This was 33 years ago and it still makes me choke up when I watch it. I'm just proud that Jim's still bringing happiness - I know five of those songs word-for-word and will be singing one or two to my son tonight.

@noseeem

Yep I'm shitty with grammar and spelling But I can fix anything and hold my own in front any Dr. or C suite within my field of expertise.

Personal experience? BSEET Penn State.
33 years as a medical Field service Engineer.


28 years working for Global conglomerates and 5 years in house at UNC Chapel hill NC.
I’ve been with Siemens Medical and General Electric most of my career.
I’ve serviced/ install Cathlabs, Vascular labs, Rad/ RF rooms and Mammo rooms. Plus others.


Last 20 years installing / servicing Medical Ultrasound.
This includes Cardiac, Radiology ultrasound and Woman’s health, OBGYN
I’ve seen more ultrasounds hearts and heartbeats than you can imagine..
Being Hippa compliant, I look at images for quality and for servicing.

All the Techs I talk to say the same . Heartbeat starts about the 6 to 10 week of pregnancy
And yes there are images that capture this along with all the other images and measurements. Doppler is used for this.

Per quick Google search
When does the heartbeat show on ultrasound?
A fetal heartbeat may first be detected by a vaginal ultrasound as early as 5 1/2 to 6 weeks after gestation. That's when a fetal pole, the first visible sign of a developing embryo, can sometimes be seen. But between 6 1/2 to 7 weeks after gestation, a heartbeat can be better assessed.

Your fucking up the wrong tree today. Go back to being the big guy at you high school.

You can even do this at home

9 out of 10 are pulled back into a life they shared 33 years ago...Kudoos to whomever managed that feat!

33 years can take a life very far away (in many ways), that making it back might mean a lot of bridge-recrossing. That’s why this seems amazing (so it must have existed on an island).

The first part is something that a person told me over 30 years ago. I was told it comes from witchcraft.

The second line is what I've learned over next 33 years.

The power of love.

There are hundreds/thousands of farms in my area. I don't think a single one is >1000 acres. Hundreds of families support themselves relatively well on the income they make from the smaller farms. True, you probably can't send 3 children to college on that money, but hardly anyone could these days...that's around $150k a year for 4+ years JUST for their base education. Be real, mom and pop store owners can't afford that either.

EDIT: Oh, I see, the AVERAGE is about 1000 acres....but that includes the 1000000 acre industrial farms. What is the average acreage for a "family farm" (by which I mean it's owned by the single family that lives and works on the land and supports itself on the product of that work)?

EDIT: Actually, there are thousands of 'family farms' in my area that produce more than enough product to send 3 kids to college on >5 acres with no industrialization at all (and many many more that do over use chemicals and have destroyed many of our watersheds with their toxic runoff)....I live in Humboldt county, it's easy to make a ton of money on a tiny 'farm' here...for now.

My idea of what's sustainable or good practice is based on long term personal (>33 years personally growing vegetables using both chemical and natural fertilizers) and multiple multi generational familial experiences (both mine and neighbors) AND all literature on the subject which is unequivocal that over use of chemical fertilizers damages the land and watersheds and requires more and more chemicals and excess water every year to mitigate that compounding soil damage, or leaving the field fallow long enough to wash it clean of excess salts (which then end up in the watershed).
Fertilizers carry salts. With excessive use, salts build up. Salt buildup harms crops and beneficial bacteria. Bacteria are necessary for healthy plant growth. If you and yours don't know that and act accordingly, it's astonishing your family can still farm the same land at all, you've been incredibly lucky. You either don't over use the normal salt laden chemical fertilizers on that land, or you're lying. There's simply no other option.

EDIT: It is possible that you are getting better yields for numerous reasons...."better" crop genes (both larger crops and more resistant to insects, drought, disease, etc.), better/more fertilizers, better/more pesticides, and seeing as you're in Canada, climate change. Warmer weather would absolutely give YOU better yields of almost any crop, that's not true farther South. Better yields does not mean you aren't destroying the land, BTW. It is possible to use chemicals and insane amounts of water to grow on land that's "dead", but it takes more and more chemicals and water to do, and those chemicals don't evaporate into nothing, they run off.
If you are getting better yields every year using the same methods and amounts of additives and growing the exact same crops, I'm incredibly interested in how you pull that off.

According to Harold Ramis himself, 33 years is within the range he thought Phil was stuck.

I've also read somewhere that it could be a lot more than 33 years.

"In 2002, Steven Spielberg finally finished college after a 33-year hiatus. He turned in Schindler's List for his student film requirement."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-brake/movie-trivia_b_3799281.html

Crumpets are the best! All that marmity goodness. Seriously, I could eat marmite from the jar with a spoon. Spread it on thick! It's the only way to eat marmite...

Source - 33 years of being a brit

Still scary as heck after 33 years.

A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.

It's impossible for us to say how God perceives His Creation (beyond what He told us). What we do know is that the second person of the Trinity entered time and became a man, and lived 33 years here on Earth. The Father was certainly capable of loving His Son while He was a man, and interacting with Him in this temporal reality. Therefore God is certainly capable of having meaningful relationships with His creatures as well. It says that in Him we live and move and have our being, meaning, that we are intimately connected to God at all times. I would further say that we have no actual idea of what time is, or how it relates to eternal things. What we do know is that it is always 'now'. I have a feeling that the 'now' moment and eternity relate in some way.

Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.

God had perfect love before He Created anything, so He did not create from a lack; He created it out of the abundence of His love.

It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything

His immutability relates to His essential nature, His perfect goodness. His character doesn't change. He is Holy and Just and always will be. This doesn't mean that God cannot have a novel thought or feel anything. Jesus wept, for instance. If you took this bizzare idea of immutability to its logical conclusion, God would be frozen in place and could not do anything at all. Clearly an omnipotent being is essentially unrestricted in His actions. The problem here is we are limited temporal beings trying to imagine what an unlimited eternal being is like. The distance between us and God is far greater than the distance between us and bacteria. This isn't to pass it off as "God is mysterious", because as I've pointed out, your definitions are inconsistant with what we do know. But you have to admit that there is an essential barrier to understanding what it is like to be God, simply because of our finite and subjective nature. How does a being who was born understand eternity? He can't, at least, not without an eternal being explaining it to him.

First you say, "Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle".

Then you say, "Christians are under a New Covenant and don't follow those laws".

Which is it? Is being gay against the bible, or is it not against the bible?

It was not just a prohibition for israel, it is also for Christians, as detailed in Romans 1:18-32


>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.
Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.
It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything.
So, can you explain how God can be perfect, yet be unfulfilled and have desires?

@AnimalsForCrackers

Jesus wasn't an avatar, or a "manifestation". He is Gods Son, and God Himself. He is a divine person. He lived as a human being for 33 years, as one of us. He didn't die to teach us about morality, He died to save us from our own lack of it.

According to the bible, God has been active in creation since He created Adam and Eve. At no point did He just sit back and do nothing.

God gave you a conscience, that's how you know right from wrong. You think you can do without God, but you'll still have to answer to him.

>> ^miaoux:
Wtf. Surely you killed my father prepare to die would be more entertaining.
Dead is dead, just because the killer returns the photo of your father (who he killed, let's not forget that) doesn't make it better.
I'm not necessarily anti-war - or should we say, anti-politics/corporate-gain - but in this particular case, wouldn't re-opening a wound she'd presumably closed, and moved on from count as being excessively cruel? I'm not a psychiatrist either. Would this give her the same closure he's been seeking for, what, 33 years?


Actually it does make it better. It just happens I've spoke with several councilors and psychologists about this issue. I'm the curious sort.

It is worse if the person has been killed and the daughter has the impression that the killer doesn't care... doesn't think of that person or action at all. In fact this is exactly what the daughter probably thought before being contacted. The man carried the photo around for decades. Obviously the event is something that he places importance on and was greatly affected. This adds great weight to the apology and lets the daughter know this was important to this man.

Closure... it's not just for movies.

Wtf. Surely you killed my father prepare to die would be more entertaining.

Dead is dead, just because the killer returns the photo of your father (who he killed, let's not forget that) doesn't make it better.

I'm not necessarily anti-war - or should we say, anti-politics/corporate-gain - but in this particular case, wouldn't re-opening a wound she'd presumably closed, and moved on from count as being excessively cruel? I'm not a psychiatrist either. Would this give her the same closure he's been seeking for, what, 33 years?

caution is rarely a bad thing, but media sensationalism in this day and age is becoming tiresome...

that said, i would have worded the summary differently, and imho more accurately:

A warning that the new swine flu jab is [may also be] linked to a deadly nerve disease has been sent by the Government to senior neurologists in a confidential letter. A different, though similar, swine flu vaccine was linked to the nerve disease GBS in the swine flu epidemic of 1976.

you see, the change in wording is very small, yet changes the context quite a bit

as well, the caution (in the uncorrected and sensationalist version) would have the reader assume that 1) modern medicine has learned nothing about swine flu vaccines and GBS in the intervening 33 years, and 2) whereas the first vaccine may have had deadly side-affects through vaccination ignorance, that this new vaccine is being administered with wanton disregard for the public's safety in light of problems with the similar vaccine administered 33 years previously (i.e. we're just the government's guinea pigs)