is usually cheaper and quicker to simulate a design than to build a prototype. MacSpice, like most circuit simulators, requires a text-file description of the circuit as input. This netlist is a list of components and the nodes they connect to. Users may prepare netlists with a text editor, or derive them from a circuit diagram using a third-party schematic-capture application. MacSpice then builds a numerical model of the circuit and analyses this.

A command interpreter (shell) is used to specify the types of analyses that are required and how the results should be processed, saved or displayed. The high quality of the MacSpice command interpreter makes the automation of tasks straightforward.

MacSpice has native support for both PowerPC and Intel architecture Apple Macintosh computers. It is derived from, and compatible with, Berkeley Spice 3f5. MacSpice incorporates many improvements to Spice 3f5 - from simple bug-fixes to entirely new commands, algorithms and solution strategies. For example: the memory leaks that affected Spice 3f4 have been cured; new algorithms have been developed to facilitate the simulation of large circuits, and to reduce simulation time; MacSpice provides a robust multi-parameter optimizer and facilities for inter-process communication with other applications.

WHAT'S NEWVersion 2.10.14:

Enhancements:

• Graph cursors behave better.
• AC Sensitivity analysis now positions grid points accurately and can resume after interruption.
• Improved pole/zero analysis - negligible complex components are rounded to zero.
• Vectors use memory more efficiently.
• Better frontend performance when large numbers of vectors are in existence.
• The big_endian/little_endian flag is now implemented for rawfiles written in batch mode.
• Case-insensitive string comparisons are performed faster.
• A warning is now issued when breakpoints are being ignored, e.g. because pulse rise-times are shorter than the value of MINBREAK.
• var_free() and ctl_free() procedures re-coded to avoid potential stack overflow in extreme cases.
• Improved display of mutual inductance parameters by 'show'.
• Improved numerical stability of interpolate() frontend function.
• Improved 'rusage' statistics for interrupted transient simulations.
• Improved default behaviour of 'xd' and 'alpha' parameters for MOS3 devices.

Bugs fixed:

• 'shift' no longer causes a crash when it is given invalid arguments.
• 'goto $foo' when $foo has no value no longer crashes.
• Cured potential history list corruption when 'set history = 0' is used.
• Cured some minor memory leaks occurring during:
  • conversion of circuit parameters to vectors;
  • destruction of parse nodes referring to user-defined functions;
  • tokenization of models with zero-length parameters.
• AC sensitivity analysis now works with non-linear devices.
• Correct evaluation of lists containing empty lists.
• Variables 'numdgt' and 'rawprec' now unset at the first attempt.

REQUIREMENTSMac OS X 10.3 or later. Versions for older Mac OS X and Mac OS Classic versions listed under 'related links'.
DEVELOPERCharles D. H. Williams
DOWNLOADS17574
DOWNLOAD NOW (2.8 MB)
More information

An attempt to answer the question - given 1 million lines of code in the repository (i.e. SVN), is there some rule of thumb as to the number of developers we have to keep on staff just to maintain those 1 million lines of code?

Publication Date: 2008 Oct 2 PMID: 18831754br/Authors: Bleakley, K. - Lefranc, M. P. - Biau, G.br/Journal: BMC Bioinformaticsbr/br/ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Nucleotides are trimmed from the ends of variable (V), diversity (D) and joining (J) genes during immunoglobulin (IG) and T cell receptor (TR) rearrangements in B cells and T cells of the immune system. This trimming is followed by addition of nucleotides at random, forming the N regions (N for nucleotides) of the V-J and V-D-J junctions. These processes are crucial for creating diversity in the immune response since the number of trimmed nucleotides and the number of added nucleotides vary in each B or T cell. IMGT$;{scriptsize{textregistered}}$ sequence analysis tools, IMGT/V-QUEST and IMGT/JunctionAnalysis, are able to provide detailed and accurate analysis of the final observed junction nucleotide sequences (tool ;;output''). However, as trimmed nucleotides can potentially be replaced by identical N region nucleotides during the process, the observed ;;output'' represents a emph{biased} estimate of the ;;true trimming process.'' RESULTS: A probabilistic approach based on an analysis of the standardized tool ;;output'' is proposed to infer the probability distribution of the ;;true trimmming process'' and to provide plausible biological hypotheses explaining this process. We collated a benchmark dataset of TR alpha (TRA) and TR gamma (TRG) V-J rearranged sequences and junctions analysed with IMGT/V-QUEST and IMGT/JunctionAnalysis, the nucleotide sequence analysis tools from IMGT$;{scriptsize{textregistered}}$, the international ImMunoGeneTics information system$;{scriptsize{textregistered}}$, http://imgt.cines.fr. The standardized description of the tool output is based on the IMGT-ONTOLOGY axioms and concepts. We propose a simple first-order model that attempts to transform the observed ;;output'' probability distribution into an estimate closer to the ;;true trimming process'' probability distribution. We use this estimate to test the hypothesis that Poisson processes are involved in trimming. This hypothesis was not rejected at standard confidence levels for three of the four trimming processes: TRAV, TRAJ and TRGV. CONCLUSIONS: By using trimming of rearranged TR genes as a benchmark, we show that a probabilistic approach, applied to IMGT$;{scriptsize{textregistered}}$ standardized tool ;;outputs'' opens the way to plausible hypotheses on the events involved in the ;;true trimming process'' and eventually to an exact quantification of trimming itself. With increasing high-throughput of standardized immunogenetics data, similar probabilistic approaches will improve understanding of processes so far only characterized by the ;;output'' of standardized tools.br/br/post to: a href = http://www.citeulike.org/posturl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Fcmd%3DRetrieve%26db%3DPubMed%26dopt%3DAbstract%26list_uids%3D18831754title=Entrez+PubmedCiteULike/a

During a monologue in his October 2 broadcast, radio host Rush Limbaugh repeated numerous falsehoods about Sen. Barack Obama, including false statements about Obama's health-care plan, his legislative record, and other issues:

• Echoing a false attack on Obama's health-care plan by Sen. John McCain and others, Limbaugh stated, "Obama wants to change the American system for another system." He later added: "If somebody tells you, for example, they want the federal government to take over the health-care system lock, stock, and barrel, what do you call that?" In fact, Obama has not proposed having the federal government "take over the health-care system"; Obama's plan calls for individuals to choose their own insurance. As The New York Times reported in a May 3 article, the suggestion that Obama is "proposing a single-payer, or even nationalized health care system along the lines of those in countries like Canada and Britain ... is incorrect."

• Limbaugh asserted that Obama "has never held a real job in this country," defining "real job" as "one that requires you to get up every morning, go to work, make a profit for yourself or for your employer." Limbaugh then added: "He has been paid by foundations and the taxpayer most of his life to promote a socialist agenda that'll destroy everything that you have worked for." In fact, Obama held positions as associate and of counsel at the law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland (known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland when Obama joined) from 1993 to 2002.

• Limbaugh falsely stated that Obama "has authored a bill ... that would require you, the hardworking people of this country, to pony up $85 billion per year to give to other countries to fight global poverty through the United Nations," a false claim Limbaugh has made in the past. Limbaugh was referring to the Global Poverty Act of 2007, a bill sponsored by Obama. However, Limbaugh's assertion that it would require Americans to "pony up $85 billion per year" is false. As Media Matters for America has documented, the bill would establish no specific funding sources and would not commit the United States to any targeted level of spending.

• Limbaugh stated: "I would ask those of you who have served in the military or are serving in the military, can you name anything -- anything Obama has done prior to running for president to show his support for you?" He added: "Did he speak to veterans groups? Did he do interviews with veteran- and military-related media? Did he visit military hospitals and shake hands with the wounded? No." In fact, in addition to serving on the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs since 2005, as Media Matters has documented, Obama has also spoken to veterans groups and visited military bases overseas before the start of his presidential campaign. According to an article in the Chicago Sun-Times on January 22, 2005, Obama visited a group of 500 veterans at the American Legion Hall in Evergreen Park, Illinois. He also visited Iraq in January 2006 as part of a congressional delegation, during which time a January 8, 2006, Sun-Times article reported that "Obama played basketball with soldiers and dined with members of the military from Illinois."

• Limbaugh falsely claimed that Obama "didn't start putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem until a few months ago." As Media Matters has documented, on October 23, 2007, Inside Edition featured a segment on the national anthem "controversy." The segment included two photographs of Obama placing his hand over his heart during the national anthem, which Inside Edition said it received from an Obama spokesman.

• Limbaugh falsely claimed that Obama has not voted to fund troops "on the battlefield," stating: "Did [Obama] vote to fund the troops? To send them the armor and the bullets and the reinforcement they needed while they were on the battlefield? No." He added: "He spoke out against it. All of it." In fact, as Media Matters has documented, Obama has repeatedly voted to provide funds for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote, "Obama has frequently voted to finance the war but was one of 14 Senate Democrats to oppose a war-funding bill last year -- after Republicans removed troop withdrawal deadlines -- saying he did not want to be 'validating the same failed policy in Iraq.' "

From the October 2 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Obama wants to change the American system for another system. A system that is foreign to you and me, but which has been talked about and written about for 150 years. It's promoted in colleges and universities among far-left professors. It has been pounded into Obama's head by the likes of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright his entire adult life.

If somebody tells you, for example, they want the federal government to take over the health-care system lock, stock and barrel, what do you call that? If somebody tells you they want the federal government to run the human resources departments of every private entity in this country -- deciding who should get paid what, and what benefits they should receive -- what do you call that? If somebody says we need to raise taxes on pensioners by increasing the capital gains tax when they sell their equities, what do we call this? When someone says that we need to increase taxes on anyone who earns $42,000 or more, what do we call that? When somebody says that we need to increase taxes on every small business in the country that makes $250,000 a year, what do we call that?

Well, I'll tell you what Obama calls it: He calls it middle-class tax relief. It is nothing of the sort. Obama intends no tax relief for anybody. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the agenda of a person who has never had a real job in this country, much less never run a business. Much less never earned -- made a payroll. He has never held a real job in this country, and by that I mean one that requires you to get up every morning, go to work, make a profit for yourself or for your employer. He has been paid by foundations and the taxpayer most of his life to promote a socialist agenda that'll destroy everything that you have worked for, and your parents, and their parents worked for. He's out to destroy it.

Let me put it this way. How smart -- all of you people who think this guy's brilliant because of the way he speaks -- could you snap out of that for a second? I understand the idea that you want to be proud of the president, you want people around the world to be proud, and you think a bumbling, stumbling, stuttering president embarrasses you. Get past that. You're looking at a bumbling, stumbling, embarrassing guy if he gets anywhere near the Oval Office.

How smart do you have to be to raise taxes and spend other people's money? That's what we're talking about here. How smart do you have to be? This is a man, Barack Obama, who has authored a bill -- one of the few, by the way -- that would require you, the hardworking people of this country, to pony up $85 billion per year to give to other countries to fight global poverty through the United Nations. In other words, he would take the New Deal and the Great Society and export them to the Third World, where you will be responsible for paying for it. Does this sound like a moderate or a centrist Democrat to you? Does it sound like a centrist-independent-moderate anything to you?

You know, these debates are all well and good, folks. But the truth is we know all we need to know about Obama, do we not? I would ask those of you who have served in the military or are serving in the military, can you name anything -- anything -- Obama has done prior to running for president to show his support for you? Did he speak to veterans' groups? Did he do interviews with veteran- and military-related media? Did he visit military hospitals and shake hands with the wounded? No. In Berlin he specifically cancelled such things.

What's he done for you? What's he done for you? He hasn't done anything for you. What he has done is impugn you. What he has done is impugn your mission. What he has done is attempt to block your success on the battlefield around the world. This man, Barack Obama, was invested along with Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. He was invested in the defeat of the United States and the United States military.

He believes, along with his brother from Illinois, Senator Durbin, that American interrogators and soldiers are no different than Pol Pot's thugs, the people that ran the Soviet gulags, and Nazi commandants. Durbin said it. While they were attempting to secure defeat in the Iraq war, Barack Obama believes the same things. He didn't start wearing the American flag lapel pin until a few months ago, and he didn't start putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem until a few months ago.

Did he support the surge in Iraq? No. Did he vote to fund the troops? To send them the armor and the bullets and reinforcement they needed while they were on the battlefield? No. He spoke out against it. All of it.

And once again, Obama's frame of reference is the far left. He spent his years in Chicago working with radical pro-Palestinian elements, although today he says he's pro-Israel. But again, where's the evidence for this? There is none. Our allies have much to fear in an Obama presidency. Our enemies have nothing to fear. And, yet, the drive-by media continually tell us that polls they take of citizens of the world desperately want Barack Obama. Nobody who understands what's at stake, nobody who has taken the time to delve into who Obama is, wants him anywhere near the presidency of the United States, except our enemies.

On the October 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity repeatedly praised Gov. Sarah Palin for citing during the vice-presidential debate Sen. Barack Obama's August 13, 2007, remark that "[w]e've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." However, Hannity -- who has repeatedly criticized Obama's remark, including during an October 1 interview with Palin -- did not note that Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently apologized for deaths resulting from coalition airstrikes, saying in a September 17 statement: "I offer all Afghans my sincere condolences and personal regrets for the recent loss of innocent life as a result of coalition airstrikes. While no military has ever done more to prevent civilian casualties, it is clear that we have to work even harder. I have asked for a detailed briefing this afternoon about our close air support as well as our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations." Gates' comments were noted in an Associated Press report published, among other places, on FoxNews.com.

Further, Hannity again did not note that U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan and accounts of resulting civilian casualties have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander stationed there. Additionally, the Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" the day after Obama's remark: "Western forces have been killing [Afghan] civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents."

Moreover, during the show, Hannity mischaracterized Obama's remark, falsely claiming that Obama "said he would air-raid villages and kill civilians." Hannity said to former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani: "I think there were devastating moments in this debate for Joe Biden. The white flag of surrender. 'You said, Senator, that Barack Obama voting against the troops would cost lives. You even wanted to run with him.' Barack Obama said he'd air-raid villages and kill civilians. She was on message every point." As Media Matters for America has documented, Hannity has previously falsely suggested that Obama "attack[ed] our troops as murderers," claimed that Obama's comments were "not true," and otherwise repeatedly attacked Obama's remark (here, here, here, and here) without noting the widely reported U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan.

During the October 2 debate, Palin said: "Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause."

On the October 1 broadcast of his radio show, Hannity said to Palin:

HANNITY: Let me ask you this: And I, when we spoke in our interview on Fox News Channel, we were talking about your relationship, and your son, he was going to fight in Iraq. Everybody knows that Senator McCain knows the reality of war first hand, and his son also has fought in Iraq. One of the issues that has come up is now the issue of national security, and I am sure its going to be a big part of the debate tomorrow night. How do you respond to Senator Obama, who has said that he would "cut tens of billions of dollars in defense spending," that Iran is a tiny country and not a serious threat, and Senator Obama, who once accused our troops of air raiding villages and killing civilians?

Palin began her response to Hannity by saying: "Well, it's beyond naïve, it's downright dangerous to consider that those have been Obama's positions and that now that the defense of those positions of course he attempts to spin out of those statements that he's already made."

On the October 2 Hannity & Colmes, Hannity also said to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL): "Do you think that's fair to say that about our brave men and women while they're fighting a war, that they're air raiding villages and killing civilians?" In a later segment during the post-debate show, Hannity said to Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO): "I also thought, 'Finally someone brought up' -- I have been saying this for, finally she brought it up tonight, what he said about our troops, which is unforgivable, that they're air-raiding villages and killing civilians. I just got into this with the Congresswoman. That is unforgivable, Senator Obama. And he ought to apologize. And he ought to be called by the media to apologize for that."

From the October 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: I think there were devastating moments in this debate for Joe Biden. The white flag of surrender. "You said, Senator, that Barack Obama voting against the troops would cost lives. You even wanted to run with him." Barack Obama said he'd air-raid villages and kill civilians. She was on message every point. It was --

GIULIANI: One of the very best debate performances I've ever seen by anyone. And only the liberal media could deny her this victory.

[...]

HANNITY: But let me ask you this. Let me tell you -- the most effective moments were on foreign policy when Joe Biden himself had said that the Presidency doesn't lend itself to on the job training, Governor Palin brought that up. "You said that if you voted against funding the troops," Joe Biden said about Barack Obama, "it would cost lives." Barack Obama said about our troops in Afghanistan, "They're air raiding villages and killing civilians," and Governor Palin brought that up tonight. Do you think that's fair to say that about our brave men and women while they're fighting a war, that they're air-raiding villages and killing civilians?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: We're talking about someone who has been to Canada and Mexico, and has never met a world leader before. But --

HANNITY: I'm going to ask you again, do you think that's right for your candidate to accuse the American troops of air-raiding villages and killing civilians.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I think what Joe Biden talked about tonight was the fact that we really need to be investing --

HANNITY: You can't answer a question; you're just like Joe Biden.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No. I will answer the questions that are relevant to this Presidential campaign.

HANNITY: He wants to be the commander-in-chief.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: We need to make sure that we move our troops, not from Iraq, but that we move them into Afghanistan where the war on terror really exists.

HANNITY: You don't think it's relavant that you're commander-in-chief is accusing our troops of air-raiding villages and killing civilians.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I don't think that's --

HANNITY: You don't think that's relevant?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I don't think he's done that.

HANNITY: I'll give you ten thousand dollars if he didn't for your campaign.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: OK. I'll take your ten thousand dollars.

HANNITY: And you give me a thousand dollars if I don't.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And I'll make sure that we have Joe Biden and Barack Obama leading this country --

HANNITY: Barack Obama said our troops were air raiding villages and killing civilians.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: -- move the troops to Afghanistan where the war on terror exists today. That's what Joe Biden was making the case for.

[...]

HANNITY: Good to see you. The white flag of surrender, Obama air raiding villages and killing civilians, that in spite of what you said would turn unflinchingly and look right at him, and say, "In spite of your warning to him, he still voted to cut off funding for the troops." I thought it was a masterful performance.

LIEBERMAN: She was brilliant tonight -- all the more impressive because there were so many people, who either had doubts about her, or were trying to create doubts. I mean, she hit it out of the ballpark.

[...]

HANNITY: She even said at one time, talking about meeting with preconditions with rogue dictators, "It's beyond naïve. It's beyond judgment. It's outright dangerous." And when she brought up the line about air-raiding villages and killing civilians and using Senator Obama in his own words, and even saying, "Senator Biden, even you said this about Senator Obama." Did you think that was an effective technique?

WOLFSON: Well, Sean, my attitude is if I'm willing to come on this show and sit down with you without preconditions, the Government of the United States should be able to engage our adversaries diplomatically, as well.

[...]

HANNITY: I also thought, "Finally someone brought up" -- I have been saying this for, finally she brought it up tonight, what he said about our troops, which is unforgivable, that they're air-raiding villages and killing civilians. I just got into this with the Congresswoman. That is unforgivable, Senator Obama. And he ought to apologize. And he ought to be called by the media to apologize for that.

James White

The SillyBrit pointed me to another wonderful example of the "yeah, we are biased, we don't care, its the new journalism" mentality of the modern Left. Here is a BBC article making the rounds, written by Roger Bolton. I would like to think Mr. Bolton was not purposefully trying to be a complete snob toward believing Christians, but his writing makes it hard to conclude otherwise. Let's look at some of the more notable comments found in this BBC production.

Under the picture provided above a caption is provided, "What is probably the oldest known bible (bible? How about qur'an?) is being digitised (yes, that proves it is a British production), reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?"

I am truly left wondering if Mr. Bolton himself has ever studied Codex Sinaiticus? I have more resources on the subject than the time to read them, but when I get a few moments I do enjoy reading works like the one pictured here. If I only worked in NT subjects I'd spend a lot more time on the issue, since I have such a passion for textual critical issues. But I was recently reading through portions of this work on a flight to...somewhere (I lose track), and my, I got odd looks from my fellow passengers. Almost as odd as the looks I get when reading books filled with Arabic quotations. In any case, one of the frustrating things about this article is the obvious assumption on Bolton's part that believing Christians are a bunch of bumbling fools without the first interest in the history of their own faith. And given Bolton's main source is...Bart Ehrman (just how important is that debate in January?), I have to note that Ehrman likewise hints broadly that Christians have in essence "hidden" the history of the Bible and, in general, are ignorant thereof. That is partly true, but it is not because those of us who are not ignorant of the truth do not make every attempt to spread that knowledge far and wide. Ehrman even claims to be the first one to write a layman's level book explaining textual critical matters. I guess he skipped The King James Only Controversy, which did just that long before his own book came out (he was referring to MisQuoting Jesus---I would say there is a lot more discussion of textual variation in my work than in his).

Getting back to the article, is א (Aleph, the designation in textual critical works for Codex Sinaiticus) "markedly different" than modern Bibles? Well, aside from its age, its language, its form, to what is Bolton referring? Two things: a warped, "textual scholar spins stuff for the ignorant media" view of how "different" its text is from the modern Greek textual platform (NA/UBS) together with the "if it was bound together as one volume, that must mean the original creator viewed all the books as canonical" claim. That's the extent of it. The well-read Christian already knows this, so evidently we are not the folks Bolton is trying to impress.

The article gives a little background and mentions the fact that א is going "on line" (see it here). Then we get this amazingly condescending paragraph:

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

Oh no! Surely, no one who believes the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered Word of God has ever run into a history of the Bible! None of us have ever poured over Sinaiticus, marveled at such a treasure...oh, wait, even Tischendorf was a Christian who believed the Bible was the Word of God. Well, so sorry, chap (please read that with a British accent). I guess I can't blame Bolton---Ehrman likewise gives the impression that "born agains" are these ignorant, back-woods folks who don't know anything about the Bible. He promotes the viewpoint regularly, whether he knows it or not, so possibly Bolton is just following his sources? In any case, the idea that the publication of א is going to present "questions" that we Bible believers have not fully worked through long, long ago only shows how little Mr. Bolton knows his subject.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

Notice the assumption that "inclusion between leather covers = inclusion in the canon." He clearly has no idea that this is a disputed claim, and is simply following Ehrman, who, sadly, often forgets to provide "the other side" to the ever-hungry media. Yes, א contains non-canonical books, specifically, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas. Both were, at some point in time, viewed as canonical by small groups of believers, often by those from the area where the books were actually produced. But it is a long leap from this historical observation (one known to any first year church history student in Bible college) to the uncritically promoted conclusion that this means the original copyists/producers of א believed these books to be Scripture. It is just as likely, and in fact, more likely, that they did not. Why? Because א was produced around the time of the Council of Nicea, and the fortunes of both of those books had fallen off considerably by that time. They were considered by many to be good books to be read for edification, but not part of canonical Scripture (to borrow the conclusion of Athanasius writing just a few decades later). Having them copied and included no more made them canonical than including John MacArthur's study notes makes them canonical. It was easier to have such a major project as that represented by א done in one fell swoop rather than having lots of smaller projects, and the result was a very, very large book. But one book is easier to transport/carry than multiples, and evidently, that is what happened in this case. But the specifics aside, I can only shake my head at the condescending attitude of the media today that would assume that if you believe in inerrancy you must be an IQ-challenged dolt without the first clue as to the history of your own faith. And I hope the reader finds Bolton's quotation of the words of Barnabas at least somewhat revealing: how dare Barnabas contain such words...except...that they come from the New Testament (Matthew 27:25).

At this point Ehrman comes into view, and of course, what I found interesting was Ehrman's repetition of his "the Bible can't be inspired because it was not copied perfectly in every single instance" argument: the very essence of our debate in January. Listen to this paragraph:

And although many of the other alterations and differences are minor, these may take some explaining for those who believe every word comes from God.

Sadly, the answers given...for centuries...often by leading Christian scholars in the United Kingdom seem to be utter news to this writer. This level of ignorance is truly amazing. Later he opines,

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

Yeah, us fundies have never heard of Sinaiticus alright. Amazing, just amazing. Can Bolton really believe Sinaiticus is news? We move on,

Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.

Someone needs to get this story straight, and I think Dr. Ehrman should be on the front lines correcting all these misapprehensions...unless it is his own story that has caused them. Ehrman has directly, clearly said that it was not the textual issue that caused him to lose his faith, it was theodicy, the problem of evil. Yet, he does not seem overly intent upon correcting this kind of false assertion. Sadly, MisQuoting Jesus sold a lot better than God's Problem did, so, when you are depending upon your role as the "reverse Paul," maybe it is acceptable to allow the readers to think you converted for reasons you say you did not, as long as it "helps the cause."

This may not sound like a heavy-weight argument, but I intend, early on in our debate, to ask a basic question of Dr. Ehrman: "Why?" Yes, "why?" Why do you believe God could not have inspired His Word in writing (outside of chiseling it in a mountain side) until Gutenberg, at the earliest, and probably, not until computerized technology came about? Can you give us something more than "Well, I just don't think He would use imperfect human beings to transmit His Word over time...or, he'd remove their humanity from them long enough to over-ride any possible copyist errors anyway"? I hope my question will be answered in the opening statements, honestly, but if it isn't, I will be asking that one pretty early on.

Four variants are noted in the article. Note that Bolton never gives the references. He leaves it nebulous so that it looks a lot more nefarious than the reality. Regular readers of this blog will have to chuckle just a little bit at this one:

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Who was it who did an entire hour on the textual variant at Luke 23:34 just recently on their webcast? Oh, that was me and Alan K.! Yes indeed. And did we not discuss the two readings of Sinaiticus? In fact, I posted graphics from the manuscript to aid those listening to the webcast (found here). And yet somehow, I still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture! How can this be?

Isn't it odd that we conservative, Bible-believing Christians produce hour long webcasts going in-depth into the text of א but all the BBC can do is give vague references without even providing the citations of the relevant texts? And why even raise well-known textual issues like John 7:53-8:11, unless you are either writing this solely for shock value, or, you really have no idea what you are talking about?

Once again, this is all we can expect out of the leftist media today, almost anywhere. There is no counter-balancing in sources, no checking of facts. Just throw it out there, assume anyone who is not a good secular humanist is an ignorant and gullible person fresh off the farm, and think you have practiced true journalism. My, how far the BBC has fallen!

The Icelandic Government seized control of the country’s biggest banks last night in an attempt to fend off wholesale economic collapse.

Publication Date: 2008 Oct 1 PMID: 18828894br/Authors: Tuechler, T. - Velez, G. - Graf, A. - Kreil, D. P.br/Journal: BMC Bioinformaticsbr/br/ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: While text-mining and distributed annotation systems both aim at capturing knowledge and presenting it in a standardized form, there have been few attempts to investigate potential synergies between these two fields. For instance, distributed annotation would be very well suited for providing topic focussed, expert knowledge enriched text corpora. A key limitation for this approach is the availability of literature annotation systems that can be routinely used by groups of collaborating researchers on a day to day basis, not distracting from the main focus of their work. RESULTS: For this purpose, we have designed BibGlimpse. Features like drop-to-file, SVM based automated retrieval of PubMed bibliography for PDF reprints, and annotation support make BibGlimpse an efficient, light-weight reprint manager that facilitates distributed literature research for work groups. Building on an established open search engine, full-text search and structured queries are supported, while at the same time making shared collections of annotated reprints accessible to literature classification and text-mining tools. CONCLUSIONS: BibGlimpse offers scientists a tool that enhances their own literature management. Moreover, it may be used to create content enriched, annotated text corpora for research in text-mining.br/br/post to: a href = http://www.citeulike.org/posturl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Fcmd%3DRetrieve%26db%3DPubMed%26dopt%3DAbstract%26list_uids%3D18828894title=Entrez+PubmedCiteULike/a

Following years of near-constant legal notices and other attempts to silence leaks and control the press, Apple appears to be softening its stance on rumors, an investigation suggests.

Publication Date: 2008 Sep 18 PMID: 18805040br/Authors: Sebastian, C. - Burnett, S. - Blakemore, S. J.br/Journal: Trends Cogn Scibr/br/Adolescence is a period of life in which the sense of 'self' changes profoundly. Here, we review recent behavioural and neuroimaging studies on adolescent development of the self-concept. These studies have shown that adolescence is an important developmental period for the self and its supporting neural structures. Recent neuroimaging research has demonstrated that activity in brain regions associated with self-processing, including the medial prefrontal cortex, changes between early adolescence and adulthood. These studies indicate that neurocognitive development might contribute to behavioural phenomena characteristic of adolescence, such as heightened self-consciousness and susceptibility to peer influence. We attempt to integrate this recent neurocognitive research on adolescence with findings from developmental and social psychology.br/br/post to: a href = http://www.citeulike.org/posturl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Fcmd%3DRetrieve%26db%3DPubMed%26dopt%3DAbstract%26list_uids%3D18805040title=Entrez+PubmedCiteULike/a

Free Software Magazine: "Just like Wikipedia, on which it is loosely modelled, OpenStreetMaps is resolutely free software. It is an attempt, by community participation, to map the Earth."

Publication Date: 2008 Sep 26 PMID: 18822132br/Authors: Kompass, K. S. - Agapova, O. A. - Li, W. - Kaufman, P. L. - Rasmussen, C. A. - Hernandez, M. R.br/Journal: BMC Neuroscibr/br/ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The nonhuman primate model of glaucomatous optic neuropathy most faithfull